
Working for a startup makes less sense - zainamro
https://zainamro.com/notes/working-for-a-startup-makes-less-sense
======
jandrewrogers
I've had a related discussion with a few VCs in recent months. Some kinds of
startups are effectively impossible to build given current structural
constraints on financing them, creating an adverse selection for startups that
fit the classic model rather than startups with the highest expected ROI.

Broadly speaking, engineers will work at a discount to market-clearing wages
of maybe 20% if they really like the startup. This is not necessarily an issue
if you are well-funded and require ordinary levels of skill from your
engineering team, which is most startups. Some types of software startups
can't be built without a team of engineers where the market-clearing wages are
typically more like $500k-1M. Even at a 20% discount to market, the amount of
capital involved just for headcount is far too large for early stage
investors, and startups that try to fit within the capital they can raise by
getting by with less qualified engineers always fail at technical execution.
Consequently, startups that have this property are effectively un-investable
because there is not enough capital available in the early stages to achieve
technical viability even though they may be great investments in the abstract.
This wasn't a serious issue a decade ago, but it is spreading to a larger set
of startups as wages rapidly escalate.

Given a long-term glut of capital, this could be addressed in principle by
designing a model that modifies the distribution of capital/equity over time
to accommodate startups that have difficulty financing the initial wage gap.
As the startups grow, one would expect the average wages to start reverting
toward the mean, but these startups won't get out of the gate without that
initial investment in capable and very expensive engineers.

I've had interesting and productive discussions around this, it is seen as a
way to bring fresh blood into an early stage pipeline that is drying up. It is
obvious to almost everyone that the classic model of how you finance and build
a startup team is breaking down in the current market environment, with an
adverse impact on expected returns.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
This is a good summation of the current challenges with startups that are
attempting to compete on technical merit. I know this first hand as I started
a computer vision company right around 2012 when the "AI" boom was really
picking up steam. I would never dream today of starting a very technical
company because every major will poach your talent (happened to me), invest in
your competitors or attempt to acquire you (some people don't want to be
acquired).

Contrary to your points, I don't see any way this will change until some big
technology revolution happens that puts power back into the hands of creators
- though that might be a pipedream.

Note, that doesn't mean you can't start and be successful with a company. What
I'm trying to point out is that the days of a scrappy upstart coming along to
"unseat the leaders" doesn't seem anywhere near realistic.

The only counter to this might be worldwide competition - so for example I
could see Tencent getting bigger than Facebook in total user numbers. I'm not
sure if these are comparable because they are in segmented markets.

~~~
echelon
> I would never dream today of starting a very technical company because every
> major will poach your talent (happened to me), invest in your competitors or
> attempt to acquire you (some people don't want to be acquired).

Damn, this is exactly what I want to do. Computer vision too.

Do you have any advice other than "don't"?

Would basing the company on the East coast near a tier-1 research university
help with talent?

Could you have strong software engineers support the research roles? Does that
pattern work effectively?

Another thing I really want to do is offer a 4-day work week with the promise
of sabbaticals and/or remote work. That might not be attractive to everyone,
but it's something that would speak to me and that I would want in addition to
equity and salary.

Are you still interested in computer vision? Want to chat sometime?

~~~
ummonk
>Another thing I really want to do is offer a 4-day work week with the promise
of sabbaticals and/or remote work. That might not be attractive to everyone,
but it's something that would speak to me and that I would want in addition to
equity and salary.

I think this would be a very strong advantage in the hiring market (assuming
you can raise money from investors who're okay with it).

I'm not your target market (I'm just an in-demand software engineer who
happens to be learning ML, not a top computer vision researcher), but this is
something I'd be willing to accept substantially lower comp for.

