
Ask HN: What up with these startup salaries? - whiddershins
I would have commented directly on the posts, but the YC startup job postings don&#x27;t allow comments.<p>I see job postings for a couple of startups here and they are offering approximately between $60k and $110k and 0.5-1% equity for what appear to be significant positions - mobile or full stack developers, director of marketing, etc.<p>Is this really the going rate? If so, my mind is boggled. I was under the impression there is competition for great employees in Silicon Valley.<p>Here in NYC, if I wanted to be very competitive to hire into any vital position with rare skills, I would anticipate a floor on pay of $125k. I don&#x27;t care if that&#x27;s a designer or a developer or a marketer or what ... I just mean anyone working full time who has a good head on their shoulders and some rare skills.<p>And 0.5-1% equity wouldn&#x27;t move the needle much. I mean, if you have a 5 person company and you bring someone in and give them 1% equity, what is their equity relative to the person sitting next to them? IMHO It&#x27;s a joke. Their ownership is purely symbolic, in a relative sense, and it&#x27;s a symbol of how little they own relative to a founder.<p>Am I completely insane? I would love to understand the logic here, I am not so much criticizing as trying to know more about the dynamic and the industry culture&#x2F;standards.
======
kabdib
My experience with equity:

$20K into a startup, which was sold to midrangeSoftwareCompany, which was in
turn sold to Oracle. Wound up with 17 shares of Oracle, worth about $2000 at
the time.

Another experience: $2K of "hell, I'm leaving so why not buy the shares I
vested in". Eight years later the company is wildly successful (public and
valued at $1B). I call them up, and my shares are worthless through some stock
shenanigans.

A third: $5K investment turned into $21K. Yay. I guess I almost broke even on
the Silly Valley slot machine.

Lastly: I did much, MUCH better with options and other stock-related stuff at
a couple of large companies, spread out over 16 years. It's not unreasonable
to make a few million on these in the course of your career.

Get a good salary. Don't trade a good salary for equity, because in general
it's a bad deal and you're just going to get screwed.

If you're good and you take a low salary for the "developer class" equity that
I've seen, take a hard look and see if you're getting anything else worthwhile
(an education in technologies you wouldn't be using otherwise, good contacts,
a possibility you'd be identified as a principal "must have" in an
acquisition, with incentives to match, etc). Otherwise you're being taken
advantage of.

~~~
nhstanley
I don't have as much personal experience (only one colossal flop, $4k invested
+ ~20% lower salary), but I've got enough experience in the industry to have
come up with this hard and fast rule: If you didn't found the company and
aren't getting 10%+, equity is meaningless. If they insist you take equity
("Don't you have faith that we'll be successful?"), you can offer to knock off
1% of what you would have expected in annual salary without it (even that is
arguably too much). Otherwise it's absolutely not worth it.

Companies love trying to get you to take a 5-40% pay cut because "It's a
startup" and "we'll give you equity". Total BS. You will be better off
spending an hour every week minding your money in other ways, with your
appropriate salary.

~~~
greenyoda
_" Don't you have faith that we'll be successful?"_

To which the answer is: "The success of this company will depend much more on
management's strategies and the vagaries of the market than on the code that I
write. Besides, you're not sharing your financials and other private business
information with me, so I have no basis for guessing whether the company will
be successful or what the value of the equity you're offering me will be. And
in any case, I need to be able to pay my rent and other expenses regardless of
whether the company is successful or not. So I'm expecting to receive a
competitive salary."

~~~
kabdib
Likely response to _that_ is "Not a team player."

And you're better off not being there.

------
Firegarden
I have been a full time contract programmer since 2001 and at that time I was
22 years old. I have always worked hourly and delivered software per the
clients requirements.

The last 2-3 years I have made more money than I have ever made and it was
coded 100% remote (from Hawaii). I had one meeting at the clients place. Made
somewhere around 180K and this was me full time with a part time developer
subcontracted out which didn't actually bring in much additional revenue <
10%. It did bring throughput.

As of about a month ago I was let go as the top developer in the Saas company
because I was deemed too expensive by the board. I am pretty sure the CTO
didn't want to give up me as a resource.

All of a sudden I have realized that overseas developers have become a
priority and it is my feeling that as an hourly developer my days are limited
in making $80-$100/hr (corp 2 corp contract).

It is my feeling that I have 2 possible directions. 1) Start an outsourced
overseas development company and use my 'Software Architect" title (which is
so funny to me because architect is thrown around so much in software) and
manage resources overseas. 2) Start selling software on a per usage basis or
in some value add model. I believe both of them are solid bets however #2
takes more commitment.

At this point I think the reason salaries are topping off is because of the
global market. That is just my take from being in the industry. Thank you.

~~~
tootie
I think the offshore glory days are already slipping away. We have South
American partners who are charging nearly the same rates as us.

~~~
mrlag
Is that true? I'm living in West Europe and it's pretty hard to find decent
50k+ jobs, even with a University degree and years of experience. Where are
those remote jobs?

~~~
tootie
That isn't necessarily pay, it's bill rate for offshore partners. I have no
idea what their overheads are and how much trickles down to their programmer's
pockets.

------
throwawaythisis
Based on personal experience and observation of some startups around here this
is the dynamic that I've seen and what could be happening:

\- startup gets some funding, but not a lot, and needs (more) developers

\- startup founders think they can find good developers at rates that are
similar to those of 'regular' developers outside the Silicon Valley / HN
bubble / web development scene. Possibly because these founders are non-
technical and mostly have experience in bigger, more 'boring' companies where
developers aren't 'essential' (or don't seem to be), or groomed inside the
company and happy with lower salaries.

\- startup finds out that nobody will take the jobs at the offered salaries

\- startup decides to be more creative and - if they're _very_ lucky - find:

    
    
        1. competent, usually remote developers who are willing to work for much less than the going rate in home country  
        2. oblivious developers or developers just out of college who have no clue how much they can make
    

Unfortunately, what I suspect often happens is that they end up hiring subpar
developers who just want to get paid an acceptable salary and know nothing
about their potential value in their field, or developers who are under-
qualified for the specific challenges that many startups face (web-based,
mobile apps, rapid development, need for independence and taking initiative
because it's chaotic).

And the founders of these companies, if they're not technical, might never
quite realize that in the end they're probably wasting more money because the
codebase is terrible.

While I would never argue that the only competent developers are those in the
'SV/HN/web bubble', I do think it makes sense that there's a correlation
between developers who are oblivious to their value and the rest of their
field, and developers who are still stuck in older, less efficient approaches
to many startup's problems.

Pay your developers well!

~~~
jwatte
"they're probably wasting more money because the codebase is terrible."

A terrible code base that serves customers is better than a beautiful codebase
that goes unused. I think your criteria is expressed poorly. Perhaps you meant
that bad developers are unable to produce code that serves customers well? Add
in, a terrible product. (Product != codebase)

~~~
eikenberry
Personally I think this idea of a terrible codebase that still presents a
wonderful user experience is an urban legend. In 20 years I have never seen
it. I've seen plenty of terrible codebases that limp along, with the staff
constantly fielding bug reports from unhappy users. But never one with happy
users that just happens to be ugly under the covers.

~~~
jazzyk
This. A hundred times.

------
LogicFailsMe
In Silicon Valley, my startup offers over the past two years have ranged from
$160-250K with 0.5-0.75% equity.

Here is the best writeup on startups I've ever read:

[http://www.geocities.ws/drhenke/startupmemo.htm](http://www.geocities.ws/drhenke/startupmemo.htm)

I expect to hear how tone deaf and pessimistic the above advice is, and said
pessimism will lead to this post being downvoted, but I have found it most
helpful. It meshes with my own philosophy that the only startups I'd choose
over a well paying BigCo position are ones that offer a founder's position
with 5+% equity. Risk should be proportional to reward.

To put this into perspective, a friend of mine was the 20th or so employee at
a startup that was eventually purchased after dying and coming back to life
over a decade or so. In exchange for a decade of his life and going without
compensation for nearly a year, he got ~$400K. A nitwit co-worker who had 50x
his equity in the original incarnation that died and who had nothing to do
with its resurrection and its eventual purchase got ~$20M on the basis of
having a 3-letter title in that original startup. Don't end up like my friend.

~~~
myth_buster
Thank you for the link to the memo. I'm looking at joining a startup after a
decade in enterprise and am doing my research. Where would one find the
details to the questions in the financing section (burn rate, money in bank,
valuation in next financing)? I was able to pick info on funding rounds from
crunchbase, # of employees from Co. site but that's the most I've got. Any
pointers will be helpful.

~~~
troels
You can always ask.

If you want to do the math your self, for most companies the cost is
predominantly determined by salaries. If you can figure out the number and
positions of employees, you should be able to estimate it fairly accurate.

Figuring out how much they make on the top line is slightly harder, but you
can usually estimate it if you can find out how many users they have (which is
often not very secret) and if you can guess at how much they make per user
(usually roughly the same figure across an industry - so again, not overly
secret)

If you make your calculations up front, you will know which variables you are
least confident about and can try to pry about them at an interview.

------
jurassic
I've had a few unsuccessful negotiations with series B startups who balk at
paying market rate even though they have piles of cash. I believe it often
comes down the the fact that they have grown headcount relatively slowly at
the same time market rates for competent developers have risen quickly.

The veteran engineers from the company's earlier days are often true-believers
in the company/product, and probably joined for below-market at a time when
market rates were lower. As a result the comp structure at these companies
gets into a really weird state where a new market-rate junior hire cost about
as much or more than the seasoned technical staff they already have on
payroll.

That's a tough pill for companies to swallow, and even if you do manage to
hire you'll have a mutiny on your hands if you don't do something quickly to
close the 40+% gap between the comp your existing employees are getting and
the market.

~~~
suhail
That's true, this can happen. At Mixpanel, we proactively true people up
throughout the year, each year. It's not that hard of a pill to swallow when
you weigh the decision of that person leaving vs paying them $10-20K more.

~~~
pacaro
This is the real insight that to few companies understand. Possibly because of
relative lack of experience of management and/or HR department.

If you're in SF and your rent is rising by 10% p/a then your salary needs to
be keeping track unless you already have FU money.

Or you work a couple of years to get a little vested, then jump ship using
your unvested equity as a bargaining chip in your next negotiation "I'd be
leaving so much on the table..."

I guess that there's a reason that the average tenure is ~2 years

------
PaulHoule
In Silicon Valley though they have pool tables and dart boards and a
refrigerator full of munchies. Also it doesn't get cold so it is a lot easier
to live outside than it is in NYC.

Real companies in SV do pay real money but for the average startup it is the
22 yr old who has no experience that hopes the 19 yr old working for him
doesn't realize he is faking it before he makes it. They are not going to get
a good marketing director at that price but they can find one who doesn't
think he needs health insurance.

