
Unless you're a founder, startups do not pay out - tkone
http://blog.selfassembled.org/posts/new_job_new_jobs.html
======
jconley
Based on the OP's story, I'm going to assume this was an early stage startup.
It is foolish to join an early stage startup as an employee if it's all about
the Benjamins from an exit. Hopefully this is common knowledge.

However, being an employee in an early stage startup is a great way to
jumpstart your career, whether you have entrepreneurial aspirations or not. In
an early stage startup you are going to be rubbing noses with investors,
working on interesting/tough problems with very smart people, taking on huge
amounts of responsibility, getting in way over your head every day, and
generally beefing up your resume.

Think of it as an investment in yourself. You will build character, and you
will build varied skills that will carry forward for the rest of your life,
and someone has paid you for that privilege.

~~~
nilkn
I don't think it is worth taking a below market wage offer from a startup just
because you'll be "working on interesting/tough problems with very smart
people, taking on huge amounts of responsibility, getting in way over your
head every day, and generally beefing up your resume." You can do all that
stuff at a bigger and more stable company.

I'm not saying one should never work at a startup. I'm just saying that
startup offers shouldn't be judged any differently from any other job offer.
There might be smart people at startup X, but there are plenty of smart people
at Google or Facebook or what have you as well. Take the expected value of
your options and your salary and compare it to any other offer. No special
rules should ever be made for startups except in extremely rare circumstances.
Investor connections that one might get from being an employee at a startup
are often vastly overstated as well. If you want to be a founder yourself, you
need to just go found something--working for another founder just isn't the
optimal way to get there, especially with the extra time commitment that many
startups involve, meaning you won't have time for your own side projects.

One of those rare exceptions I mentioned might be if you are asked to come on
in a CTO or VP Engineering role for a new and emerging startup. This sort of
experience can help you get executive positions later on at larger and more
stable companies if that's the career path you want.

Edit: I want to clarify my final point a bit more. Titles matter a lot in
early-stage startups. Almost by definition, VC-backed startups are going to
undergo rapid expansion--and that means lots of hiring. And that means that
unless you have a senior title from the beginning you face the real risk of
simply having people hired over you rather than being promoted yourself. This
is especially true if you are hired into a junior role in the beginning. All
of this means you may not get your desired leadership role in the end at all
if you're not careful.

~~~
wtvanhest
I don't work at a startup. But, there is a big advantage of working at a
startup over a company like Conde Nest.

Conde Nest is no longer growing rapidly which means... That the only way to
move up is for people to quit or for you to out politic your coworkers.

Contrast that with a rapid growth company, lets say one that IPOs in 10 years,
yeah, you get a payout, but you also should get a huge increase in salary and
responsibility over those 10 years.

~~~
nilkn
I clarified this in an edit to my previous post, but this is actually a
somewhat dangerous attitude.

If you don't have a senior or executive level title from the beginning in an
emerging startup, you face the real risk of simply having people hired over
you rather than getting those increases in responsibility that you want. If
you are VP of Engineering from the start, then the founders will struggle to
hire too many people above you, if any, because they don't want to sacrifice
the sanctity of that title. If you are brought on as a junior engineer,
however, you can't count on getting the promotions you deserve.

Of course, not every startup is going to do this. I'm just mentioning it as it
should be part of the decision making process. Joining a startup does not
equate to guaranteed increases in responsibility and leadership.

~~~
shykes
> _If you are VP of Engineering from the start [...] If you are brought on as
> a junior engineer, however, you can't count on getting the promotions you
> deserve._

Playing devil's advocate: for one early employee who kicks ass and is not
rewarded with increased responsibilities, how many expect a VP title served on
a silver platter in spite of their inexperience and/or inability to manage,
and blame the company instead of themselves when that happens?

Speaking as a founder, when I see someone over-delivering and eager to do
more, I sure as hell will double his ration of responsibilities, and then
double it some more as long as he's willing and able. And yes, in a good
company when responsibilities and value added to the company truly double, so
does compensation.

~~~
ebiester
...And then you've loaded them up with a bunch of areas where they've taken
technical responsibility until they're overwhelmed with maintenance. So you
can't possibly put them in a management or leadership position, they're too
valuable in what they're already doing!

Doubling their responsibilities isn't going to get them on the conference call
with investors. It isn't going to get them in charge of a team, _in most
cases._ Instead, _in most cases_ , an experienced lead will be hired. Or the
team will be sold/aquihired, and he'll end up a junior engineer in BigCo
anyway.

So, why take a chance on a startup making below market rates, especially if
it's not a clear winner?

Now, I operationalize "Startup" as an organization in search of a repeatable
business model, as Steve Blank suggests. If instead, the great but junior
developer is looking at a profitable, growing company, it may make sense to
join at below market rates. That way, product/market fit has already been
established and your work can directly be correlated to things that increase
profitability.

But those are two different games.