Unfortunately most startups seem to require even higher work output than big
tech.

~~~
tatar
Well, that's his big bet isn't it. There are a lot of studies that claim 4 day
work week will keep productivity more or less the same.

The catch here is this will potentially enable you to hire those 10x people.
Even at reduced productivity, 80% of 10x is more than double productivity for
100% of 3-4x people, and perhaps this work environment will foster other
people to increase their productivity as well.

With the right people and product, I see this as the ultimate weapon against
big tech, most of which will have shareholders that will act a lot more
conservatively when it comes to risks compared to startups.

This is not something big tech will be able to accommodate in the current
macro-economic environment, no board will approve basically a 20% salary bump
to all employees and while risking a potential drop in productivity.

------
lpolovets
My experience: engineering at Startup #1 for 2 years, then Google for 3 years,
then Startup #2 for 4 years, and now I've been working with seed stage
companies as a VC for the last 7 years. The amount I earned as an engineer was
highest at Startup #1 (got lucky!), significantly lower at Google, and a
little lower than that at Startup #2. Startup #2 is still chugging along,
which could eventually make it on par with or a little superior to working at
Google.

But money isn't everything. Startup #2 was the place where I learned the most.
I was senior enough to be single-handedly responsible for large projects like
a distributed search engine and a logging and analytics service. Sure, my
search engine was a POS compared to Google's, but at Google I would've worked
on a part of a feature of a component of the search engine whereas at a
startup I got to build the whole thing from scratch. I'm almost 40 now, and
that search engine is still by far the most fun and educational engineering
project I've ever worked on.

Aside from learning potential and financial comp, there are other factors like
team camaraderie, independence, etc. I keep in touch with way more people from
the two small startups than I do with Google colleagues. Google had a good
culture, but the startups were much tighter knit.

Finally, I think articles advocating for startups vs. big companies are a
little like trying to convert someone to atheism or Christianity with a blog
post. It doesn't really work that way. Some people are wired for startups:
they love them and spend their careers at small companies and don't understand
why big companies are attractive. Other people are more drawn to big companies
where the company itself has a huge impact, the teams are well-staffed and
have lots of resources, and the employees get higher salaries and lots of
other benefits. When these people try working at a startup, they often hate it
and quickly go back to another large company.

Neither big nor small companies are objectively the best, but if you factor in
personal happiness then often one type of company is the best _for you._

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
I've noticed the same thing in biotech startups. Some people are meant to be
part of smaller, bootstrapping companies and others are meant to be part of
more established, good business corporations. The most interesting people are
the ones who get in early and stick with it, growing along with the company.

~~~
goatinaboat
_The most interesting people are the ones who get in early and stick with it,
growing along with the company_

It’s pretty rare for this to actually happen in my experience. Generally an
early engineer will grow and be ready to take up the role of VP Engineering or
even CTO and instead the VC’s will parachute in one of their cronies once the
hard work has already been done.

~~~
DrAwdeOccarim
Completely agree. The issue I see is that at that higher levels, opex is more
important for success than familiarity with the specific science. So the
people who "grew-up" with the company, who would have detailed understanding
of the science, would not necessarily have opex skills commensurate with the
requirements the larger organization now requires.

------
throwaway112234
Here's where I've been:

\- worked at a startup out of college for 85k max plus significant equity
(never amounted to anything). Stayed too long.

\- worked at a later-stage startup starting at 120k, peaking at 130k. Got some
stock options there (haven't amounted to anything yet)

\- took a job at FAANG starting at 400k, plus some stock options. Currently at
this job for > 600k base. Plus stock options.

While at FAANG, I created a tool that we open-sourced. I've had several VCs
contact me to see if I want to try turning that into a company, but by my math
it would be a lot of work for no gain over what my salary already is. I
already get paid to work on this OSS thing, but I also get to work on other
things - and on the OSS thing it's pretty clear cut what I need to prioritize,
since my priority user base works with me at FAANG.

For me, startups have a 0/2 track record of delivering value. Being able to
net more than I make as an IC seems pretty unlikely, and trying would be a
whole lot of pain and sacrifice. The "faster growth as a founder" idea seems
to be conditioned on the assumption that you'll succeed enough to pay yourself
more than you make now, and/or be able to exit at an amount that will make up
for the opportunity cost of getting paid well in the meantime while having a
sane work/life balance. YMMV.