~~~
krenoten
Biased by my own experience and I can't speak to the average, but there are
certainly plenty of small companies with pool tables, dart boards, and stocked
refrigerators in NYC. Having seasons is preferable for many people. For the
people who don't like the seasons, they are usually comforted by the infinite
cultural novelty that is crammed within these streets. Both are nice places,
but I'm pretty skeptical that anyone is paying less there "because it's
nicer".

~~~
RickS
I believe he was being facetious - seemingly flashy perks are very commonly
used a substitute for actual money, and it works stunningly well. 5k in
catering and laundry will shave 20k off an entry level salary more often than
it should.

------
tomasien
In New York, people have given up on equity. I hear this time and again in the
NYC tech scene - building a company is hard in NYC because people don't
believe equity is worth anything because of the bullshit that happened in the
first bubble. In New York especially, there were a lot of shenanigans with
equity in 99/00 bubble/crash era where companies got sold and employees got
nothing because of liquidation preferences and other things. The eco-system
has not regained its trust and the mythos of worthless equity persists.

Your point about "what is that compared to the person next to you" reflects
this: you're thinking about equity relative to others as important, vs. the
odds that 1% turns into various amounts of money. YC companies get soft
landings/acquihires at a high rate and also often become worth a lot. 1%
equity in a YC company you believe in is equity worth having. (key words: you
believe in).

~~~
sillysaurus3
1% equity in a company that exits for $10M or less probably isn't worth
having. Since many companies exit for $10M or less, that means getting 1%
equity usually isn't worthwhile.

1% equity in a $10M exit would net you $100k. Given a four year vesting
schedule, that's $25k/yr. Since you're working for a startup, your salary
might very well be much less than $25k/yr of what you're normally worth at
other companies. Aggressively negotiating your salary at a non-startup company
can get you that much and then some.

So it's about whether you believe the company will make a >$10M exit, knowing
that most companies die and many exit for $10M or less.

It's also about other factors. For example, whether you get paid depends on
liquidation preferences, and how much you get paid depends on dilution and
taxes.

Also cost of living. I've heard that decent apartments in SF can go for $3k.
(Zillow seems to confirm that many apartments are around $3k.) Compared to a
$1,500 apartment in a place with reasonable cost of living, that's an extra
$18k/yr that you'll need to pay just to live there. Actually, that's $18k/yr
of _post-tax_ salary, so more like $36k/yr of salary.

~~~
pbreit
A sub $10m exit is rare in YC portfolio.

~~~
sz4kerto
[http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/hatched/2013/12/16/...](http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/hatched/2013/12/16/paul-
graham-reveals-y-combinator-stats.html?page=al)

"The tally of 42 companies means about 6.7 percent of all Y Combinator-funded
companies have hit the $40 million figure so far"

A sub-10M exit might be rare, but sub-10M exit + failures together migth not
be rare at all.

------
morgante
All I have to contribute is that I agree. As someone trying to hire engineers,
I genuinely don't understand how companies can get away with such paltry
offers.

Probably the most ludicrous to me is Buffer's ridiculously low pay:
[https://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-
buff...](https://open.bufferapp.com/introducing-open-salaries-at-buffer-
including-our-transparent-formula-and-all-individual-salaries/)

I'm offering a minimum of $125k with significant equity in a well-positioned
company, but I rarely see good engineers interviewing. Yet somehow these other
companies are building engineering teams for _way_ less.

Ultimately, I think it comes to developers _way_ over-valuing hype. Appearing
on Hacker News regularly, or showing up in Techcrunch a lot, or getting funded
by YC, can apparently provide an automatic $50k bonus on all salaries you
offer.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
In Buffer's defense they are all remote and they seem to have rather sane cost
of living factors built in.

~~~
morgante
I don't know if that's much of a defense.

Even in SF (an "A" location), they seem to be paying below market:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgrWVeoG5divdE8...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgrWVeoG5divdE81a2wzcHYxV1pacWE1UjM3V0w0MUE&usp=drive_web#gid=1)

~~~
carrotleads
Interesting to see that engineer's get paid less than content and happiness
heros.

The blame for that rests with the senior engineers and not the graduate or
middle level ones...

------
fullstacknyc
I was an untested front end developer and took a position for around 60k
without equity in NYC. Later it got bumped up to 72k still no equity (though I
largely feel like equity is a "too good to be true"). I've since become a full
stack developer (dev ops to front end, etc.) and increasingly more frustrated
with my pay. Have taken on a lot of responsibility and a lot of my choices re.
tech stack have made me the de facto person to come to with questions.

I interviewed at a big company and they told me that regardless of what
happened I should be out there trying to make more (I didn't tell them how
much I made, I only said that at a small startup with very little funding, I
would be afraid that my compensation might reflect negatively on my abilities
and that I didn't feel comfortable disclosing it).

Super grateful that they took a chance on me. Really happy that I got a chance
to earn my stripes and was trusted enough to dig into and shape the
infrastructure, but I've been thinking about jumping ship mostly for money. I
feel like I should bring it up, but I have the distinct feeling there isn't
any more money (they share the financial info from time to time).

I thought I'd just share some anecdotal info from my time on the ground. I put
my email in the profile and would love some advice if anyone has some (it's a
throwaway account).

~~~
lsc
>Super grateful that they took a chance on me. Really happy that I got a
chance to earn my stripes and was trusted enough to dig into and shape the
infrastructure, but I've been thinking about jumping ship mostly for money. I
feel like I should bring it up, but I have the distinct feeling there isn't
any more money (they share the financial info from time to time).

I think this is one of the more useful comments here; companies offering
$60K/yr are looking for the untested, the brand new and the long-term
unemployed. People that need a chance.

I mean, no judgement; those people need jobs, too. And sometimes, sometimes
you can find someone really good in one of those categories. There's a huge
difference between a not so good and a really good developer, so you _can_
sometimes do well as a company hiring from that pool, but you are shutting
yourself off from all the good people that _are_ proven, so it's a lot more
work to find good people.

fullstacknyc:

My advice to you? Ask for more money, in a non-confrontational way. Leave out
the "or I leave" bit.

Regardless of the answer, spend some time interviewing around. If you can get
a 30%+ raise, and you almost certainly can, well, I'd switch jobs, personally.
If nothing else, it feels good to know you can.

~~~
mo_money_
For NYC rates? It wouldn't be un-fathomable to get a 100% pay raise,
especially after a few years of experience and some sort of solid track
record.

I was in a similar position about two years ago; was hired by BigCo far below
market rates and quickly excelled as one of their best devs on a 200+
contract. Long story short, their corporate policies hampered my career
progress, I left after a few years and got a 100% pay increase, better
benefits and options from a company who saw the value.

Just stay away from many of the other BigCo's as they tend to have a policy of
lifetime wage suppression, and was shocked to hear of the relatively common
policy of never giving more than ~15% over the new hire's last pay.

~~~
lsc
is telling your employer what you got paid at your last job a NYC thing? It's
not something asked by reputable companies in California.

------
whiddershins
OP here: Couldn't see the post because I have noproc set, but wow - front page
and many awesome comments.

I wanted to clarify a couple of (perhaps erroneous) assumptions in my original
question:

\- I see many comments comparing these salaries to recent grads hired by i.e.
Google, but I didn't intend to use the words "skilled" and "talented"
interchangeably. Recent grads aren't usually as effective as people with
experience, and salaries tend to reflect that. I can see many reasons why a
founder might be interested in hiring someone with little to no experience,
but the job postings didn't specifically say "junior" in them.

\- I see many comments referencing the realities of what is affordable. Yet
some of these startups are advertising more than one job opening. Therefore,
it would appear they are considering hiring three people instead of one person
for 3x the salary. My question is informed by real world experience and
written material: advice, essays and quotes including obvious and much
repeated ones by Paul Graham, Peter Thiel, and Bill Gates which emphasize the
concept that great employees are magnitudes more effective than good ones.
Every knowledge-industry employer I've talked to agrees. Much startup advice
emphasizes how bad it is to grow your team too quickly, and how a low
performing employee hurts far more than a high performing employee helps.
Given some of the companies are hiring for multiple positions, this could
imply the salaries are considered competitive, and paying more wouldn't get a
better employee.

~~~
suhail
The reality with your second point is that it is very hard to know for sure
which engineer will be 10x better due to your interview process. Great people
aren't just great technically, they also are great humans too (who can mentor,
collaborate, be humble, and see the forest from the trees). Often you don't
find out later until 3-6 months into a working relationship. I think you're
placing a lot of weight on the initial offer because many smart companies will
issue huge stock grants and salary bumps for their best employees to retain
them. And I would argue that I know this to be the case because I chase a lot
these continuously, long employed people each day that have incredible golden
hand-cuffs.

~~~
pjungwir
This is totally understandable, because in many ways programming is a "market
for lemons": good programmers disappear off the market, there is a high chance
you'll hire a bad one, and there is severe information asymmetry because it's
so hard to tell how someone will perform.

But if it's true that good employees wind up in golden handcuffs, companies
should advertise that! It's been several years since I've seen a salary that
is competitive with freelancing, but if a company had a published plan about
performance-based raises and could point to some happy employees who could
verify that theory aligns with practice, I'd be more willing to consider their
offer. Conventional wisdom is the opposite: the only way to get a decent raise
is to leave. One obstacle to using high raises to attract talent is that a
company would have to be more transparent about what salaries everyone is
earning.

~~~
suhail
I think you have to judge if you've been a top 10% team member in the past and
are capable of being one in the future. If you're not, this is unlikely to
happen to you. The reality is, most companies do this. And as a company gets
larger, they get this down to a science. The calculus here is pretty simple
because the company (whether you're a startup or Google) is very incentivized
to retain it's top-tier talent who can go and work anywhere they want.

No company will promise you millions of dollars in long-term incentivized
compensation (whether that's a stock option or a RSU) because it's highly
dependent on the output of the individual and circumstance. I do think you can
safely assume this is happening all around you (like I said: I meet many
people who we cannot get) but they may not be publicizing it on forums like
HackerNews (I am not sure many people find it kosher to boast that they made a
lot of money as opposed to people who have been burned).

