
Beware of the Silicon Valley cult - pmcpinto
https://thinkfaster.co/2015/12/beware-of-the-silicon-valley-cult/
======
terravion
By now everyone knows that expected payoff of working at a start-up is the
same or lower than a big company, but with much higher variability. Everyone
knows this.

The thing is though, no matter where you work, as a professional you'll spend
50+ hours a week working. The satisfaction you get from that time matters a
lot to your happiness and sense of satisfaction. You could work at a large
soul destroying company that MUST pay you more because you have to put up with
their BS, or you could work at a small company where you can look the founder
in the eye and tell him or her to change something you don't like (as this
article disparagingly puts it, change the culture in two weeks). And the
founder is going to listen because everyone on the team is dedicated to the
same mission. Really where are you going to be happier?

The fact that start-up payoff is even remotely equivalent to big company
salaries tells me start-ups are a great choice if you value things like your
happiness, sense of accomplishment, self-esteem, impact on the world, etc.

~~~
gearoidoc
There are plenty of large companies where you can go to your boss, express
dissatisfaction with some aspect (tech used, projects youre involved with) and
get an almost immediate turn around on.

Conversely, there are startups (even ones just founded) where the CEO is
inapproachable and your input wont affect culture/product/whatever one jot.

As a programmer, my satisfaction comes from writing quality code on systems
that are in some way complex and commonly used. There's not a lot of
satisfaction to be gleaned from writing a dozen CRUD apps.

Btw, citing 'impact on the world' as a reason to join a startup is a really
good way of coming across naive imo ;)

EDIT: I also disagree with your point on 50+ hours a week. 40 hours is about
right with 50+ hours during crunch periods - which should be rare (2-3 a year
max).

~~~
sjg007
Agree that "impact on the world" is naive and meaningless. It's like new grad
resumes that hype leadership skills.

~~~
dang
It's a cliché, but neither naive nor meaningless when the small company you're
working for is trying to do something ambitious.

~~~
jonathankoren
It's naive because the vast majority of small companies crash and burn, with
no impact whatsoever.

Also, since we're talking about Silicon Valley, it's naive to think that Uber-
for-Dog-Walking or Grindr-for-BitCoin startup is going to change the world in
any meaningful way. Most business startups are playing inside-baseball games
that only certain companies care about, and consumer startups tend to be
trivial contrivances for people with copious amounts disposable income.

~~~
dang
> _It 's naive because the vast majority of small companies crash and burn_

Most ambitious projects fail, but that doesn't mean they aren't more
satisfying to work on. That kind of satisfaction has to do with the work and
one's team. It isn't retroactive; it doesn't flip polarity because the project
succeeds or fails in the end. Such work is more deeply satisfying because of
its nature, even when we know that the odds are against us. And don't forget
that most projects—especially most ambitious ones—fail inside bigcorps as
well.

There's a cynicism going around about about startups right now where the game
is to exchange negative generalizations with other cynics, kind of like
trading cards. That's understandable as a reaction in the hype cycle—the
startup hype cycle has entered a downturn among the early adopter types who
populate places like HN. And yes of course some startups are derivative and
some are lame, though the bias to dismiss nascent things as trivial is also a
huge distortion, and easy to fall prey to when you're in a cynical mood.

But any account that minimizes the joy of working on a fresh, ambitious
project with a small team is clearly mistaking a baby for bathwater. Greater
work satisfaction is an important reason why someone might want to work at
(the right kind of) startup that has little to do with expected payout and is
a form of compensation in its own right. For that type of person it can change
the calculus from "meh, it's a lottery" to "the greater meaning justifies the
risk".

~~~
sjg007
It's not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're suppose to
solve some small problem you have and then by proxy impact/solve something big
because other people have a similar problem. So advertising "impact" and
"change the world" is superfluous.