~~~
wh-uws
> "faster growth as a founder" idea seems to be conditioned on the assumption
> that you'll succeed enough to pay yourself more than you make now, and/or be
> able to exit at an amount that will make up for the opportunity cost of
> getting paid well in the meantime while having a sane work/life balance....

I posit its even more than that. It's a meme / propaganda by the survivors
with their bias and those who hope to follow in their footsteps.

Also what's also interesting is you posted your comment to a throwaway while
the others parroting that talking point were happy to reveal themselves at
least pseudonomusly.

I'm pretty sure why. You don't want to burn your shot if you want to have
another go at the startup thing and have people be able to read you saying you
wouldn't be fully committed.

I fully respect that.

The only reason I point it out is to show how Silicon Valley the larger VC
ecosystem is an echo chamber around this ethos.

My guess as to why is how would they recruit the next generation without that?

------
aeternum
Yes you will probably make more at an established company, but your rate of
growth can be much higher at a startup.

I worked at a large tech company for 3 years before joining a startup, and
learned more in the first month at the startup than the full 3 years at the
large tech company. I was able to design and implement a service in a matter
of days, whereas at the large tech company those 3 days would easily spent
convincing people that the service is needed in the first place. Direct
exposure to customers also is really interesting and changes you as an
engineer.

It's definitely a no guardrail environment, in the early days we had a bug
that directly cost us a large customer pilot. No better teacher than
experience, we did not make that mistake twice.

~~~
yoz-y
I've had kind of the opposite experience. At the startup we were really
sluggish it was hard to learn anything because we were jumping into any
possible business opportunity before even thinking about ROI because money was
always tight. 80% of the time was wasted supporting clients and fixing bugs
that were due to the fact that the product was shipped too early.

I think the biggest difference is money. A well funded startup might be a boon
but a struggling one will be a bane.

~~~
neltnerb
The difference is whether you see learning to do meaningful things on a
shoestring budget to be itself a useful skill.

Boeing won't care if you save the project $5k by spending a week of your time
coming up with a clever workaround. The week was more important than the $5k.
Same for a high level role generally. But not getting work done for a week
because your boss won't approve a $500 purchase... that would be frustrating
and get old fast.

~~~
harimau777
On the other hand, it seems like a savvy engineer could work that into a story
to tell a Boeing interviewer about how they took the initiative to think
outside the box and develop a solution that saved the day when the team was
under a time constraint.

~~~
neltnerb
If they solved a time constraint by being clever and working hard then clearly
Boeing would care about that, I agree.

Saving $$ per unit and saving $$ total are so different. If all you're doing
is saving $500 total, I wouldn't even care in most cases... but if you managed
to use clever techniques to save $0.30 off the manufacturing cost for a toy
that gets sold in the millions...

I most strongly agree with the ethical part of the article, in any event. I'm
sick of companies trying to take advantage of their employees, it's just sad
and gross to see it done by startups that could be better than big companies
in at least this one way. But instead they take it even further somehow
because their finances are far more opaque. I don't think it should be up to
noblesse oblige to determine whether distribution of profits and salaries are
fair, it should be assumed to be the rule even if there may be exceptions.

It's a sad day when you look at employment agreements from Intel and a shiny
startup and find that Intel is more up front and transparent about how things
will work and what you'll get paid.

~~~
joncrane
>noblesse oblige

I think the course of events in the USA in the decades since the 50s has
essentially answered the question of what happens if you leave it up to the
most fortunate to decide how to treat the least fortunate.

------
gfodor
I've been out of startups for a few years now, but it always struck me that
there is _plenty_ of room in the cap table for employees, if founders and VCs
realize they have to cut back.

If founders and VCs gave a third to half of their companies to employees,
instead of crushingly small option pools, this math would almost certainly
shift. And the returns wouldn't be much worse for founders or VCs.