To be constructive though, I think prospective employees could ask the
following set of questions to figure this out:

\- Are there people in your company that are making above $X dollars a year in
total compensation (options + salary)? I'd like to know what's possible if I
worked hard and made a huge contribution.

\- If I worked very hard and killed it, what kind of total compensation could
I expect down the road? How is it split between long-term incentives like
options and salary?

\- What's an example of a project that someone did an amazing job on that
changed the trajectory of the company? Was this rewarded? (Does the company
have projects that they valued and has acknowledged that it made a
difference?)

\- How long has the most tenured Engineer in the company been at the company?
What about the 2nd most tenured? 3rd? (This can tell you if the company has
talent at the company they believe is top-tier and if they value them
presumably because they are incentivized to stay)

I am sure there are other questions you could ask but these were just the ones
at the top of my head that I feel would be pretty convincing.

~~~
pjungwir
These seem like great questions, thank you! Perhaps next time I get a chance
I'll try them out. :-)

------
lettergram
Let me start off with, I agree with you, the salaries and equity seem a bit
low. $125k is a bit high though, a few of my friends who went straight to
Google out of college only have a salary of $95k - $125k. However...

1) Funds are limited, yes that's not a lot of money, but I have several
friends who went to work at startups because they enjoyed the atmosphere.

2) A fair number of people accepting those job positions have zero experience
and/or dropped out of college.

3) Some of the people who join startups at those wages are based out of other
countries, where those salaries are massive. I know two people who are working
remotely for starups in that fashion and they love it.

4) 1% equity is very, and YC is pushing to increase that. However, if it
wasn't working they wouldn't/couldn't do it.

~~~
boredprog
Google total compensation is far, far better than the average startup given
the same base.

~~~
phamilton
Agreed. Anecdotal example one year out of school (not me but a friend): 120k
base plus 15% bonus plus 300 RSUs over 4 years means total comp is in the 170k
range.

------
bicknergseng
Furthermore, depending on a number of factors, $60k is not a legal wage for a
salaried software engineer in California. The minimum for an exempt employee
as of 1 Jan 2015 is now $41.27 hourly, $7,165.12 per month, or an annual
salary of not less than $85,981.40 for full time, overtime exempt employment
[1].

Let me say that again for anyone working in CA in software as a salaried,
overtime exempt employee:

If you make less than $85,981.40 a year and cannot collect overtime, your
employer is not paying you a legal wage in California. You should do some
research and consider contacting a labor lawyer.

Edit: [1]
[https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/LC515-5.pdf](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/LC515-5.pdf)

------
Alex3917
> I would love to understand the logic here

I actually don't think this is unreasonable. Even if you are employee #5, you
probably didn't work on the product for a couple years without paying
yourself, pay 30k+ out of pocket for a patent, designers, and other initial
expenses, raise the money to hire employees, etc.

At most startups, even if they are successful, there still isn't enough money
to make everyone super wealthy. So I think it's reasonable that the bulk of
the equity goes to the folks who took the most risk, and everyone else gets a
decent salary, a reasonable work week, enough equity to be worth a nice bonus
if the company is sold, and ownership over whatever side projects they create.
Now if the company really was started two weeks ago and you're getting paid
dramatically under market then that's a completely different story, but a lot
of times even the earliest employees are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

~~~
fapjacks
I think this is an error in thinking. If the company goes under, everyone is
out of a job, not just the founders. The "risk" here is completely overstated
for the founding members versus early employees. And the "CEOs can only fail a
couple of times" is laughable anecdote. This isn't Baghdad, it's a startup.
The risk is about equal for everyone involved.

------
AndrewKemendo
Probably two things going on.

1\. The "significant positions" are relative to the size of the company.
Startup X's director of marketing /= Twitter's director of marketing. So the
competence needs aren't the same and as a result the salary reflects that.

2.Funding levels aren't there to offer higher salaries.

There is no good answer to either of these.

I see stupid comments on here all the time like, "Well if you can't pay me
200k a year with unlimited vacation and healthcare and a 401k then you aren't
ready for those positions." Fine, go work for Google and don't worry about
startup jobs, that shouldn't prevent Startup X for trying to fill that
position with those skills.

People also need a reality check. 110k is double the median salary for
California [1], so if you are getting those offers anywhere else than SF you
are making out like a bandit.

 _Their ownership is purely symbolic, in a relative sense, and it 's a symbol
of how little they own relative to a founder._

This is naiive. An employees risk is several magnitudes less than the founders
across many factors. That said, some of the first employees get shafted on
equity/pay and I think that is worth addressing, but again it is based on
market rates. The other thing you can choose is to go work for a employee
owned company if you choose.

[1][http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-
ame...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-americans-
earn)

~~~
funkwyrm
"An employees risk is several magnitudes less than the founders across many
factors. "

I read often about founder risk, but I think it is overstated for non-
bootstrapped companies. If you are a founder of a funded company, you get a
salary the same as everyone else. In that case, what exactly is your
"magnitudes greater" risk?

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>If you are a founder of a funded company, you get a salary the same as
everyone else.

Depends on the stage from what I have seen. Most of the other founders I know,
including myself, take 10-15% less salary than many of the employees. Also
once funded, investors will expect founders will take a haircut for a while.

~~~
dean
10-15% less salary does not equal "several magnitudes" more risk. To my mind,
for a funded company, the risk is the same for founders and employees. The
worst that can happen for both is unemployment.

~~~
rco8786
First, you're ignoring all the risk a founder has already taken just to get to
a funded state.

Second, many times(always?) a founder has personal savings wrapped up in the
company.

Third, an employee can always just quit and find a new job. The founder is
much more tightly bound to his/her company because of obligations to
investors, other employees, clients, etc. To say that "the worst case
scenario" for both is unemployment is true, but you're ignoring many other
factors that make it far more likely for the founder to be stuck going down
with the ship while employee walks away Scott free.

~~~
dottedmag
How many of those factors are purely emotional/psychological/imagined ones?

One trick to figure it out is to imagine founder being hit by bus: who will be
hurt? Will family be hurt (besides losing the founder himself)? Employees?
Clients? Investors? Anyone else?

------
jkaljundi
On the 0.5-1% equity, here is an old post by Venturehacks/Angellist outlining
the early stage (series A) option pool shuffle:
[http://venturehacks.com/articles/option-pool-
shuffle](http://venturehacks.com/articles/option-pool-shuffle)

So while the table lists 0.5-1% for early stage lead engineer, it might be
bigger for team of 3, 5 or 10 people in seed stage.

"To allocate the option pool from the hiring plan, use these current ranges
for option grants in Silicon Valley:

Title Range (%) CEO 5 – 10 COO 2 – 5 VP 1 – 2 Independent Board Member 1
Director 0.4 – 1.25 Lead Engineer 0.5 – 1 5+ years experience Engineer 0.33 –
0.66 Manager or Junior Engineer 0.2 – 0.33 These are rough ranges – not bell
curves – for new hires once a company has raised its Series A."

------
anon_53482
I'm a mid to top tier programmer in the bay area. I got into a pre series A
startup for 90k a year (on a W9 rather than a W2 so -20% after taxes and
computing no vacation or sick days) + .1% equity per month to make an iPhone
app. I had two co-workers who were sub par. They left the company. I'm
currently taking over the rest of the programming (backend/web stuff).

The system I'm inheriting is pretty bad. Security holes, bad EC2 setup and the
web front end is unmaintainable.

I can handle the work but the time required to fix everything is significant
and I feel underpaid. I got promoted to VP of engineering but my pay and
amount of stock I get didn't increase.

We're in the middle of raising series A. We are strapped for cash until series
A is completed.

I'm meeting with my CEO soon and would like to talk about a significant pay
increase as well as more equity. I don't want to seem like a jerk and say I
want at least $175k per year as well as .2% equity per month now or i'm gone
since we're in the middle of raising series A and I'm the only programmer. I
also don't want to keep kicking the can down the road.

How do I go about asking for fair compensation? How much money and equity
would you guys ask for? Anyone have any ideas like get 120k now and after
series A raise it up to 175k?

Little more about myself. Came from a top 15 CS program, placed in a couple
programming competitions, was part of a company that previously exited as a
back end dev, been programming for 17 years and I'd I've been at start-ups
since I graduated in 2007.

~~~
Firegarden
What I find the easiest is if you are not dealing directly with the CEO or
person approving the raise. In that case you can just let your supervisor know
you need that rate to stay on board.

If you are dealing with the CEO or person approving the raise and you feel the
need to justify yourself I would keep it short and simple like "In order for
me to move forward in this position my salary has to be at $175K". There
really isn't much else to say. Just like 50 Cent - you must to be able to walk
away - and that is your power. You 100% should ask for the raise or leave.
Don't get caught up with letting OPP affect you. OPP = Other peoples problems.
For example the CEO is a f#ck up for a large variety of reasons so he gets you
believing they are in the middle of "raising series A" or whatever else
bullshit that you have no control over therefore has nothing to do with you.
It's all about you mo fo. His problem is actually more like he is "in the
middle of raising series A and is about to lose a top developer who knows the
code base". Don't worry if the CEO is worth his weight he will solve that
problem.

Catch my drift? You only live once my friend - DO NOT LEAVE MONEY ON THE
TABLE.

------
joshvm
Anyone know what the equivalent standards are for the UK?

Perspective: the average gross salary here is between £25-30k or around $46k
max. $125k or £80k is senior staff pay in most organisations.

Even among general engineering positions (not necessarily coding), a 'good'
salary here is £35-40k. From what Google tells me it looks like wages top out
at around £50k for experienced devs.

~~~
justincormack
I only know London, but senior people get more than £50k. It is slightly
confused by finance, which pays much more, and people who contract - lots of
companies pay little for permanent staff but pay £500 a day for long term
contractors, which makes no sense, as if they upped their permanent rates they
could hire good people instead.

~~~
nvarsj
It makes some sense.

Overhead of a permanent employee in UK is pretty high. I've heard estimates as
high as 50% of base salary, maybe more. On top of that are the usual perks, 3
months notice, and an onerous process to get you fired. Once permie, you're
basically guaranteed employment unless your company goes broke.

Compare that to the contractor. There is virtually no overhead for the
company. They claim VAT, and expense your rate. And it's very easy to get rid
of you, or hire you. A company can ramp up and ramp down as the need arises
for new projects - which has a lot of appeal.

It's interesting for me coming from the U.S.. I think it's largely a result of
the regulation. An at-will permanent employee system, like in the US, seems to
benefit in-demand professions a lot more than the UK/EU regulated system.