------
bluejekyll
It's not all about money. Smaller companies, while yes, are gambles they often
are a more enjoyable place to work. You get a larger sense of ownership of
your area, have more responsibility than a large company generally gives you,
and you have more potential for positive influence.

These all lead to a higher satisfaction in life than just what the
$benjamin's$ can give you. If you're fresh out of school, you get more
experience in a year than that crappy little project you'll be given at a
large company and be chained to for four years.

Startups are a financial risk, but if it has a good culture, it can be a very
rewarding place to work, which often leads to greater happiness.

Negatives exist: sometimes longer working hours, more demanding, less
mentors/senior people to learn from, and when the culture is bad; it is really
bad.

~~~
bmj
_If you 're fresh out of school, you get more experience in a year than that
crappy little project you'll be given at a large company and be chained to for
four years._

I had the opportunity to work at several start-ups (on the east coast) during
the first DotCom bubble in the late 1990s/early 2000s. It was generally a good
experience for several reasons. First, I didn't have a software
background/degree, so it gave me a chance to cut my teeth and the learn from
good mentors (perhaps I was lucky in this regard...my first employer was
started by two late 30-somethings). Second, given what I was doing right out
of school (running a small climbing gym), the pay, while still under market
rates, was a fortune compared to what I was making.

Nearly 15 years later, I have no interest in taking another job at a start-up.
I work for a fairly stable company, doing interesting work, with lots of
flexibility around when and where I do that work. I do, however, appreciate
the experiences I had when I was willing to take that risk.

~~~
cornholio
That's quite a typical retirement/investment strategy: when you are young, you
can take high risks that might pay-off in the long run and if they don't you
still have time to rebuild. When you approach retirement, you should move your
money into low risk investments because you will need them soon. I's the same
when investing time in your career development.

------
throaway1853
I don't see why the conversation is always work at large company vs. working
at a startup. There's a third option: start a "lifestyle" business that can
eventually be semi-passive. I am currently making about $400k / year working
about 5 hours / week from a few different "lifestyle" businesses which I've
built slowly over the past 5 years.

There's no question that joining a startup as an employee is a terrible idea
for any competent engineer. By far the best way to make money in startups is
to be a founder. In every business I've started, I've always had big exit
dreams, but when those fail to materialize, my startups have soft landed into
passive "lifestyle" businesses of which I collect 90% of the profit. Mere
employees are forced to quit in this situation and are left with nothing -
this is why being a founder is so important. Also, never take VC money without
a very good reason to do so.

~~~
jaredandrews
Any recommended reading for doing this sort of thing? This is my goal long
term, I just haven't discovered what to do it with yet.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Pick a business domain that needs software. Write software it needs. Sell it.

There, I just saved you hours of reading :-)

~~~
jaredandrews
Haha, yea I know that. I guess finding the domain is the tough part >:|

~~~
ChuckMcM
Airline Rebooking - this takes them forever Any recurring visit business
(Barbers, Nails, Dentist, Optometrists, Dispensaries, Restaurants, ...)
customer engagement/tracking/service software Any Job estimating business
(painting, construction, masonry, welding ...) Any billable hour business
(freelancing, legal, babysitting, ...)

Consider walking down {Main|King} Street of your town, walking into each shop,
and asking them about software they use and what they like and don't like
about it. Attend a meeting of the Rotary or Chamber of Commerce and ask them.

The trick is that customer only sees problems and you only see solutions, so
no customer will come to you proposing a solution to their problem, and you
won't be successful guessing what problems the customer has. You have to go
out and see for yourself and try to understand their pain points.

~~~
skj
My experience is a little different... customers are great and seeing problems
_and_ solutions, but I only pay attention to the problems.

Their solutions typically apply only to their 5% use-case and would be
disastrous if implemented.

------
habitue
I think it's interesting that the culture on HN is such that we can have an
article like this on the front page. Sure, the comments are dumping on it, and
it's not the most compelling argument in the first place, but the fact that
it's upvoted and seriously considered before being refuted is pretty awesome.