~~~
shykes
_...And then you've loaded them up with a bunch of areas where they've taken
technical responsibility until they're overwhelmed with maintenance. So you
can't possibly put them in a management or leadership position._

I disagree with you in 3 ways:

* I didn't limit the scope to _technical_ responsibilities. You did. I mean everything from product leadership, customer interactions, management, growth, etc. No shortage of interesting things to do in an early-stage startup if you're willing to get your hands dirty.

* You imply increased technical responsibilities are a bad thing. How can one think that and be an engineer? Being overwhelmed with maintenance may indicate other problems. Maybe your organization doesn't value gradual maintenance and has to pay it all at once. Maybe you're getting the shit maintenance work while others get the fun projects. Or maybe you have low tolerance for the unsexy but necessary work of maintaining your code.

* You present technical responsibilities and leadership as mutually exclusive. Leadership and management are not the same thing! As a technical lead you may not be anybody's boss, but in a good technical organization it should give you plenty of opportunities to show your worth while growing personally.

I think the mistake here is confusing career advancement with the number of
people reporting to you. Startups don't work that way. The measuring stick for
your trajectory should be 1) how much you get done and 2) how much recognition
you get for it. How many people report to you is an implementation detail.

... If you've been kicking ass managing a small team, have made it clear that
you're interested in a director position, and the company hires an outsider
instead, maybe they're idiots and it's time to move to greener pastures.
That's how smart companies find great first-time directors.

... If you're an engineer but want to try your hand as a first-time manager,
and you're not given the opportunity, find a company willing to take the risk.

... And so on.

------
saalweachter
If you get options equal to 10% of The Company when it is worth $1 million,
and there is a 10% chance of the company selling for $10 million, the expected
value of your stock options is $90,000, before taxes. If the stock vests over
four years, that's $22,500 / year, pre-tax. You could almost beat that working
full-time at minimum wage in some states.

And this is an optimistic, above-average outcome.

~~~
chubot
Those numbers seem pretty off. No employee gets 10%; I'd be surprised if any
got 1%. From what I can tell it's closer to 0.1 or 0.2% when you're past say
the first 10 engineers.

The "acqui-hire" exits seem to be around $50M; a really good case is $100M.

In that case, you have _some_ chance of making $50K to $200K over 4 years or
so, or $12.5 - $50K a year. If you say the chance is 10%, which is indeed
_wildly_ optimistic, then you come out to $1.25K to $5K a year, which is
essentially negligible. It's nothing compared to a virtually guaranteed bonus
at a large company.

So I'm not disagreeing with you, just providing what I think are more
realistic numbers.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Are those Silicon Valley numbers? In my mind, anything over 10 employees is no
longer a true startup, and should have a decent amount of revenues. It may not
be profitable, but only because it chooses not be, it's investing in growth
rather than taking profits.

Outside of Silicon Valley, I've seen grants in the 10% range before, but such
are either considered late founders or are C-level executives. I've also seen
grants of 0.5-5% for senior engineers. I also know that kids straight out of
school have seen good sized grants too, but those are for people with a proven
ability. In other words offers given to former co-op students & interns.

~~~
nasalgoat
My company is over 40 people and is still in the startup, pre-revenue stage.
Sometimes you need to build traction in your space before you leave startup
mode.

------
nugget
The Right Startup > The Right Big Company > The Wrong Big Company > The Wrong
Startup

~~~
yekko
Probability wise, picking the right startup is a crap shot, even people who
are expert at it can't do it. Picking the right big company is VERY EASY...,
picking the wrong startup is almost assured, 95%+ chance.