~~~
ionwake
. An at-will permanent employee system

Hi can you explain what you mean - great post but dont quite understand your
last paragraph...

~~~
sentrote
Many Americans have almost no job security, you can be sacked at any time
without a reason.

I'm only aware of it through HN etc; so I'll just point you to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-
will_employment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)

------
alain94040
$60K seems low to you, but it's infinitely better than the deal those startups
would have offered before getting into YC. Before YC, it's "please join us for
equity, we have no cash to pay salary at all". 5% of equity with $0 is a deal
that very few people can afford to take. With $60K, at least you are getting
some protection. If it becomes intenable after 6 months, you can always quit.

There are multiple price points available for people to join the startup life,
so it's a good thing. Of course startups would love to pay much more, but when
all you have raised is $150K, you can't offer huge salaries to many people.

~~~
bagels
My favorite offer was $0 + less than 1%, while another place was offering
140k. The guy got irritated when I showed the math on how this was a poor
offer.

~~~
busterarm
It takes a certain amount of balls to ask someone to work for free. Hell, I'm
not even sure how that would be legal - especially in NYC.

That said, I see folks in New York doing this sort of thing all the time, just
mostly in creative fields.

------
SeoxyS
AngelList has a page where you can explore startup salary data and filter by
location (and other things):
[http://angel.co/salaries](http://angel.co/salaries)

Full disclosure: I work at AngelList.

~~~
throwawaynyc
I hope someone from AngelList read this comment: I live in NYC and was job
hunting about a year ago because I wanted to move on after four years at my
previous company. I am currently employed at a new startup and very satisfied
with my current compensation.

I spent a lot of time on AngelList jobs page looking for companies aligned
with my interests and I finally interviewed at two of them. When we got to the
salary negotiation stage, their pay scale were nothing close to what was
advertised on their AngelList jobs page. I also have to say, that I don't care
about equity (I've had some disappointments before regarding equity). I ended
up at a different company that I found on Stack Overflow Careers. (I don't
have any affiliation with SO)

I don't know if someone else has had the same experience with AngelList
companies, but I think they advertise high salaries only to get more
visibility and a better ranking on search results. I don't know if there is a
way for AngelList to control this, maybe allowing candidates and employees to
add reviews about the interview process could be an idea.

~~~
dzohrob
Hi there, I run AngelList Talent. I'm really sorry to hear about your bad
experience.

Our guidelines require companies to list fair and accurate compensation [1].
We receive and act upon candidates' reports of bad company behavior -- from
unprofessionalism to salaries not matching the ranges they've posted -- every
day. Many companies who get reported are banned from using the service. And to
help combat this specific problem, I've recently (in the last month) made our
job posting form much more explicit about our rules around compensation and
recruiters.

Your suggestion that we accept reviews from candidates and employees is a good
one -- it's on our to-do list for the next quarter. I think it'll go a long
way towards solving this problem.

We can't catch every job or every bad actor -- there are about 17,000 active
listings on the site right now, with many more posted each day. But we're
working to improve the experience for both sides, and we rely both on
algorithms and reports from users like you to make that happen.

I'd really like to hear more about your specific situation. If you care to
share, ping me at dave@angel.co -- I'm based in NYC and have a vested interest
in making sure our marketplace operates well here.

Thanks for your time and for bringing this to our attention.

[1] angel.co/help/talent#rules

------
graycat
At one time around DC, for mostly US DoD and NASA work, there was a shortage
of people good in math and software. So, once in two weeks I went on seven
interviews and got five offers.

At one point I was making in annual salary six times what a high end new
Camaro cost. Now that would be ballpark $240,000, and jobs were plentiful.

That's something like the situation when companies really want good employees.

Net, so far Silicon Valley doesn't really want good employees. Neither do NYC
or Boston. Not yet.

------
boredprog
Throwaway for obvious reasons, though you might figure out who I am if you
know me personally.

For early stage startups, I was being told 100k + 1% was standard in NYC. This
was by several places, or you could just go look at AngelList where they often
explicitly list it.

I ended up getting rejected by tons of NYC late-stage startups (Percolate,
Recombine, Betterment, YCharts, Digital Ocean, SquareSpace, Airtime), and I'm
90% sure that compensation expectations were a big reason, since I usually got
past the tech screen but things broke down once we started talking
compensation. I also got knocked out by some tech screens because they are
crapshoots, and when I do 15 code screens I'm bound to make a few mistakes.

The market is in a weird spot, tons of companies desperately want engineers
but they are freaked out by how fast salaries are climbing. They really don't
want to go into bidding wars over people, and they really don't want to give
new hires more then current hires and then be forced to give their entire
engineering staff raises. Based on some conversations, I think they actually
expect salaries to go back down but I think they are delusional, I hear an
incredible amount of companies that are planning on ramping up hiring. Now
granted if I could reliably predict macroeconomic trends I wouldn't need to
work for someone else, so I'm just guessing. I do think there might be an
"app"/"big data" bubble but there are so many traditional businesses ramping
up on software hiring for things like ecommerce, logistics, and operations.

Companies will say they can't find talent and will pay whatever (i.e. pg), but
it's bullshit, cost is still an enormous factor and they are working hard to
keep it down via information asymmetry, bait-and-switch tactics (had several
companies tell me one number on Hired and then go significantly lower in
person), immigration lobbying, etc. De Blasio just signed some "tech talent
pipeline" thing, which is pretty ridiculous given how many places rejected me.

If talent was really short, they wouldn't make people with 8 years of
experience and a portfolio explain the difference between a linked list and
array over the phone, they would be upfront about salary numbers (and actually
show up with that number rather than one that was 10k lower) etc etc.

There is a ton of VC money out there and a lot of companies still think it's
2009 and they can get people cheap, a lot of average engineers are now VP of
Engineering at some random startup with no team, and still thinking they can
fill out that team with people making less than them. In reality, you have to
pay me _more_ to take a lower role, not less like they expect.

Also this is unrelated to salary but I got rejected by tons of places for
seemingly no reason, when it's not compensation expectations I think it's a
general sense of elitism and "we have a high bar", "we need false negatives".
It's idiotic to do that then complain you can't find people but they all do, I
think they take a sick pride in rejecting people and feeling selective, even
if it hurts them. I'm pretty sure if you are a qualified heart surgeon, most
places looking for heart surgeons will hire you, but if you are a qualified
engineer you go through an insane interview process and no matter how good you
are, 70% of the time you get rejected for some bullshit false negative reason.
Feel incredibly lucky I snagged that Google offer.

There is not tech talent shortage, it's 100% about cost. Meanwhile, in-house
counsel with comparable experience can easily swing 160k base, the VCs and the
CEOs pay themselves well, etc etc. They still view engineers as rank-and-file
bitches who are at the bottom of the totem pole and whose salary must be kept
low.

/rant

~~~
fivedogit
I just went through a long period of job hunting (thankfully now employed) and
this post rings 100% true, especially the part about being rejected for
inexplicable reasons. The "gotcha" question about Fourier transforms that you
last worked with for half a semester in college 10 years ago? That question
cannot possibly be a serious qualifier for a full stack dev position. Instead,
i suspect it's meant to either (a) make the interviewer look smart to their
(possibly nontechnical) startup founder bosses and (b) provide cover for
rejecting you for some other reason that can't be spoken out loud, like
"cultural fit".

I think you're right. They set salaries low and the bar insanely high, reject
a bunch of candidates to make themselves feel like they can be the next
Google, then ultimately settle on a lucky person who just happens to be there
as they've gotten acutely desperate and given up hope of finding a mythical
10x engineer.

~~~
gaius
Asking questions about undergrad topics is a way to sneak ageism under the
radar. Companies who do this should be named and shamed.

------
lion_del
I understand your point of view - these numbers do not make much sense to me
at all - I'd imagine any good engineer would understand his value in the
current market and look to maximise his return. But I imagine these people are
following the trends they see in other posts, and also hoping that other
factors of the job (company, mission, people, coding environment) add weight
to their opportunity.

The biggest irk I have with a number of these posts is indeed the equity
offering. Whilst I can't comment, or be correct on all the companies, most of
them seem quite early stage. I would expect them to offer a larger amount of
equity (higher pcg). This to a lot of early stage hires can be a big a
motivator. If the company offers a large chunk then it shows a commitment to
that person that they value their contribution and see them as critical in the
success of the company.

------
four
You have taken the words right out of my mouth! I, too, would like to
understand the reasons. I just read the Chariot Lead Designer post with
dismay. ([https://angel.co/chariot/jobs/45415-lead-
designer](https://angel.co/chariot/jobs/45415-lead-designer)) Now, the other
comments are interesting, but speculative or general to the point of not
providing applicable knowledge. I will come back to see if anyone who set
these terms will tell us their reasoning. My interest is practical. I have
been thinking about compensation lately in case I have the good fortune to: 1)
get into YC S15 and 2) survive and 3) need to hire. Also, I mentor designers
and so am a sponge for compensation data and explanations.

~~~
mycroft-holmes
60-90k in _San Francisco_? Can you even make it in SF with that salary?

~~~
joesmo
You might be able to get by with 90k, assuming you're frugal, though given the
rents today, it would be wise to live outside the city. 60k would be a pretty
crappy existence in SF these days.

~~~
jwatte
60k is what an experienced teacher makes.