~~~
paulmendoza
The reason they don’t is because they already gave 50% to the investors. And
it isn’t uncommon for companies with $30M or $1B exits for the founders to get
nothing. I heard about a company recently where the company sold for $40M and
the founders only owned 4% after years of raises. I doubt the founders got
anything. Most of the time these companies are having trouble scaling sales.

~~~
gfodor
That’s why I included investors. One could imagine a regime change where,
given the market for talent, both founders and investors realize the need to
carve out more for hiring equity, and value companies accordingly, especially
in the BS early rounds where it’s not based upon any real financial metrics.

------
avl999
It has always been mindboggling to me that startups are still so all in on the
Bay Area. Most problems mentioned in the article go away if/when you are
willing to staff developers in an area that is not as ridiculous in terms of
cost of living as the Bay area. According to StackExchange data, the 50th
percentile pay for a Full Stack Developer with a Bachelors degree and 3 years
experience (a profile that would seem reasonable for a startup hire) in the
Bay area is $140k, whereas in the St Louis and Minneapolis it is $89k. Not
sure why for many startups Bay area seems to be the only option. If they
staffed their developers in a place like St Louis they'd be able to avoid the
SF salaries and still pay in the 75th percentile for the market and the
developers would have more purchasing power making $115k in the midwest or
Raleigh than they do in the bay area making $145k.

~~~
twblalock
The Bay Area offers software engineers a career growth trajectory that other
places simply don't.

That $140k number might be a reasonable 50th percentile for what a junior
engineer would make at a startup in the Bay Area, but compensation can
increase quite a bit after several years in the industry, especially for
engineers who move to large companies which give stock compensation. They will
far outpace the earnings growth of engineers elsewhere.

It's much easier to achieve that kind of career trajectory in places with high
concentrations of tech companies, e.g. the Bay Area and Seattle.

~~~
slyall
That makes things look even better for St Louis and Minneapolis type places.
Startups in BA can't even hire juniors for $140k while if they pay $100k in St
Louis they will have people jumping at a chance.

Now I'm sure the BA people average better but somebody in the top 5% from St
Louis is going to be pretty good.

Note: I'm from Auckland, New Zealand and $US 100k would be a very good salary.

------
seibelj
There is a lot of capital out there, what needs to happen is the number of
startups shrink and the well funded ones pay more money - even more than
google or FB pay. Simple as that! If you are sad that you can’t get a
professional team on a $1mil seed, I have absolutely no empathy for you
because I’m an employee and this is the free market.

Now, if you really want to make it more enticing, some things that would move
the needle for me other than comparable salaries (although more cash is #1):

\- Larger equity that automatically ups if it will be diluted, and the moment
any shares vest I can sell them in the private market.

\- Transparent cap table.

\- If the founders take cash off the table, I can as well, and no preference
for founders.

\- 10 years after leaving to exercise my shares. I don’t want to have a 3
month trigger that handcuffs me to prevent a giant cap gains bill on “paper
money” when the fair market value is way higher.

\- Reasonable working hours.

\- Flexible work from home policy.

But overall, go raise more and start offering more cash, because I assume 95%
of startups are total failures.

------
youeseh
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Never accept a lower salary in
exchange for equity. Salary is your market rate for providing labor. Equity is
what you get for taking on the risk of being out of a job sooner than later.

So with that in mind, if the equity and bonuses in BigTechCo are a sure deal,
then it may be worth negotiating for more when you join a startup.

Don't sell yourself short.

------
geophile
I worked at software startups in the Boston area from 1988 through 2013, so
perhaps my comments are not relevant to this day and age. But what I read in
that note sounded awfully familiar.

In the mid 90s, Microsoft was buying up talent left and right, in whatever
area they wanted to go into. My field is databases, and I developed expertise
in the integration of query languages with programming languages. I got an
obscenely lucrative offer from Microsoft, and decided to turn it down. It was
a dumb decision, financially, but actually worked out fine on that front.
However, I'm sure that Microsoft enticed many promising software developers to
work for them instead of startups. (A few names do come to mind.)

This problem was completely solvable then, and the same technique would work
now. The problem is that VCs don't want to solve it. They want software
developers cheap. They give miniscule amounts of equity, and bias the terms so
that those tiny stock option grants almost never pay off very well, (e.g.
liquidation preferences). Except, perhaps, for the chief architect, and one or
two very senior developers, we are viewed as disposable, interchangeable cogs.

There are great reasons to work for a startup, other than equity. I am very
happy with my 25 years doing just that. But equity is definitely a factor.
Contrary to what they would have you believe, VCs are _extremely_ risk-averse,
certainly compared to the developers who are sacrificing the best years of
their lives for their companies and the chance of a financial win.

------
Grimm1
I believe this post does a very good job of bringing the elephant in the room
into the discussion. The current structure of equity compensation for early-
stage startup companies is simply not enticing enough to get people to choose
that over the salary and predictable path of BigTechCos. I love working in
startups and even I, when presented with the choice, pad the salary knowing
that throughout the funding rounds, if the startup is lucky, any fractional
percent that I have will be so diluted that I'm likely to walk away with
nothing to show for the work I put in beside the cash I opted for, hopefully,
some new connections and some learnings. While some of the more successful
startups can compete with those companies on base salary it is just not enough
necessarily to convince the top talent that you are the right move for their
career. That said there are ways to improve this such as the increased
transparency OP wrote about in their post. We should also give more equity to
early employees and have favorable terms around vesting for these employees
and better timing around the loss of options after leaving a company. Of
course this negatively impacts founder equity and potentially investors as
well. But to me, worrying about that negative impact to founders and investors
comes off as short sighted on part of the investors and founders. Ensuring
your early employees will be taken care of means they'll work harder for your
company and this will increase the chance you'll survive long enough to see an
event that makes _anyone_ a return on their investment. The numbers are so
overwhelmingly stacked against startups that worrying about the couple million
less you'll have because you gave out 1-1.5% equity to your early employees is
really silly, very much chicken before the egg. Instead we currently have the
weird known but unspoken fact that your early employees will likely get
nothing in a liquidity event while still asking them to put their all into
your company which is unethical at best and downright manipulative and harmful
at worst. So yeah startups are in a weird place. This doesn't even touch on
companies that just stay private forever which is another issue all together.

------
chipuni
The tricks that companies have used to dilute engineers' equity and to have
different classes of stock are coming back to bite those companies.

