

Budgeting for new team members - festivusr
http://getrealordie.com/?p=77

======
comatose_kid
If I were your investor, I would be worried by the following:

1) 2 biz dev guys, one UI guy, one dev doesn't sound right for an early stage
company trying to build something

2) This post makes you look judgmental and emotional - two traits that don't
really work well for a leader

3) Your post also shows that you're not listening - you insist that anyone who
wants a better rate is greedy, and is the cause for the downfall of the
American economy. Drawing this conclusion after the feedback received from
Auston's previous post seems inflexible.

4) The team is hiring outside for a technical hire. This could be because a)
you don't know any good people or b) good people don't want to work with you.
Neither sounds great.

------
strlen
If they're pre-funding, in the middle of an angel round, why are they hiring
employees already from general public? First off, why aren't they doing
themselves? Is the team technically incompetent (by the virtue of too many
biz-dev people)?

It looks like they really need another person on their _core team_ \- not just
a regular employee. Somebody who's willing to be in the garage with you ( why
do you even have an office at this point, by the way? ).

You don't recruit that person by posting on the Internet, you use your social
network ( and I don't mean Facebook ) to do that. Do they not have any
acquaintances, former coworkers?

This may well not be the case - and in fact, I'd imagine it isn't - but the
situation screams "these people don't have a technical clue themselves and
don't have anyone in their social network who believes strongly enough in them
to take the risk and go into a garage with them".

~~~
webwright
You ever tried to recruit employee #1-3? I have. I have a pretty rich network
(including the extended network you get being funded by YC, a VC firm, and a
mess of pretty top-tier angels). We all worked our networks pretty hard (and
ultimately hired out of 'em) but we also posted the job in a few places (and
found some amazing candidates).

Very very few people in your network ultimately have the stones to make the
leap into the uncertainly of an early stage startup (even a well-funded one).
I imagine it gets MUCH harder in Boca Raton, FL and even harder in these
particular economic times.

And, expanding a team does NOT equal technical incompetence. It could mean
that they have an ambitious problem they are tackling. Or that they have a
line of customers out the door and want to accelerate development.

Seriously-- they fucked up-- but at least they're trying. Cut 'em some slack
and stop assuming the worst.

~~~
strlen
I said myself at the last paragraph - this may well not be the case. They
_may_ be competent, but they're not giving that impression - and stating it
the way I see, is at least real feedback they could use.

------
axod
Talk about digging a deeper hole.

So now programmers are all overpaid eh? I don't want to open the whole debate
again, but I see something really wrong with non tech people starting a
company and then expecting to be able to hire a few code monkeys to build the
product. The product should come first IMHO - team of hackers working
day+night.

------
comatose_kid
Tying a candidate's desire for more pay with the decline the US economy
is...um...creative. And saying "I do not want to know you" to candidates you
deem to be greedy is disingenuous, considering that you're starting a company
presumably to make money, right?

While I can understand wanting to be frugal, I still don't see how paying
rates that most engineers would consider mediocre will attract the top
candidate you presumably want as an early hire.

~~~
davidw
Yeah, how many 'greedy' devs could you fund with just the bonuses of one
'greedy' wall street guy? My guess is that the devs are pretty much a drop in
the 'greedy' bucket.

------
webwright
Jeeez, guys. Take it easy.

A job is a package-- money, equity, work/life balance, autonomy, authority,
etc.

I personally agree that they might be a bit "penny wise, pound foolish" here -
you have to spend money to succeed, and saving 10-40k on your first hire might
be a really bad idea.

That being said, there are plenty of people out there (somewhere between naive
and idealistic) who would happily dive into a startup for much lower cash
compensation for the other benefits (whether they are equity or less
tangible). There are also plenty of just-graduated wunderkind who might have
the chops they are looking for but not the experience to command a monster
salary.

And look hard at geography here:
[http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=php+javascript+css%0D%0A&l=...](http://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=php+javascript+css%0D%0A&l=Boca+Raton%2C+FL)
(check the salary estimate on the left)

At the end of the day, these guys clearly made some missteps. They should
change their tune a bit. But try to treat them like you'd want to be treated
when you (publicly) screw up with your venture.

~~~
nostrademons
I think that the money is a giant red-herring here, but these guys have
unfortunately chosen to validate it by responding to it.

When I evaluate a startup, the two things I care about are the idea and the
team. If you're doing something world-changing (or even just "really cool")
and I like & respect you, I don't care what the money is. I'll even work for
free (well, for decent equity).