Who do you want to teach your children? Would you want them to live in your
community?

~~~
joesmo
I would want them to make a decent wage (much more than 60k in SF) for their
hard, essential work. Whether they live in the "community" or not is
irrelevant (except for their commute, in which case, yes). It won't lead to
better education or a better experience for the children.

------
jim_greco
NYC is tough. You're competing against a lot of finance companies for talent.
Developers are used to a higher base salary than $125k and a yearly cash
bonus. People value stock a lot less because it's not part of the typical comp
package and they haven't seen the rewards it can generate like they've seen in
the Valley.

Personally, I doubt companies in the Valley are getting very good developers
for $60-$110k salary and 0.5%-1% equity. Why would any smart developer do that
when they can go to a later stage VC company that has a lot larger chance of
success and get market salary + 0.1% equity.

------
cpwright
In NY, at least for a developer Google and Facebook have to compete against
banks and hedge funds for talent. In my experience, Google can pretty well go
toe-to-toe with them if they desire. So that finance offers higher
compensation, means Google also has to offer higher compensation.

Now some speculation, if Google is offering higher compensation than they
otherwise would, so will other companies competing for the same talent.

Even if you only think they are fiercely competing at the high-end of the
market, I would believe there is some trickle down to the mid-range, which
when then also go down to the lower end.

------
mbesto
You are right, YC companies are under-market in the straight line terms of
salary and equity. My theory is that many people are willing to work for YC
companies for less money in the early days. Why?

1\. Lower risk (wether perceived or otherwise)

2\. Better mobility ("I was hire #2 at prestigious YC company XYZ")

3\. Better personal networking ("Hey founder, can you put me in touch with XYZ
at YC company Foo")

Note - As many people point out, the same engineer who would work at a YC
startup would make much less than going to Google/FB, etc. This is a pretty
well known fact.

------
zkhalique
I personally prefer to partner per project. I think I should make it an
acronym, PPP.

Giving away 30% of the project's net income for the lifetime of the project
makes a developer more invested, and is better than giving away 2% of your
company. The $$ comes quicker for the developer, and you as a company take on
less risk. Vesting company options with a cliff can really screw a developer.
Vesting equity in a particular app or project makes the incentives align
correctly.

~~~
DenisM
Never heard of this before, but it makes sense. Does it work well for you in
practice? Are you not worrie your product is made a loss leader, driving your
share to zero?

~~~
zkhalique
No we aren't. Consider this: your company could be producing more products
than it currently is. You have tons of ideas but not enough resources to do
them all. With PPP, the cost of a developer now becomes just attracting and
onboarding them. What are the chances a given project will succeed? They are
less than 30%. So, the expected value of this strategy vs paying for the
developer is positive, especially if you don't have the $ to spend on all
kinds of projects and see what works.

So you can certainly justify it for projects that you wouldn't have otherwise
undertaken. The projects that you have to develop for sure, are another story.
And then there is everything in between. This is just a great way to structure
those deals fairly and align incentives instead of trying to optimize your own
share. If the project fails, then you lost nothing. If the project succeeds --
and the developer is more incentivized that it will -- then you get a partner
with whom you are both interested in increasing the revenue.

We've done it with our apps and have been happy with the results. It works
especially well with startups without a huge budget, but a platform and
technology that can be used by many people. We've actually open sourced our
platform, and in the future plan to do an entire accelerator program around
this concept. In our situation we have a few more things:

* We have a clause that if the developer leaves and we spend X amount (at our discretion) on the app, then 30% of X is coming out of the money due to them, with the proviso that they won't ever get less than 10% in any given month. And of course they get 30% only if they launch version 1.0 of the product, and complete all the deliverables.

* We have a quarter million monthly active users, so the developer is interested in working with us vs stealing our idea and going solo. Because if they launch through us and we handle all the QA, production, launch etc. then we can get their app a big userbase from day 1. They are as happy as we are to give 30% to Apple for taking care of all the sales, fulfillment, credit card processing etc.

~~~
DenisM
Is there a time out on the deal? Or is the 30% perpetual?

~~~
zkhalique
We have it perpetual. Don't know if that's good or bad, since that would
require going all the way to the end... but that's what we've chosen. You can
try your own way.

------
lpolovets
I did some research on salary/equity grants last year and published a blog
post on the subject. The dataset was most Silicon Valley job postings on
AngelList (at that time). Based on my data, $60k salary is very much on the
low end (i.e. 10th percentile of salaries). .5-1% equity may or may not be
low-end -- it definitely depends on company size. That said, you will almost
never see >1% equity once you get past the first few hires (except for VP
roles).

Post link: [http://codingvc.com/analyzing-angellist-job-postings-
part-2-...](http://codingvc.com/analyzing-angellist-job-postings-
part-2-salary-and-equity-benchmarks)

Edit: You are right that compensation is generally lower than for non-
startups. To be fair, a lot of people look beyond compensation when pursuing
startup jobs. They're looking for more ownership, less bureaucracy, a chance
to learn, a chance to form very deep personal and professional relationships,
and so on. And of course, there is the equity lottery ticket (which usually
doesn't end up being worth very much..)

------
montz
Even 0.5-1% is at the higher end if you join early. And 100K at a startup is
probably for the well funded ones. If you join later even at 50 person
startup, the equity goes down to 0.0015. Everyone believes their startup is
the next FB. With that small of a percentage ownership, you'll only make money
if it's a $1B exit. Otherwise all employees get screwed. Lost opportunity
costs, lost physical/mental health but I guess gained good experience and
scratch the startup itch. Honestly at this point, the VC's have fully gamed
the system to work it in their favor and employees are commodities. If you
hear any thing else it's a lie.

Incase, you wanted to compare base wages at companies, I've created
salarytalk.org to publish base wages at companies in USA based on
jobtitle/location/state. While you don't have total compensation, adding
20-30% to base wage is often close enough. This data is from US department of
labor for foregin labor, which is a significant part of the employee base, so
the data is highly accurate.

------
emmett
Where are you seeing these numbers from? What stage of startup? If Uber
offered you 1% equity and $60k/year you'd have to be an idiot to turn them
down at this stage. If an unfunded just-an-idea startup did, you'd never take
it.

Basically: you can't evaluate equity in a vacuum. It's entirely company-and-
stage-of-growth-dependent. Those offers might be awesome or terrible.

------
lisa_henderson
In New York City I was just offered a job at a startup, as a senior engineer.
The company is small (only 5 people) but they have many customers, they are
profitable, and it is fairly certain they are going to be successful. They
had, for years, offered sysadmin services to companies in New York City, but
during that time they built a meta-framework on top of Chef, a framework that
allows the automation of a fantastic range of sysadmin tasks, and now they've
built a GUI on top of it, so less talented people can do a wide range of
tasks.

They plan to grow for 5 years and then sell for something between $25 to $100
million, depending on how much growth they get.

I was offered $90,000 and 1% of the company. This is a startup where the risks
are fairly low, considering that they already have customers who love them,
and they are cash flow positive, and they are growing quickly.

For a risky startup, I would have asked for 4%.

~~~
ryanSrich
$90k in NYC is a pittance. You can make that much as an Uber Driver [1].
Making any less than $200k in NYC pretty much guarantees roommates. If you're
single, no kids, no plan to have kids, no plan to get married or aren't
already married and have no student loans. Well then yeah, take the risk on
half your worth. If not, I highly recommend looking into a reputable company
with reputable market rate salaries.

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-
salary-90000-201...](http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-
salary-90000-2014-5)

~~~
gargarplex
I don't know if you're trolling, but it's not easy to find a $200k salary in
NYC. Where are all of these companies with "reputable market rate salaries"?
Can you name five of them? I'll apply today.

[http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-
eng...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/new-york-city-software-engineer-
salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM615_KO14,31.htm)

~~~
ryanSrich
No I'm not trolling. Glassdoor, angelist, etc. are poor indicators of
compensation. You shouldn't base what you make from what someone else self-
reports as their salary on the internet. But to address your point, here are a
few that are approaching and or exceeding $200k in just salary (all exceed
$200k after bonuses).

\- [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-
Engine...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engineer-New-
York-City-Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,30_IL.31,44_IM615.htm)

\- [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Sales-Manager-New-
Yor...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Sales-Manager-New-York-City-
Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,20_IL.21,34_IM615.htm)

\- [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-
IV-...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-IV-New-York-
City-Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,27_IL.28,41_IM615.htm)

\- [http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Site-
Reliabilit...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Site-Reliability-
Engineer-New-York-City-Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,38_IL.39,52_IM615.htm)

And those are just at Google. If you think those are high then I'd recommend
checking out some of the financial giants employing quants on wall street.

~~~
gargarplex
Okay, so Google, and financial quant jobs that require a specialized degree.

------
endophage
Depending on the specific position and language in use, $110k might be
reasonable for an SV job. $60k is non-top tier college grad salary. There is
definitely competition for great software engineers, but what most people
assume is you throw a rock and you'll hit a great software engineer in SV.
That's just not the case. There are lots of very good engineers, but a much
smaller pool of great engineers.

We all hear the stories about companies paying ridiculous salaries in Silicon
Valley but bear in mind Glassdoor pegs the average engineering salary around
$110k for SV. The guy from Google who was in the news a year or so ago because
he was earning ~$3 million a year had done something special to get there.

The guys earning the big bucks have proven track records and expertise that
commands a high salary. I agree with other people here that you shouldn't take
a pay cut for equity, but don't be surprised when you see lots of job postings
around $100k.

Also consider that there are a lot of startups that raise 6 figure seed rounds
and under $10 mil Series A that you don't hear about, compared to the (mostly
over) hyped startups that raise millions in seed and tens of millions in
Series A. They literally can't afford to pay people enormous salaries.

~~~
pgwhalen
Are there really SV dev salaries as low as $60k? That struck me as a bit low
coming out of school even in Chicago, and I did not go to a "top-tier" school
("flagship" but nothing special state school).

~~~
mattmurdog
$60 is typically how much offshore folks get paid so I can't imagine any local
devs making that little.

------
mrcsparker
This is because you are looking at startups. These are products that no one is
sure will work, and the company is trying to get a product to market as
quickly and cheaply as possible.

The codebase doesn't have to look great and the product doesn't have to be
perfect. The question is: is there a market for this thing? Why pay more than
you have to just to get the MVP out the door? This isn't cynical, this is how
it works.

Once the product is proven, then you can bring in a second group of people to
take it from V1 -> V2. Since this is HN, no one really talks about what
happens once a company moves beyond startup, but there is a second market of
developers that are brought in once a product is proven and needs to reach the
next level of maturation. A lot of people reading this post are in this market
right now: there are companies which you can hire that will help you re-
architect your code, architecture, development process, devops, etc.

It used to be a lot harder to get a job at a company as an unproven developer.
Now there are a lot more options. If you have a lot of experience and you are
thinking of entering the startup market, you should look at starting your own
company.

------
carsongross
The problem is a dearth of technical talent.

We need to let in more technical workers to address this issue.

~~~
vonmoltke
I think the problem is an abundance of math skills. After all, as so many
startup engineer blog posts have said, you don't really need math to write web
applications.