~~~
jedberg
To be fair it’s mostly been the VCs learning how to extract more value and
forcing that on the companies.

The VCs have naturally gotten better at what they do, which is bring returns
to their LPs. The consequence is that they get more value from exits than they
used to which comes at the expense of the employees and founders.

~~~
Infinitesimus
The founders agree to those terms though

~~~
jedberg
They don’t really have a choice if they want funding. Also that’s why the
terms are usually good for founders and it employees.

------
scarmig
1) People say you learn a lot more in a startup than in a BigTechCo. I don't
think this is true: I've gotten far more skills during BigTechCo stints than
at startups. YMMV.

2) A new grad at a startup gets, what, $100k in salary and some equity? If
we're talking a three year stint at a startup, you're effectively asking a
worker to invest ~$500k in exchange for that hypothetical equity. In the
broadest strokes (obviously everything depends on the deal), what kind of
equity does an angel get for half a million dollars, and how does it compare
to the amount of equity the new grad gets? And it bears pointing out that that
new grad equity is subject to all kinds of games and deception. Of course, the
usual response is "you just have to be smart enough not to be scammed!"
Perhaps, but I know tons of people (including myself) who are apparently just
too dumb not to be scammed but are still smart enough to be gainfully employed
at a safe job.

~~~
harimau777
How do you come to $500k? Wouldn't that require that the new grad would be
able to get a $266k job at a larger company? That doesn't seem particularly
realistic.

~~~
scarmig
Rough numbers, but I'm thinking roughly $200k, $230k, $260k. It's an order of
magnitude estimate, take that for what it's worth. If the new grad is instead
investing $300k, the calculus remains about the same.

~~~
harimau777
I think it's fair to say that someone who can get that sort of job right out
of college probably should. However, I'm not sure that the vast majority of
engineers can do that.