I guess I'm seeing it as an interesting case of a culture being open to
criticism. How many of you were sincerely hoping, when you clicked on the
headline, that the contents of the article would be a really intelligent
argument about cult-like behavior in SV? One that said things you hadn't heard
before? I was hoping. Why is that?

~~~
objectivistbrit
I've been browsing HN since 2009 and there's always been articles like this.
Hell, if you read _pg 's_ old essays, he often took a strong pro-
bootstrapping, anti-funding tone.

The problem with articles like this is they call startups a "cult" _on the
grounds that_ one can get a better financial deal elsewhere. What they ignore
is that some people might be entirely rational in valuing the chance to build
something groundbreaking, over pure financial concerns. The _real_ criticism
of startups would be that _this_ is the big swindle -- that despite
advertisements to the contrary, VC-funded startups _do not_ offer the chance
to build great products. The VC game inherently undermines attempts to build
companies which think long-term, act on principle, and which build awesome
products. Some companies manage it, but it takes exception leadership, vision
and political savvy from the founders.

~~~
freshhawk
"Cult" might be a provocative word choice, but given the shared
irrational/false beliefs that partly define the real existing culture being
talked about you can't easily dismiss the word choice completely.

~~~
objectivistbrit
I wasn't commenting on the word choice. I was commenting on the focus on the
financial drawbacks of startups, when the focus should be on how they stifle
good work.

------
pc86
> _the average salary for a senior software engineer in the United States is
> right around $100K not $250k like it is at Google, etc._

Bay Area HNers would be wise to remember this line. The number of times I see
comments stating that it's easy or typical to make $175-200k/yr just a few
years out of school is far too high.

~~~
trose
If you read any of the discussions in r/cscareerquestions you'd think you're a
failure for not making $150k straight out of college.

~~~
jaredandrews
Holy crap, this sub is hilarious!

~~~
wdmeldon
The number of people who frequent that sub with more than a year or two of
professional experience is frightening. The discussion is so myopic it gives
me a headache.

------
david_shaw
_> For the privilege of being a member of the cult, you get to take half of
your market rate in salary in exchange for equity that will most likely be
worthless._

I realized this article was rather silly after reading this sentence.

Yes, if you're working for a _super_ early stage startup, you'll take little
or no salary, and bundles of equity. No one goes into a role like that without
knowing exactly what they're risking.

In general, though, working for a well-funded startup is _not_ taking "half of
your market rate." Even if you're taking half of senior-level Bay Area rates,
you're still earning 1.5-2x the rate of developers in the rest of the world.

If you want to avoid the "Silicon Valley cult," don't worry about startups --
worry about thinking that every software developer is worth $250k. They
(generally) aren't.