We need to replace the math courses in a CS degree with something more useful.
Maybe some classes on Javascript, NoSQL, and whiteboard coding.

~~~
StrLght
Really? I mean math is something irreplaceable in CS. It would be replaceable
if it was something like "web apps development" degree.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
I'm hoping the parent is making a joke by riffing on the absurd technical
requirements demanded by startups for working on what amounts to a glorified
CRUD webapp. The math heavy analysis that a CS degree provides just isn't
necessary for, oh, 95% of programming jobs. The people who design the systems
for reliability or process "big data" at huge companies with _real_ scaling
issues (Google, Facebook) need to have such training.

On the other hand, these companies do need talent who never the less have
skills that are rleatively rare. They shouldn't need to pay engineers the
$200k+ salaries of big companies, but expecting to get median quality
engineering without paying more than $110k/yr is as ridiculous as a non-
degreed "webdev" expecting $180k/yr because he can slap some customizations on
bootstrap and poke around a Ruby codebase.

~~~
TimPC
It depends. If you have a large enough team on a project that you can shield
someone from math oriented and efficiency sensitive tasks as well as the
planning in place to do it then the math heavy analysis isn't needed. Many
start-ups have teams of 1-2 working on entire web apps and need everyone to be
able to take on any task. Many people without the math background end up
writing n^3 solutions to O(n) problems in code that gets executed at high
frequency. The core value of those math skills isn't their explicit use, it's
the training the brain gets in writing efficient algorithms and having
knowledge of how hard certain problems are. Even in CRUD apps I've often seen
requirements that are equivalent to NP-hard problems on large data sets, and
I've been able to discuss the efficiency tradeoffs allowing the business team
to redesign features when they weren't happy with performance. Without the
math background, we'd see build it, put it in production and when the data
gets large enough cry about performance and lose users waiting forever for a
page to load.

The last piece is in many start-ups I've seen the programming team will own or
co-own Analytics because of a lack of statistics skills on the business team.
Again with a small team not having a solid math and stats background has huge
implications on the data analysis portion of roles.

------
qzcx
Considering I got offers of $65K, $83K and $95K fresh out of college this
year, I would say they aren't looking for experienced developers.

~~~
pconner
In what cities?

~~~
qzcx
Boise, Idaho; Fort Collins, CO; Madison, WI respectively

------
MalcolmDiggs
IMHO the publicly listed salaries are usually BS. For one reason or another,
they feel compelled to list _something_ regarding salary, but they also don't
want to "show their hand", so they list a humble level of comp.

But in reality, when you're in a salary-negotiation with any of those
companies, the comp-level listed in their hiring ad goes right out the window.

------
abalone
The culture here is higher risk and geared towards building the next unicorn
companies. That is why equity plays such a significant role.

 _> Their ownership is purely symbolic, in a relative sense_

You're downplaying the significance of a 0.5-1% stake. 1% of the next Facebook
would definitely not be purely symbolic. Late stage VC investments are lucky
to get a few percentage points in a company; this is the only opportunity in
the company's life where a non-c-level employee could get that kind of a
stake.

It is a lot less than what founders get, but if you don't like that you can
always try your hand at being a founder yourself.

There are of course countless anecdotes that can be told about how someone's
equity stake didn't amount to much. Because the majority don't. But we are
geared towards trying to be a part of something that is truly very big and
world changing, and that is riskier.

~~~
greenyoda
_" 1% of the next Facebook would definitely not be purely symbolic."_

But what percentage of companies are going to be the next Google or Facebook
or Apple? Companies that make their founders billionaires and their employees
millionaires are very, very rare. If you were an early employee of any of
these companies, you probably couldn't have predicted how big these companies
would be today.

~~~
abalone
There are also exits along they way via acquisitions that can produce good
outcomes. But overall yes, it's true that it's quite rare for a startup
engineer to become a multi-millionaire based on a few years work early in
their career.

However it does happen and it's an opportunity uniquely available in the
startup sector.

The great thing is you have a choice. You can go work for an established
company and make $150k+ or a startup that you believe in and would have fun at
and maybe have a shot at really big money 5-10 years from now. Up to you.

------
ykumar6
A $125K floor-rate in the SF-bay area sounds about right. The competition for
developers hasn't let up, and many startups ($10M+ in funding) are using cash
as a weapon.

This IMO represents the biggest threat to early-stage startups out of YC or
other incubators. Anything less than $100K is not a liveable salary in San
Francisco.

------
artemk
There are a number of details to understand that explain the salary / equity.

The first thing is the range. More jr. candidates are on the lower end of both
salary and equity. Yet relatively close to market rates. More sr. candidates
are on the higher end of range and usually have to decide if they value equity
or salary more, for the final compensation package.

The second thing is the type of start ups that offer this level of
compensation: early stage / seed-funded. These are not Uber, AirBnb, Dropbox,
Pinterest, etc. especially given that many companies that post on HN are
graduates of YC, these guys have their first major investment to work with
post-demo day. They aren't working with $25-50-100 million. They have $1-2
million to make the most out of. This limits the ability to pay market rate.
Yet allows for engineers to be on the ground floor of a potentially a huge
opportunity (or not).

Third thing is the equity...and a bit of a reality check. The founders came up
with an idea, worked on it for quite a while, with $0 salary, applied to and
got into YC, raised (in all absolutes) a large amount of money (you try
getting someone to give you $1 million), gave up some of the equity for that
funding, and you want what, 10%? 20%? What sounds fair? Unless you're the
first engineer, with a background of leadership that will make you qualified
to lead the growing team, 1% is extremely fair. If the company is truly
successful, you're looking to make over $1 million. Even if you're underpaid
by $50k, that's 20-years worth of difference, which you'll see in under 5
years. Of course there's no guarantee, but that's business.

The other question to ask is are you getting options or RSUs - huge
difference.

And finally, the low salaries are typically brought up to market rate after
series A (the first big round). This round is usually raised with 0-2 years of
the seed round. So you take a risk of $50Kx2 and stand to make $50x20.

That doesn't sound that crazy.

~~~
tomp
> If the company is truly successful, you're looking to make over $1 million.
> Even if you're underpaid by $50k, that's 20-years worth of difference, which
> you'll see in under 5 years.

You can't evaluate the "equity" part of compensation like that. The chances of
that happening are very low, and you're most likely to get diluted further.
E.g. the chances of >$100M exit are 10% (which is a huge overestimate), it
takes 5 years, and you get diluted 50% (so you end up with 0.5% of the
company): you get $1M, which is $200K per year, with a probability of 10%, so
the expected value is $20K. Sure, the exit might be an order (or two) of
magnitude higher, but the chances of that happening drop even more rapidly.

Of course, you might be risk-loving, accept the equity not for the expected
value, but for the variance, but then again, I don't think it's (usually)
worth it.

~~~
artemk
I agree that the risk is high and isn't for everyone.

~~~
aioprisan
The risk is high for a very low return. A best case of $20k? That difference
is very small for a very large risk, and the pay cut from an established
company it obviously not worth it.

~~~
tomp
No, $20K is the expected value. Best case is $500K or $100K/year (for a $100M
exit).

------
djmds
Hi, I'm italian. I had a "good" chance with an italian startupper based in SF,
I worked from home in Italy while waiting for my visa. Never seen it. I had a
contract for 4.2k$/month plus stock options but he said that he could not send
more than 3k$/month in italy to avoid IRS checks, so I agreed to get
1.2k$/month in sign in bonuses when I'd have been in San Francisco. My salary
began to be late after may (I billed June in November), my visa was never
ready... and in November I broke up. I just said him to f __k off losing my
28k$ credit just because this "good person" said me that I WAS A ROBBERY
because I did not give him an algorithm. The fact was simple: he did not payed
for that algorithm, it should have been done in December. I did a lot of other
works till that moment, like: tutoring juniors, managing comunication with
frontend team and backend development with SF resources (during italian
night), I did releases and saved his ass when some SF guy did some mistakes!
So by the end, he payed a Senior Software Engineer the great amount of
18k$/year. I was getting mad, so better say a "f __k u " than going crazy. He
proposed to pay me a small amount of money to get an agreement where I
declared to never speak bad about him... he was a fool! I'll never agree with
that. My idea is simple now: MONEY NOW! WORDS LATER! Don't get fooled by these
people. Shares are not going to make you rich in the 99.8% of the cases! I
passed a year listening to stories about our successful future, about
milionaire investments that he never got and about how beautiful would have
become my life in silicon valley... this kind of people is made by great
liars... trust them only if they give you warranties and expirations to refund
you (I bet nobody will never give that to you because "it's a startup")! I got
no contracts, I got no money, my ceo was a "good italian" entrepreneur in
silicon valley, the same "good italian" as our politicians: they speak good,
they act bad... I will never trust someone like him again. I will just start a
procedure for an international fraud just to do my citizen duty. Take care and
be warned!

------
damm
There's two problems with the startup salaries.

1) They really do want someone that cheap. But as an Engineer we know the
Cheap comes out Expensive; so if you respect yourself you should know better
not to apply.

2) Really it's a different location. You could(2014, don't know if this is
still true) find a DevOps employee for 220k for intermediate/experienced
level. If he flies to NY his starting Salary is about 300k

Additionally; we have a surge of _disruptive_ capitalism. I have seen a
company try and drive down the salary for a job in the area; they get what
they pay for.

Respect yourself and when your gut says this job is a Lemon; either ask for
more or tap out.

------
BhavdeepSethi
This is so true. I've been interviewing for summer internships with various
startups in NYC/SF. I'm not a fresh graduate. I have over three years of quite
relevant work-experience. The consistent opinion of all the start-ups are that
they treat their interns as full-time employees in terms of responsibility,
ownership, etc. It's only during compensation that they start talking about
risk, start-up status, etc. If you really want to treat us like full-time
employees, you should consider paying the interns like full-time employees as
well.

------
seannaM
A) Working in startups is more interesting/fun (If you can have fun being
stressed out) than most companies. A lot of people will compromise
compensation for fun.

B) The benefits of income have diminishing returns (Very scientifically
through the tax system, but also because you mostly only become able to buy
things lower on your priority list.)