~~~
jefftk
When I started at Google my first three full years were $213k, $233k, $287k
([https://www.jefftk.com/money](https://www.jefftk.com/money)). Some of this
was stock growth (which is not guaranteed and I was lucky there) but I think
this sort of pay is reasonably typical for people who are considering a FAANG
offer.

~~~
etrk
You didn't join straight out of school.

~~~
jefftk
Whoops, thanks! I'd missed that!

I don't think that had a large effect on my compensation, if any: I joined at
L3, which is what most new grads are hired at, and my salary before Google was
low enough that I don't think it pushed up my offer at all. I also didn't get
offers from multiple places, which is the sort of thing that (a) results in
higher offers and (b) is the sort of thing new grads usually do.

But ideally someone hired right out of school would be up for sharing their
comp?

~~~
viklove
Mind sharing what your rent was during those 3 years? The best figure would
actually be comp minus taxes and rent.

edit: Oh, I see you were in Boston -- that's a great deal then. I still
wouldn't want to work for Google for idealogical reasons, but I can see why
the money would attract others. You also had ~9 YEARS of full time experience
at that point, which makes it a lot less impressive.

~~~
jefftk
I'm in Boston, and our rent was about $1100/month for a couple. Rents are
higher now ([https://www.jefftk.com/p/boston-rents-over-
time](https://www.jefftk.com/p/boston-rents-over-time)) and we have kids now.

Taxes would be higher but we donate 50% of our income
([https://www.jefftk.com/donations](https://www.jefftk.com/donations)) so I'm
not sure how you'd count that?

Also, I didn't have ~9 years of full time work when I started at Google, I had
3.5. My first full time programming job started fall 2008, and this was Spring
2012.

~~~
viklove
If you were making 60k+ through your college "internships," I would put them
at the same level as full-time work. My first college internship was $9/hour
with no benefits, and it lasted 6 weeks...

Also, donations are discretionary, so you wouldn't count them at all -- you
would just count your salary minus your tax rate (not counting deductions, so
that the average Joe can get some context).

~~~
jefftk
If you look back at
[https://www.jefftk.com/money](https://www.jefftk.com/money) you'll see I
wasn't earning more than $12/hr until my first programming job in fall 2008.

------
jorblumesea
You can be compensated in other ways, but often I've found much of the work at
startups can be no more interesting than their Big N counterparts. It might
not even be faster paced. Your career growth might also be similar. In theory,
for startups, you sacrifice pay for other facets. The reality is quite
different.

The work might be similar but you're paid 50-75% of your peers. That was my
experience in startup land, at least. Few good challenges or career growth and
half of what I felt like I was worth. Completely personal anecdote, but I felt
I was sold some half truth, where I was promised career growth, interesting
problems and flexibility, but got nothing that I couldn't have found at many
Big N companies.

------
funded12345
> I think startups’ best bet is to make the most of the variables they can
> control outside of money and perks (if you lack the appropriate resources).
> This means being transparent and honest with candidates about all risks
> involved when joining a startup and factoring all this into the amount of
> equity they offer which should be something considerable.

Even if the original founders have the best intentions, large equity up front
is unlikely to give you a big payday.

Since, in the traditional VC model the drive is to move toward bigger rounds
(A, B, C, etc) and investors get paid back first.

So even if you do start with 10%, you'll probably only end up with a low %
percent after 3-4 rounds.

The important thing to note is that this whole thing bamboozles our brains
because of unicorn survivor bias. We feel like unicorns and $100m dollar
companies are the norm but nothing could be further from the truth.

The chance of being part of unicorn is about 0.006% last I checked. The chance
of being part of a $100m+ company is in low single digits (of all startups).

If it ends up just making a few million revenue investors will drop it
(because not 10x enough) and you're 2-3% will be worth very little.

If ends up stagnating at $5m for a few years investors will drop it (because
not 10x enough).