~~~
eli
I don't think the working for the "right" startup necessarily means the one
that results in a big exit some years down the line... I don't think it's that
hard to find a startup founded by cool people doing stuff you find
interesting.

~~~
yekko
That reminds me, a couple of my former co-worker at Microsoft founded their
own startup. Was pretty nifty.

I really think government should have a program to fund say 1 million
startups, I'll do one myself :)

------
bryanlarsen
If you're getting equity in lieu of pay, make sure it's a real amount of
equity. Real amounts of equity are expressed as percentages of the company and
are not two orders of magnitude different than what the founders have. Real
amounts of equity are given outright or have really low strike prices.

If you sold your equity the day after it was given to you, would it bring your
salary up to a reasonable level? That's the benchmark. If not, ask for more
equity, or more salary.

------
ef4
Or just don't accept below-market salary.

The competition for good people is fierce, there's no reason you need to
accept low pay.

~~~
yekko
You actually need above market salary at startup since there is no bonus or
anything else.

A 15% bonus + 401k match + ESPP + yearly stock grant can easily equal 40k+ for
a junior (1-3 year exp) employee.

------
codex
Like many animals which hunt in packs (e.g. wolves) humans obey a dominance
hierarchy. The leader is at the top of the pyramid and is entitled to most of
the spoils of the kill, while those beneath the alpha settle for relative
scraps. This has been self-evident though most of human history, but exists
even today--witness the modern power law distributions of wealth even in
advanced economies.

Founders, in essence, reject the pyramids of established companies and try to
create their own (the new company) with themselves at the top.

This is why the myth of the startup was created by founders and investors--
they need submissive employees to work at below market wages (initially) at
the lower levels of the pyramid in order to support them at the pinnacle. Note
that the purported benefits of working at a startup are always intangible and
hard to quantify (read: things which don't cost the company any cash)--but the
opportunity cost of working as an early employee at a startup is readily
quantifiable and quite large: a huge loss in earning power in the short term,
with only a lottery ticket's chance of winning in the long term.

------
SurfScore
I've never understood the subtle negative attitude towards the fact that
founders get most of the equity. It's like everything else in the world from
investing to gambling (some would say they're the same). The higher the risk,
the higher the reward. If you're getting a salary you simply aren't taking
that much risk.

This isn't to say early employees shouldn't be compensated fairly, they
should. But you can't just be in it for the money. Being an early-stage
employee is great for your personal development and puts you on a fast track
to a C-level position should the company survive. You simply won't get that at
BigCo.

~~~
sliverstorm
So founders don't pay themselves a salary?

~~~
bkanber
My co-founder and I only just started paying ourselves this year, and we've
been paying our employees good wages ever since they started, last year.

So yes, some founders will forego a salary (like us). Others won't. We pay
ourselves when the company can afford to pay us, but we always pay our
employees first.

~~~
tkone
You're a crazy man. I've not gotten paid before because we had no money, but
that didn't stop our founder from vacationing in France. (Different startup
than this last one).

------
aaronbrethorst
Yep, what he said. That said, there are other good reasons to work for a
startup. It's just that "I'm going to get rich as employee #10" is not one of
them*.

That is, of course, unless you happen to work for the next Google. But let's
be honest, you aren't working for the next Google. Doesn't matter who founded
it or who's bankrolling it. You're not working for The Next Big Thing. Someone
is, sure, but you're more likely to be struck by lightning than be that guy.

------
Pwnguinz
I'm curious about how equity/options vesting work in the general silicon
valley startup (I'm sure details will vary). Actually, I'm curious how it
works generally, period. But most people reading HN is probably more familiar
with SV startups than, say, New Delhi startups.

Say I'm granted 10 shares of options in a company (for the sake of the
example, say this is 10% pre-dilution. So there are 100 shares currently).
This vests over 4 years. Are you 'granted' these shares, or do you have to
purchase them? Presumably, you purchase them at the 'strike' price? Is this
something determined when you are hired and sign the employment contract? Or
when the equity starts vesting?

In other words, if I'm getting this correctly, you have to _pay_ to own a
portion of the company, despite the fact that you're an early employee? Do the
founders have to do the same? If the strike price is $1/share, then you have
to pay out $10 to own that 10% over the course of 4 years? Or will the
'strike' price change over time?

~~~
saalweachter
Stock options are pretty much the norm in my experience. The usual explanation
for this is taxes.

When you are granted stocked, it is taxed as income upon being granted. Since
the stock is illiquid because the company is a startup, there is no way to
sell it to pay the taxes, so granting stock just reduces your already meager
salary.