Quick note before I close out this comment: I'm not trying to be pessimistic
or cynical, but overvaluation of tech workers isn't something that will
continue to exist in the short- to medium-term, in my opinion. I want to get
paid well as much as the next guy, but if we're going to talk about a
"bubble," tech salaries in the Bay Area are a big part of it.

~~~
rconti
Yeah, the article is silly. He's dumping on moving to the Bay Area for a tech
job, where everyone _I_ know who has done so (including myself) is thriving.
And not working 100 hours a week.

------
entee
I have found one advantage of startups as an employee if you want to start
your own company down the road is that you get to see easy-to-make management
mistake and their repercussions. In a big company, there are systems and
structures in place that help prevent some (obviously not all) of those
problems, and there is more buffer (financial and otherwise) to smooth out the
effects.

Personally, I've found working at a startup deeply rewarding and educational,
but of course ymmv :)

------
tofuicecream
I just shake my head when I read this article. Taking half your market rate in
salary and then complaining about it is a ridiculous example. Equity is never
a sure thing and everyone know that. If you take equity in lieu of pay you do
so at your own peril.

I joined a start up because I didn't have the traditional experience needed to
get hired at a big company. I was given a ton of responsibility and able to
learn a lot in a short time. Yes, you still only have X number of years on
your resume, but you can talk to people and show them the work you did, which
is a lot more important than your resume IMO.

------
erikpukinskis
It's always good to question orthodoxy so I support the general idea behind
this post, but the word "cult" actually means something specific. You can
search for "characteristics of a cult" and get lots of interesting lists, but
here are a few that I think are interesting with regards to startups:

1) A leader with a monopoly on "truth". This varies in startups, and certainly
there's usually a guy who is the "decider". However it's not usually taken for
granted that he's always _right_ just that he's entitled to make the call.

2) Separating members from non-members. Cults often encourage and sometimes
force separation, even from family and close friends. I have yet to see this
in a startup, a mother who is no longer allowed to make contact with her child
because a startup prohibited it.

3) Sexual/financial/life/etc exploitation. This one arguably does happen in
startups, to varying degrees. This seems like the central critique of OP. That
said, the same happens in regular companies too (migrant farm workers,
emotional abuse, exploiting information asymmetries/etc) and I'm not sure the
distribution is all that different.

4) Preventing people from leaving, through debt, threats, or conditioning.
This actually sometimes happen in startups through offering credit.... They
owe you back pay and you want to stay at the top of the payroll. But this is
nothing like what Scientology does, maintaining a blackmail file on members.

5) General use of mind control. Progaganda, conditioning, etc. Generally
creating an environment where human brains sort of gravitate towards the
mainline. This happens everywhere, to differing degrees. I think if you watch
the Heaven's Gate exit videos you see the extreme of this. This is a fire we
all play with. Probably some startups overdo it.

------
kelvin0
My guess is the 'trap' is the passion and intensity of working with a small
team of dedicated and smart people. The author certainly makes many good
points, with which I agree. However the intensity of a startup is not found in
just any environment, thus it's appeal ...

------
Htsthbjig
"We had a rockstar team with backgrounds from top tier companies and
engineering schools, but no aqui-hire materialized out of thin air like I
thought it might. We built kick-ass technology, but nobody was interested."

If nobody was interested, your tech was shit. As simple as that. You have a
self delusion.

You maybe do some interesting things, but if people do not demand it, it means
you live in a different world from people. You just have not done the
connection.

That is the usefulness of marketing, not as selling whatever you have, but
designing and doing what people need.

When I created my company I was lucky enough to get a virtue loop and getting
it soon.

Now as angel investor one of the patterns I see most on young founders is
being fascinated with new tech but missing the connection with people's needs
completely.

------
Xyik
I think what people keep forgetting here is that you are comparing all start-
ups to the Googles and Facebooks of the world. There are MANY promising start
ups up there, it really depends on what your definition of a start up is.
Number of employees? Publicly traded? Years since it was founded? Sure,
working at Google/Facebook is probably better than working at Evernote. But is
it better than working at Snapchat or Lyft?

~~~
elif
Snapchat and Lyft are both $billion unicorns, not startups.

~~~
pluma
Off topic, but I propose we stop calling "unicorn" startups unicorns and
instead call them zebras (based on the phrase "if you hear hooves, think
horse, not zebra").

Unicorns are called unicorns based on the presumption that they don't actually
exist. "Unicorn" startups exist and there are enough of them that calling them
something imaginary is evidently wrong.

It would also make them sound less appealing (they're not magical and when it
rains you may come to realize it was just a donkey with stripes painted on it
all along). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

------
andreapaiola
A small company is not automatically a startup.

~~~
twothamendment
After one startup I said I'd never do that again. I realized it was like
playing the lottery. You might win big, but most likely it leaves you poor.
I'm now at a small company that pays very well, is stable, grows slowly and is
a great place to work. I've always switched jobs every 2-3 years and for the
first time I can see myself happily working for this small company for quite a
while.