The overwhelmingly most likely outcome of you getting a large chunk like 10%
up front is, when all is said and done, after 5-7 years you'll walk away with
a few hundred thousand (before tax) if you are lucky.

In my case I was on founding team. Started out with 10% equity. Co. is now 7
years old. After a merger (diluted by 40%), $10m investment (diluted more),
$4m strategic investment (diluted more), then investors taking money off the
table first for an exit event - I stand to make $100k if we sell at $20m and
$600k if we sell at $40m (currently valued at $20mish and has been for 2
years). That's pre tax.

~~~
sssdmmmm
Ditto to that, and add that this can happen at a larger scale even if you
happen to find yourself working for one of those lucky unicorns, where late-
stage VC will swoop in, inflate the valuation, and dilute the hell out of
everybody holding ordinary shares.

------
Answerawake
"To make the situation worse, the very good engineers, the ones who could
truly help build a tech company from the ground up from day 1, were getting
offers so exorbitant they could not possibly fathom to turn them down."

Ok I have seen this written every now and then.

What does this person look like and how do I become one given a willing to
sacrifice everything else?

I can not find a good answer to this question. Everybody seems to have their
own opinion.

~~~
rmah
First, be smart. Very very smart. And be able to demonstrate your smartness at
the drop of a hat under stressful conditions.

Second, attend a top tier "name" university like MIT, Stanford or Carnegie
Mellon and major in a related discipline.

Third, do some side work in your chosen field that can be shown off to
prospective employers.

Fourth, learn how to present yourself well (for interviews and such).

That's generally speaking, of course. Exceptions exist.

~~~
senordevnyc
Eh, I really don’t think this is representative. I’m a self-taught iOS dev who
has only ever been self-employed and I just got a $420k / job from a public
company. And I’m smart, but not some unfathomable genius.

I think every engineer should at least do some mock interviews on data
structures, algos, and system design (there are TONS) of free study resources
and then do a round of interviews. You only need one yes.

~~~
savrajsingh
Congrats dude! All salary or salary and equity?

~~~
senordevnyc
$220k cash, $200k equity (or whatever it’s worth in 12 months!)

~~~
hadiz
where is this? also, how many years of experience?

~~~
senordevnyc
Not going to disclose the company. Smaller public tech company. 10+ yoe.

~~~
hadiz
right, wasn't looking for the company actually, by "where" I meant the
location, which I think is NYC based on your handle! Congrats, that's a great
gig!

~~~
senordevnyc
Ah yes, NYC. Thanks! I seriously couldn't be more excited :)

------
rev0lutions
I love how the article ranked right above this one is titled "Downsides to
working at a tech giant".

~~~
JKCalhoun
LOL, I noticed as well.

As I was reading "Downsides to working at a tech giant" it occurred to me that
the alternative to working for a tech giant is not necessarily a start-up: I
would probably work for myself — freelance.

So, in fact the two articles can both be right. ;-)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You can also work in tech, for a company, but for something that is neither a
giant nor a startup. There's plenty of such jobs out there. In fact, the
majority of tech jobs probably fit that category

------
seattle_spring
> Equity agreements should not be intentionally confusing or designed to screw
> over employees.

Totally agree with this. Unfortunately I think there might be about 5 startups
left if this idea were widely implemented.

~~~
fortran77
Your odds of making money are much better with a young-ish but publicly traded
company than with a startup. Even if a startup is successful, you won't see
much money unless you were one of the founders or early investors. There's a
million ways the stock options that early employees get can be made worthless
(or worth-little).

~~~
vandyswa
I have BEEN one of the founders, and still didn't make any money off the
ultimate sale. There are far too many games with share classes, VC-funded
bridge loans, and preferred investor incentives. The only way to win is to not
play the game.