You can usually exercise your options any time after they vest. However, most
people don't and this is sometimes discouraged. If the company is sold for
cash money, you may not ever formally exercise your options: the lawyers and
the accountants will automatically exercise them for you, deduct the strike
price from the sale price, and just deposit the net in your bank account.

~~~
Pwnguinz
I'm slightly confused on one point. If the options need not be exercised, why
then, would any employee with a minority stake want to spend his own money to
exercise them? Why not wait until the company exits and have it, as you say,
be 'automatically exercised'? The other (much more probable) outcome is that
the paper options are worth nothing, and the employee is out nothing either.
However, if the employee exercises, and the company goes under, he's out
however much he paid for those options + opportunity cost of working at a
lower 'early employee' wage.

Is there any real reason to exercise those stock options and hold onto common
stock of a non-publicly traded company? I guess if there's enough demand,
those stocks can be traded on 'secondary' private markets (like FB, pre-IPO),
but I would imagine this to be the exception and not the rule, correct?

Clearly the best option is to not exercise those options until absolutely
necessary, or am I missing something here?

~~~
rdouble
If you've vested some of your options and don't want to stick around, but
there's a good chance there will be a liquidity event at some point in the
future.

~~~
saalweachter
To clarify: most stock options evaporate if you leave the company. Usually you
have 30 or 90 days to exercise them or lose them after you quit or are fired.
Companies like this aspect. Stock is yours forever.

The other reason to exercise early is also taxes. When you exercise the
option, buy stock at $0.01, and sell it at $10 milliseconds later, that is a
short term capital gain. If you exercise them years before selling them, you
have long term capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. You increase
your after-tax payout by (say) 10%, with the risk that your payout will be $0.
Or less than the cost to exercise your shares. Or the opportunity cost (you
can't use money tied up in illiquid startup stock to buy houses or APPL at
$10) is too high.

------
mdrcode
If your definition of 'pay out' is 'deliver cash compensation at or beyond
market rate with very high probability and consistency over a period of years'
then yes, most definitely, working at an early stage startup is a poor choice.

When you step back, this is really inescapable: large, established companies
are more stable and predictable than small, unproven companies. Accordingly,
the forces of the market will provide the large/established companies with
greater compensatory resources in exchange for that confidence and
predictability (some way or another, we are all willing to pay extra for a
guarantee, or as close to a guarantee as the market allows). There are
exceptions, of course... but the general pattern is clear.

But indirectly, you raise an important point: many early stage employees
(especially 'kids') do not fully understand how equity or funding works ...
and they end up believing in the false idol of their basis points and wasting
many years of their lives.

I've never met anyone working as early stage employee who had a get-rich-on-
liquidation mindset and did not end up burnt out or extremely frustrated in
the long run (my own experience very much included). To survive (even /enjoy/)
early stage, you must build a personal satisfaction model that's more than
just cash (learning? networking? friends? intellectual stimulation? fun?).
It's very possible, but it's a huge shift in perspective if you're coming from
a golden-handcuffing big tech co...

------
tsmith
The thesis of the article is mostly correct, though there are plenty of
exceptions in the valley - the Facebook and Google IPOs made 100s of instant
millionaires.

This part bugged me though:

"Lets put it this way. You're working at a start-up. You've got some decent
stock, say, like, 200,000 options. You vest over four years and your strike is
$1/share (which is WAY too high for an early employee, but you feel "good"
about this one.) You're making 50k under market value."

Number of options and strike price are almost meaningless without context -
specifically, number of shares outstanding + ESOP pool. PPS is derivative of
the number of shares outstanding, and strike price will typically be the PPS
at the last round of financing, so whether it's $1 or $10 or $0.10 is
_completely_ determined by the valuation of the company divided by the number
of shares outstanding.

The number of shares outstanding (+ those allocated to the ESOP) is the
meaningful number here. 200k options could represent a significant stake in
the company (up to 99.9995% of the company, for example, if the company has
only a single share outstanding and no other options issued!) or an
insignificant stake in the company (for example, if the company has 1 trillion
shares outstanding).

The only thing the 200k options / $1 strike price tells you is that if the
company doubles in value, you will have made $200k (less taxes & tip). Triples
in value, $400k. Multiples by X, $200Xk.

If you don't think the company is going to double/triple/10X in value during
your time there, don't play the game.

------
jonathanjaeger
I know someone who took a salary cut early on in a startup that hit it big. I
always heard about the great things coming from the company, not "omg, look
how much my shares are worth!" I think it's horrible when startup founders
prey on ill-informed employees who they see as gullible, promising the world
with no caution. However, what happened to wanting to work for a startup
because you care about the mission? People take smaller salaries to become
teachers, some become touring musicians, some forego healthy salaries to
travel the world more, and some people work at startups. Just because not
every situation is ideal (fun startup + high equity + cushy lifestyle), that
doesn't mean it's not the right decision for some. Do what will make you happy
and fulfilled rather than something to check off on a list for making a
successful career.

Edit: Plus you don't have to stick around for four years at a below market
salary. If you're pulling your weight and the company gets traction, you
should expect a reasonable salary (not $50K below market rate for four years
in a row like the article implies).