If you have a good team but a shitty idea, I'd work there _if_ a.) I'm an
employee, getting paid decently, and am likely to learn much or b.) I'm a
cofounder, personal friends with you, and you're flexible about shifting the
idea. This actually describes both my previous startup and my previous
employer.

I only care about money if you have neither a good team nor a good idea - but
in this case, I'm just putting in time, and you probably don't want me as an
employee. Hell, I probably wouldn't want to _be_ an employee in this situation
- life's too short to waste it collecting paychecks.

Raganwald wrote a neat piece a while back about uncovering the "hidden
objection" and responding to that, instead of answering the sales prospect's
verbal objection. People here are objecting to the money issue because it's
obvious.

But it wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for other problems with the
startup. This is lead-management software with 2 bizdev guys on the team. It's
totally unsexy. We don't know anything about the technical cofounder and what
he's previously accomplished. It's unlikely that there'll be hard technical
problems that'll provide a good learning experience.

If there were indications that the rest of the package was kick-ass, nobody
would care about the money. But all the discussion so far has been about the
money, so that's all we have to go on.

~~~
auston
This is very valuable feedback. I really appreciate it (I'm wondering whether
I'm still on everyone's down-mod list).

~~~
fbbwsa
incidentally, i still think somebody should write an article about what the
community thinks is "Fair" compensation.

Skip past the "it depends" dialogue (which granted is important), and describe
some border cases:

1\. founders are jerks/morons, no faith in idea 2\. founders are cool, but
morons, no faith in idea 3\. founders are cool, smart, misguided idea that
might be able to be changed to work 4\. founders are good + good idea

in case 1, i suspect most people only work for money in case 4, i suspect some
people will be willing to work for equity or money or some combination.

In case 1, the "compensation" including money probably has to be higher to put
up with a crappy job.

In case 4, how much $ would it take in a "salary only" situation. In a split,
how much equity and salary would you require?

2 and 3 are somewhere in between.

I've always been curious what people think fair compensation is for early
stage startups.

------
auston
For a more direct response/clarification, please see:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362152>

------
sanj
Does anyone else read the URL as

Get Real, Ordie

I kept thinking Ordie was a pretty neat name.

~~~
jrockway
No, but with their huge font, I feel like I'm being yelled at. "GET REAL OR I
AM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU, YOU BASTARD." is how I read it. It was kind of
like being punched in the face... and I think a tear may have formed in my
eye.

Anyway, this company is pretty amazing. Before today, I had never heard of
them. Now I think they are arrogant, out-of touch, egotistical losers. Any
publicity is good publicity, I guess.

------
nostrademons
Why not use the angel money to extend your runway and then hire only once you
have product/market fit and some indication that your revenue model works?
You'll have a better bargaining position with both investors and employees
then, and won't be wasting an employee's time if you fail.

------
mikeryan
Am I the only one reading this post like so:

"We don't want to blow through our limited capital, so we're looking for 2
junior developers to create our new game changing web property for us.

And praying that what they lack in technical expertise, they make up for in
passion"

Seems the author is trading one extreme (too many, too much, too fast) for
another (too little). He needs to find the middle ground. Hire a rockstar, pay
him a bit more then scale, give him some equity. Let him lead development but
be willing to make some product trade offs.

------
asif
Whatever you guys are making, if it kicks ass, nobody will care about this
nonsense. You certainly have the attention of the HN community now, so don't
waste it. It's time to stop fucking up.

------
tdavis
Maybe this whole "overpaying developers" mentality wasn't around when I was
freelancing because if I actually had $100 for every time someone wanted me to
make them a website for $100 I'd be rich by now.

The correct response to the "bad" cover letter in the first place was "ignore
it." That would have saved everybody a lot of time.

~~~
jonknee
> if I actually had $100 for every time someone wanted me to make them a
> website for $100 I'd be rich by now.

Guess you should have taken them up on the offer then? Sounds like you'd be
rich.

~~~
tdavis
You somehow managed to miss the _entire_ point. I'm not sure if I should be
impressed or horribly depressed.

~~~
jonknee
It was merely a joke, I completely got your point. You on the other-hand did
manage to miss my entire point.

~~~
tdavis
This is the Internet! Everything is serious, dammit!

P.S. I didn't down-vote you so I've got that going for me, right :P

~~~
jonknee
Heh, no harm no foul. I don't understand the whole down-vote thing, but at
least it's not as bad here as it is at reddit.