C) Lots of people make do under 60k, software engineers are _mostly_ able to
make do as well as them. (A couple of exceptions for engineers who live in
very expensive cities, have a lot of student loans, or are likely to burn out
quickly)

------
pmorici
Have you considered it is a negotiating tactic on the part of the company? If
they listed starting salaries at $140k that puts a floor on any salary
negotiation with a prospective candidate. Where as if they open ridiculously
low then come up 20% above the job add number in the initial offer the
candidate might think "wow they really want me" count themselves lucky and
accept that thinking they got a good deal. It could also be meant to target
candidates outside the Bay area where 60-110k might be a decent salary.

~~~
greenyoda
However, if they advertise a ridiculously low salary, they risk being ignored
by most competent developers.

------
blfr
Maybe compensation is more negotiable than it seems? Or people are willing to
lower their rates to associate with the YC brand? Maybe they treat it more
like an internship in preparation for starting their own company? Perhaps work
conditions are so great that it doesn't feel like work at all. Finally,
startups might be willing to take a chance on applicants lacking credentials.

Just guessing here. We would need to ask someone who accepted an offer and
they might be, understandably, reluctant to discuss it in public.

------
interleave
"I would anticipate a floor on pay of $125k. I don't care if that's a designer
or a developer or a marketer or what"

We surveyed 250 vc-backed startups who raised more than $2,319,116,164 and
found that it's much, much more complex than $125K for everyone.

If you are interested, you can get the report at
[http://ventureassembly.huddlemetrics.com/get](http://ventureassembly.huddlemetrics.com/get)

Again, disclaimer: I'm part of the founding team.

------
ninjakeyboard
I worked at a startup that was bought by google and my options weren't worth
anything. Strike price has to be pretty low for things to turn out well for
you.

------
brikis98
Depending on where you are and the size/stage of the startup, those numbers
seem roughly in the right ballpark. To compare, check out the salary
resources[1] and equity resources[2], which have calculators and tables that
show you typical numbers.

    
    
      [1] http://www.hello-startup.net/resources/salary/
      [2] http://www.hello-startup.net/resources/equity/

------
falcolas
One of the things I've noticed in the NY market is that you're competing
against the financial giants, who offer correspondingly huge salaries, and who
tend to churn through people very quickly.

If you want to lure someone to your company, you have to compete a lot more on
salary than you might have to in SF; in the back of their mind they're
comparing you against the big bucks they could make down the street.

------
darkstar999
Is $125k decent in NYC for a vital position? It seems low after adjusting for
living expenses. I'm guessing you are factoring in equity as well.

------
pbreit
$60k and 0.5% for engineer ar employee #5 sounds low. But you're missing that
YC companies are attractive employers and a lot of people are motivated as
much or more on what they are working on and with who. And that a reasonable
case can be made that YC equity is more highly valued than non-YC equity.
Also, it's likely that $60-80k salaries are temporary reductions pending
funding.

------
31reasons
All of this boils down to one word : GREED. Most people starting startup in
bubble by definition greedy. They are not there to change the world per se,
like Elon Musk. They want to have more equity when they sell the company.
Period.

I believe first 5 people in the company should be given double digit equity.

~~~
archgoon
Elon Musk is able to do what he does largely because he made himself rich off
a startup. If you want to be Elon Musk, you have to be rich.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Even PayPal was bootstrapped partly with what he made off a previous startup.

------
percept
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/25/cheat-
sheet-10-richest-cities/21394881/)

------
Tyguy7
I don't really know the market that well, but I've had trouble securing more
than $85K as a full stack developer. It seems in Southern California that the
max pay for that kind of position isn't much more than $100k.

------
mrbill
Every time I've been offered options / equity in lieu of higher salary, I've
taken the higher salary instead and ended up better off.

Some people don't want to play the odds game and would rather just have the
money to use now.

------
logicallee
<s> Let's also talk about the incredibly short shrift founders get who are
bootstrapping pre-product.

Why do I need to complete a product and make sales, get funding, before I can
pay myself a salary? Building a company require resources. I have to eat and
pay rent. But my company, without resources, can't pay me, even if I'm 100% of
its labor pool, being a solo founder/CEO (on the startup I'm referring to -
there's another I'm involved with with a cofounder);

No salary. Why can't I just write a SMALL check to myself, why do I need
either investment or sales to do this? Can't the money just NOT have to come
from somewhere? This is rather unfair, I hope people here will agree.

The only way I see out is building massive value. Unlike your example, where
you get 1% while having a six-figure salary and chance to learn to do it all
and become a millionaire on your own next, I am not even earning 5 figures.

how is this fair? Maybe I shouldn't be doing a startuuuuuuu -oh, I see what
your problem is :) :) :)

</s>

Seriously. Why do you want to work for a startup if you don't want to end up
with 1% of a $100M company, while receiving six figures for the privilege
(i.e. someone is paying _you_ , six figures, to play the lottery; and being
highly technical and having direct effect in your role, you _both_ have
asymmetric information and can build the lotterys' RNG yourself, e.g. by
building the best product on the market and protecting that status.) Finally
you get to learn everything it takes to found your own startup and receive
funding later.

there are a million BigCorp's that compete without regard for startup aignment
or risk/reward. what makes you want to work for a startup anyway, given what
you've described? Wouldn't you be a better match for Microsoft or Google?

honest questions here and a perspective from the other side - someone with a
large founding appetite rather than salary requirement.

~~~
eropple
The odds are hilariously against your startup being a $100MM company. They are
not hilariously against your company being shitty, exploitative, and--my
favorite--promising to prepare J. Random Engineer to "found their own startup"
while instead leeching their free time and their weekends for your dream of
socialmobilelocal.

And let's be very clear about something: "making six figures" does not mean
you are not being exploited. The magnitude of that exploitation certainly
differs from that of economic underclasses, but the attitude does not. And I
am mostly out of startups these days because of the attitudes expressed in
your post. I cheer for a bubble, because it'll wash some of the toxicity out--
and you espouse a lot of it.

~~~
logicallee
the odds are hilariously against ycombinator picking 716 startups and having
those companies end up with a combined valuation of $30 billion, an _average_
of $41 million, including only current rounds that have already closed.[1]

but it's a fact, and statistically relevant.

if you have an allergy to hilarious facts, you probably should stop learning
about startups, because there is a lot more where that came from.

[1] [http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-portfolio-
stats](http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-portfolio-stats)

~~~
jazzyk
One problem, though. You are confusing current valuations based on what price
investors are willing to provide additional funding at, with the
liquidity/exit valuation (IPO, acquisition, bankruptcy) which in many cases
may be 0 or close to 0, if the company does not find any takers and runs out
of money.

------
purplelobster
Given that 125k is apparently "low", and barely liveable in Silicon Valley,
can someone please break down the costs for me? Even at a rent of $2-3k, you'd
have ridiculous amounts of money left.

~~~
tdicola
Given that the median home price is over $1 million if you want to own a home
you're going to be paying closer to $4k/month for a mortgage. After taxes that
125k is closer to 90k take home and once you put away more of that for
retirement/savings you're looking at only $2k/month to pay all the bills and
pay for food. For a single 22 year old it's no problem, but for someone trying
to raise a family and support others it will be scraping by.

~~~
barrkel
A house is something you can sell. If you need to pay a lot of money to
service a big mortgage, that doesn't mean you're worse off than someone paid
slightly less somewhere where housing is cheaper. Depending on how much your
loan costs you (and property taxes, and everything else), you're still
potentially coming out ahead.

Rent is a deadweight loss. OTOH, the cost of a loan combined with the risk of
relying on property as your primary lifetime investment may make it worth it.

~~~
juliangregorian
I see this viewpoint expressed way too often on HN by people who should know
better. Mortgages are not all upside. See
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-
calc...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-
calculator.html)

~~~
barrkel
I know mortgages are not all upside. Mortgages do have another effect, not
taken into account often enough: they are a forced savings mechanism.

(I rent, BTW.)

~~~
juliangregorian
Orrrr you could do what normal people do and set up your direct deposit to put
a certain percentage into a savings account. Taking on a mortgage because you
don't have self-control sounds disastrous. Also, what happens when you need to
dip into this "savings account"? Refinance your house?

------
nicholas73
I took an easy corporate job with middle to low salary, and the equity bonus I
get is whatever I manage to create with my saved time and energy. Anyone else
chose this path?