~~~
jrochkind1
I certainly agree that there's nothing wrong with prioritizing other things
(like interesting work, for just one, there are others) over maximizing your
money.

What's galling is when someone ELSE makes big bucks off your hard work, and
you don't. Then you often feel taken advantage of. That isn't generally
happening when you take a smaller salary to become a teacher or a touring
musician or to travel the world more.

And when it DOES happen (say, to touring musicians, sure), the person it
happens to generally feels exploited. Even if they had done the same thing for
the same money _without_ someone else profiting big time off their work, they
would have felt good about it.

But if you decide you don't mind someone else trying to make huge bucks off
your hard work, without sharing them with you, because you enjoy the thing
you're working hard on that much and it's all cool... I guess I've got no
reason to say there's anything wrong with that, if that's your thing.

But in reality, it's the difference between working at a startup with equity
on the same order of magnitude as the founders, but the startup doesn't end up
succeeding (Oh well, it was worth a shot, and I still made enough to pay rent
and live comfortably, and I found it rewarding) vs working at a startup that
is VERY succesful and the founders are rich... but you wound up with much less
money than you could have had working somewhere else, perhaps with just as
interesting work. How likely are you to find the latter one rewarding, after
it shakes out?

~~~
jonathanjaeger
Fair enough I understand that. I think there's a difference between founders
sacrificing their time and money on something that can fail easily and an
employee who makes a little less than market salary (and works hard). It
doesn't have to be a startup for you to work crazy hours or be personally
invested. But there are many situations in between the extremes that make it
seem unfair for early employees not to share in the potential spoils.

------
zsiddique
I gave it a quick once over but the thing that already made me think this
auther does not know what he is talking about is this line:

> You've got some decent stock, say, like, 200,000 options. You vest over four
> years and your strike is $1/share

What startup is that? If it has a $1/share valuation its already near the end
of its "start up" runway. And if your getting 200k in shares then its either
really earl on or the strike price is really low. I have had offers from YC-
Backed companies in the past and its one or the other, not both.

------
whiddershins
Here's a question: If 8 hour work days get maximal productivity out of a
worker (according to several studies I've read through links made available on
this board), and startups are all about getting the most out of their
employees and getting ahead quickly, why are they all described as having long
hours (one of the reasons it "sucks" to work at a startup)

??

I can understand if a very large organization has so much organizational
overhead you somehow work really long hours, but for a smaller team that
shouldn't be a factor ... right?

------
sxtxixtxcxh
i like the random `git co` after the first sentence. go go gadget multitasker!

------
MojoJolo
Question, is this also the case if I'm part of the founding team? I'm not a
founder but I'm their first employee.

On another note, the learnings, experience, and connections I gain in the
startup compensate the low salary I'm getting. This is my first real job. And
I think I'm getting a lot of knowledge in terms of technology and management
side.

------
brudgers
There's an ancient memory of secretaries getting rich from the Microsoft IPO
and the legend of the Google chef. But unless the company gets to that size, a
small slice of employee equity won't make you rich.

Here's my Fuck You Money Calculator:

<http://fumoney.kludgecode.com/default.aspx>

~~~
jamiequint
The 'Outside Investment' number here in the 'Optional' section actually only
matters if (A) the equity is participating preferred [1] or (B) the company
sells for less than the preference would normally receive on a pro-rata basis.

In 99.9% of the situations where a non-founder gets 'FU Money' (B) will not be
the case, and (A) is increasingly rare.

[1] [http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/06/15/what-is-
the-d...](http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/06/15/what-is-the-
difference-between-non-participating-preferred-stock-and-participating-
preferred-stock/)

~~~
brudgers
I made the tool after a succession of "Ask HN: Is this a good deal" where
equity was in the low single digits. It's crude. The optional numbers were
included because the way deals have and will be structured matters. Most
people don't ask about these things before they post a question to HN.

Deals are structured all kinds of ways. How many times has someone posted
about getting rid of a partner whose equity vested immediately? Even the
article talks about 200,000 shares as if that means something. It could be 20%
ownership. It could be 0.02%.

------
yekko
This has been my experience as well. Late stage startup is a lot better, since
they can pay well + give you stock options that MIGHT work out if they IPO
WITHIN 1.5 years of you joining.

Timing is really important here, keep in mind the 4 year vesting. If they did
not IPO within the time frame, find another one.

------
teeja
The rewards of working on spec (like those of volunteering) have alway been
... speculative. Promises and manufactured illusions can be difficult to
distinguish. The ability to listen to your heart and gut may prove invaluable.

------
jaredsohn
> You've got some decent stock, say, like, 200,000 options. You vest over four
> years and your strike is $1/share (which is WAY too high for an early
> employee, but you feel "good" about this one.) You're making 50k under
> market value.

>That means in four years, your stock is going to have to NET (taxes are a
healthy 20%, plus you've got fees, so it's gotta be pretty high...) you a $1 a
share in order to be worth it, assuming you never recieve a raise or a bonus
at your new job, and you don't count your 401(k) match, health benefits, less-
stressful working conditions and shorter hours.

Pretty horrid that the post makes judgements ("decent stock", "WAY too high"),
about options based on the quantity and price per share without considering
what portion of the company the shares represent (and the initial valuation of
the company.)

~~~
eropple
Percentage doesn't matter to this calculation, though. You'll factor it into
your estimation of whether it can net you $1/share, but he obviously can't.

~~~
jaredsohn
>but he obviously can't.

This is his hypothetical example; he obviously can. (i.e. he can say that the
company is worth $1 million now so it needs to be worth $x million to make up
for the lost pay.) Doing so would do a better job of communicating his message
to the reader.

~~~
tkone
and would also be against my confidentiality agreement. These are hypothetical
numbers. Lets say it's .5% at $0.30 -- the numbers are variables, doesn't
change what the outcome is.

~~~
jaredsohn
>and would also be against my confidentiality agreement.

This whole thing isn't that important but why would it be against your
confidentiality agreement to write a hypothetical example in one way versus
another? I am assuming all of the numbers are fake in the first place.

My original point (again, not very important) is that I think it is more
effective communication to say that a company is worth $1 million now and
needs to grow to be $10 million for you to make back your lost salary via
stocks, rather than talking about number of shares and strike prices (which
you can't easily compare against other companies), since those values can
easily be manipulated.

------
electic
I think this article is quite narrow minded. If all you care about is base
salary, sure you can go to Cisco and sit in there. But:

* You will have a specialized job at a big company.

* You will not be able to try new things and expand your skill set at a big company.

* You will never build anything big that defines you at a big company.

* There are very few "big" companies that work on exciting things. You will likely working on something boring. Yes, Conde Nast is boring.

Thus:

* No one is going to make you a VP. You've never proven yourself or taken any risks.

* There are many startups that have 'made it' and those risk takers who came on early, made a lot of cash.

* You will wonder for the rest of your life if that could have been you.

So if you feel that base salary and low risk is you, Cisco, Juniper, eBay,
etc, all have your name on it. Please go there.

~~~
codex
This might have been true in the past, but companies like Google and Facebook
are now run like a conglomeration of small startups--in part to retain talent.
Google's 20 percent time is a good example.

~~~
SurfScore
I've heard many times that Google's 20 percent time is going the way of the
dodo. Don't work at Google or anything, just heard you really have to push to
get it now.

------
nrser
if you can work at a large non-technical company as a technical person, you
should. my last company was bought by Viacom. i've been there, i know what it
is.

------
realrocker
Also, finding out the hard way is not a good approach. It's physically and
emotionally draining.

------
maxcan
tl;dr OP bought a lottery ticket that didn't pan out and isn't happy about it.

------
Mc_Big_G
#duh

------
optimusclimb
I know it's very un-hacker news like to make such a comment, but...inb4
michaelochurch comment :)