------
JDiculous
Yea it's unreal. Startups are looking for "rock stars" to work 50+ hrs/week
for entry-level salaries and pathetic amounts of equity. No thanks.

~~~
Firegarden
Right exactly which raises the point - why work at a start up if you will not
hit it rich like it was 1999? The short answer is to work with really smart
people who will teach you what you need to know to become them.

------
vkatluri
Always reminds me of this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2949323](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2949323)

------
beaubouchard
I am sort of new to the whole startup scene. How much should I value equity if
the company is only a year old?

Is there a formula or some better way I can gauge it's worth?

------
ugh123
If you're talented with a strong, provable track record you can negotiate
150-180k easily. With that, though, expect equity < 1% which is normal.

------
guest
Basically, people are full of shit and trying to cheat you. Generally their
businesses fail in a competitive environment.

------
PETERLEE1768
What i do not understood is actually how you are not actually a lot more well-
liked than you what I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way
I’ll be subscribing to your feed now, tay be right now. You are very
intelligent. You understand therefore considerably in the case of this matter,
produced me individually believe it from numerous varied angles. Its like
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say thanks.

------
maaku
Cost of living is much less here in SV vs NYC. Still, what you're seeing is a
joke. I wouldn't take such a job.

------
greedoshotlast
In Silicon Valley developers are gods, in NYC wall street bankers are gods.

------
crdb
(Bearing in mind this is not from the Valley POV, but I recognize a lot of the
same dynamics here in Singapore)

Psychologically:

The founder is stuck between a rock and a hard place. With limited cash to
work with (seed rounds are tiny here), that extra 10-20% could translate into
10x that in revenue if used on say, Google ads instead of your salary. On the
other hand, equity is also scarce; the founder has just given up 6+ months of
his life and career and taken enormous risks to start the business, it's
starting to take off at last (hence the hiring ads), he got some funding
closed after months of negotiation, so he considers that his equity stake was
"earned" and a newcomer "series A/B employee", even at early stage, should go
earn theirs as well. There's often not much equity left anyway, not enough for
control even after a seed round, so founders often don't have that much to
give up.

More cynically, this often leads amongst less technical founders and
management to the "let's hire young, cheap guys, they work harder too, these
experienced guys have ridiculous expectations". I've stopped counting the
number of times I heard that (sitting on the management side, advising other
companies, etc.). Just last quarter, it was a major angel investor who told my
client in his advisory meeting "you should get some unpaid interns from
universities to do QA, and offer the best ones a paid internship". Just last
week, a colleague who wants to start his own thing refused my offer to
introduce him to experienced engineers I've enjoyed working with, because he'd
rather "go for cheap people who'll work for free initially".

(As an aside, this fear is misplaced. I know of at least two CTOs who worked
for "free" for 3-6 months until either revenue or funding happened; the second
was in his 40s and had 3 kids...)

The investors are a significant source of pressure. Not to say they all do
this, but a lot of the more "MBA" types consider headcount a KPI to be
optimized, so they push you subtly or overtly to reduce salary, hire cheaper
people, negotiate harder, and so on. Think of it as reducing the cost of
buying out of the money options (from their point of view). One HNWI who I
once considered a friend stopped talking to me after I pitched him an idea, he
offered me seed funding on the condition I take no salary until revenue, and I
declined (having better options). For some reason, that made him very angry...
It's considered a key business skill amongst those people to get "cheap"
talent and a failure of your management skills if you do not. This is even
more the case when your choice of tech stack and management style encourages
wild growth in the engineering department (think Rocket Internet companies
with dev teams in the hundreds) and where that 25-50% discount on market rate
translates in quite substantial savings.

Finally, both from investors and founders, comes the idea of "hedging". Why
don't a lot of startups use Haskell or Lisps? Not because they can't find
talent (there's plenty) but because it's a lot harder negotiating with a
Haskeller with 10 years experience and a PhD, even with the "Haskell discount"
priced in (they will take less money to work in a more interesting stack) than
with a fresh grad from a local university with some basic understanding of RoR
or Django and hopes they will become the next Zuckerberg. This makes the
latter a lot more replaceable, and investors don't want their companies
hostage to the tech talent.

The rest is really stuff that is somewhat right. It IS nicer psychologically
for certain personalities (mine included) to have more responsibility, less
bureaucracy, a friendly and slightly hipster work environment, a younger set
of colleagues full of hope and energy, and a fast feedback loop (it's easy to
become indispensable and add a lot of value everywhere in a startup). It IS
somewhat true that you will gain experience - if only seeing what not to do -
that will be very valuable once you start your own thing, and that spending a
couple years on a reduced salary hopping a couple of 10-100 employee startup
jobs can be a better use of your time as a future founder than doing AI
research at Google.

------
endlessvoid94
Repeat after me: not all startups are created equal.

------
desireco42
I completely agree with you :) there.

------
joesmo
It seems like all the positions you mention, at least for developers, are
looking to hire junior developers with that salary (though they may not
realize it themselves). In my limited experience with NYC jobs, the salaries
tend to be a bit lower than SF or Silicon Valley, despite the equal to greater
cost of living. For senior positions in the Bay Area doing web development and
such, I see salaries in the $140-$175 area, with most being around $140-$160k.
Actually, these numbers haven't really changed in the past four years or so,
which makes the discussions about salary inflation puzzling to me. I'm sure
you can get more at Google and such, but these are the typical offers and
ranges I've seen at various companies, most of them startups of some sort. NYC
should be on par. There might be more companies that don't want to go as high,
but there will be plenty of companies that do in both cities.

There is no shortage of tech workers, but companies seem to have trouble
finding qualified ones anyway. What puzzles me about this, is why a company
would refuse to hire someone they really want because of salary, yet settle
for someone that they're not that impressed with simply to save $10k or so a
year.

EDIT: Note that I ignored the equity completely in this case as it's really
irrelevant (generally worth nothing).

~~~
mattmurdog
I've never seen base salaries in the Bay Area at $140-$160k. It's more along
the lines of $120k-140k on average for well known companies. The ones you've
never heard of barely crack $120K.

~~~
joesmo
Well, now you know they exist and that you can ask for much more. Source:
multiple offers in the bay area. I believe the highest salaries are near
Mountain View and that part of the valley, where you could possibly get nearer
to 200k.

~~~
mattmurdog
Yes, my comment was for SF and not South Bay where Facebook, Google, etc are.

------
sillysaurus3
The reason YC companies are offering salaries like that is because people
accept them.

If people didn't accept them, they would offer higher salaries. They'd have
to.

And if people are accepting those salaries, then that's fundamentally what the
position is worth.

Why would they offer more money? There's no such thing as a salary floor for a
position. There's a salary floor for a specific developer. It's based entirely
on what that developer is willing to accept.

~~~
kasey_junk
I completely agree with your market forces answer to the salary compensation
numbers. So it's not interesting why YC companies are offering salaries like
that, rather its more interesting to wonder why they are willing to accept the
developers salaries like that filter for.

The developers who would accept those salaries either are a) worth less than
the median salary b) don't know their value in the industry c) are naive about
the true value of the equity part of the compensation or d) are happy to not
maximize their earnings.

All of those filters seem to bias towards inexperienced developers without
others who rely on their income (ie young developers from relatively
financially stable backgrounds) or those who have no other choices.

So that seems to imply one or more of the following:

\- software is the first craft ever where experience does not improve
performance.

\- writing good software is not important.

\- neither is long term team cohesion, as that is very difficult to maintain
in the face of chronic underpayment.

So the most likely thing this implies, is that the successes YC companies are
shooting for on not predicated on writing long term sustainable good software.
Again, there is nothing wrong with that. But I worry that when that isn't
explicit it has negative ramifications in environments where writing good
software is important for success. If people confuse success as a YC company
with success at writing good software they may take the wrong lessons away.

~~~
DenisM
Before you start your own first startup you wold do well to work for someone
else's. Learn on their mistakes, on their dime, make connections while you
can. It's far more expensive to do it all on your own dime.

------
Avalaxy
"I'm only getting paid $100.000 per year and it's so low, boohoo"

Jesus.

I live in the netherlands, which is a first world country with a very high
cost of living, and the average senior developer here only gets paid half that
money. If you earn more than that you belong to the 1% most earning people on
earth. Have some perspective please instead of whining about how bad you have
it.

~~~
imaginenore
This is the dumbest comment I've seen on HN this year.

Even if he were in the top 1% (which he isn't), why shouldn't he strive to
earn more and become top 0.1%?

Just because developers in your country can't negotiate better salaries,
doesn't mean the rest of us should suck it up and only eat the breadcrumbs
offered.

~~~
ziles88
His comment was offhand, but was rooted in truth. Wake up, this is a 'bay'
thing. People in this thread are throwing around salaries that amount to more
than any doctor, lawyer, or politician makes in most major world cities. A lot
of people in here need a reality check, comparing their 'profession' of front
end jQuery to what a doctor does - I can't believe the person above made that
remark. You're all worth what the market will pay, yes, but have some humility
please. We all know we're in a bubble here, no need to get a big head about it
and act like 100K+ is your god given right to what amounts to one of the least
capable, accountable, and professionally trained careers in the developed
world. Pipe down, nobody in the late 90's bubble talked like this.

~~~
imaginenore
This is not a 'bay thing'. I make much more money than he complains about, and
I work remotely for US companies.

Most developers are underpaid, most don't even know by how much. We provide a
lot value, we automate things resulting in tremendous savings for the
businesses.

Most doctors don't need to learn constantly. And we're not talking jQuery.
Yes, there are hacks out there who only know it, and they do deserve a low
pay. Most front end developers need to know a lot more than just jQuery to
make a modern website. HTML/CSS/JS/optimization/image
compression/SVG/frameworks/cookies/local storage/browser compatibility/W3C
validation/debugging/data structures/algorithms/etc. The list goes on and on.

If programming were easy, everyone would do it. There's a reason developers
are expensive.

------
make3
you also have to factor in the fact that, as high as it is, housing cost in SF
and in the Bay are still double digits percentage lower than NYC. Living in
San José or Palo Alto is something like 30% less expensive then in NYC. That's
big, considering you might be paying 35k a year for your housing.

~~~
AngusMcQuarrie
Not sure where you're getting your information from. SF became more expensive
than NYC a couple of years ago.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-priciest-us-cities-to-
re...](http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-priciest-us-cities-to-rent-an-
apartment/)

[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/12/most-
expens...](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/12/most-expensive-
city-to-live-us.aspx)

------
weissguy
I don't have any insightful macroeconomic explanation to offer. Just my $0.02:
if you are complaining about earning $80,000 to sit behind a computer screen
and type all day, you are one entitled SOB. There are 10 million people in
China and India who would probably cut off their right arm if it meant they
could work for a well-funded startup in the Bay Area for $40,000 a year.
They'd make it work even if they had to live in RV's in Fremont.

~~~
pastProlog
> if you are complaining about earning $80,000 to sit behind a computer screen
> and type all day, you are one entitled SOB.

What does that make the LP's, and VC's, and angels, and accelerators, who do
no work, and sit on their yachts whining how much money that the workers who
do all the work are making?

I do all the work and I create all the wealth. If I am being paid $80k, then
on average I am creating $100k, or $120k etc. for the company. It's a joke
that the parasites who live on my sweat, and their toadies like yourself would
use the word entitled. Yes, I _am_ entitled to the wealth I create, in fact I
am entitled to more than that.

If the wealth I create does not go to me who worked to create it, who is it
going to? To the lazy heir LP. You advocate more going to these parasites
which just reflects how you think - like a parasite.

~~~
logicallee
OMFG this reads exactly like some communist screed with one difference. If you
own a single laptop you own 100% of the means of production, you do not NEED
LP's, VC's, Angels, or a paycheck. If you want to keep 100% of it, then go,
code up your own damn site like any number of people here did, don't take a
dime from anyone and go produce some value and keep _all_ of it. There are
basically zero costs involved with launching a web startup. do it then. you're
acting like this is the nineteenth century and you're working in some factory
owned by a VC. _you_ own the tools. what exactly are you missing? Go build
something and put it up. right now. tonight. go go go go go go.

~~~
pastProlog
> this reads exactly like some communist screed

Well, if the idea that people who work and create wealth should keep the
wealth they create is a "communist" idea, then so be it.

~~~
logicallee
<sarc>

you have a moral duty to quit your job and code a site you own 100% of, using
your laptop which is the means of production. how can you support the unjust
social structure you're a part of today? The people working in your office as
support staff are letting you generate value neither you nor they keep.

You have a moral duty to resign today and code a site on your own laptop, from
home, owning and keeping 100% of the wealth/value.

or to update your philosophy to be practical, sane, and not hypocritical.
either way you cannot continue as you have written. it is unjust.

</sarc>

In case it isn't obvious I say this tongue-in-cheek, and expect you to update
your philosophy and not your work conditions.

but the choice is yours. Today, _you_ are the factory owner. Go home and turn
it on. or stop complaining. here HN literally supports both options.