------
buboard
There were a few recent Ask HNs on the subject:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709724)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21641864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21641864)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21645117](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21645117)

a larger question is : why can't startups make money

~~~
Enginerrrd
For a lot of them that's just not the primary goal. Honestly, I expect the
next big success stories to break from this pattern of the silicon valley
sickness of trying to grow a company at all costs by conning VC firms until
they've got enough users and then sell the company or get another round of
funding to try and figure out the whole "revenue" thing later.

I think some old school thinking of more organic growth of a good idea with
immediate revenue will see a resurgence.

------
librish
It seems like start-ups _could_ catch up, at least somewhat, by offering more
stock. Right now founders are still ending up with an order of magnitude or
more stock than the first few employees.

There are certainly situations where that makes sense but if the founders are
adding extreme value compared to the first few employees perhaps they should
only end up with twice as much stock. That would free up a lot of equity for
early employees.

~~~
sokoloff
> if the founders are adding extreme value compared to the first few employees
> perhaps they should only end up with twice as much stock

Why would this be the case? If they’re adding relatively extreme value, why
should they only get 2x the equity?

------
Thorentis
I think another reason that people are wary of joining start ups, is they've
realised that:

a) The market is now incredibly saturated, and being an early equity owner in
a start up that will be worth billions is very rare now. Gone are the days of
a unicorn every month or two.

b) People have noticed the trend of FAANG companies buying up start ups, and
that this is the goal of many (most?) start ups today. Reach critical mass,
get a good valuation and customer reviews, get bought out by tech giant. If
you want to work on the most viable new products, just join a tech giant and
work on one of the projects they've acquired. (Or wait till the company is
bought and join them if they are still independantly run at which point
they're not really a start up anymore)

~~~
kareemm
> Gone are the days of a unicorn every month or two.

My friend, I've been building software professionally for big companies and
small since 2001.

There were __never __days where there was a unicorn every month or two.

~~~
Thorentis
I didn't mean that a company became a unicorn every month or two, but it
seemed that companies were founded quite frequently that later went on to
become unicorns.

------
guimonz
The problem is getting paid in common stock. A pay cut is money that, instead
of making, the employee is investing in the early-stage startup. That's no
different than the money the investor is putting in.

Employees should get preferred stock in the amount of their pay cut.

------
csa
I think the questions/issues around this topic don’t really make sense:

A. Why are we comparing an employee situation at a FAANG company with what
should be a co-founder situation? If someone is an engineer that can make
something happen at a startup, they should probably be a co-founder rather
than an employee.

B. Why are tech center startups trying to hire coders of a certain skill level
that will be incredibly expensive due to local competition? If a startup is
looking for skilled coders to implement the vision of the co-founding
engineers that can make things happen, then there are plenty of remote coders
in non-tech-center areas that will do a bang up job for a reasonable price.
Note that many of these remote coders don’t want to or cannot come to a tech
center. I assume that this is an issue because many/most startups are not good
at hiring, on-boarding, managing people, managing remote workers, etc.

C. Related to issue B, why play the micro-equity game with coders at all when
they should either be co-founders or they (as remote workers) can be paid a
satisfactory wage without equity bait?

D. Why is this conversation comparing a job with (relatively speaking) a lot
of hierarchy and politics at a FAANG with a job that should have a flat
structure and a great deal of autonomy? These jobs cater to two different
groups of people — the ones who like the former probably won’t like the
latter, and the opposite is true as well. There are subtle sides to this
(e.g., do your time at a FAANG to develop a network), but many people who
succeed at startups are not folks you want working at a large company — they
will go nuts, and they will drive the people around them crazy.

This whole conversation is bizarre to me. I think there are three relatively
simple choices:

1\. Take a company job if you’re a company person — that is, someone who likes
structure and hierarchy. It might not be trendy to admit it, but many/most
elite school grads fall into this category.

2\. If you prefer things like autonomy, being close to the customer, and being
a generalist, then go to a startup. Plan on leaving once it hits a certain
size.

3\. If you have a plan for an alternate path that includes both, then go for
it — specialist work at FAANG, FAANG then startup founder, startup employee
then startup founder, etc. Just know what you’re getting into, because it can
be awfully tough to walk away from $300k annual comp as a 25 yo.

Most people I’ve known clearly fall into one of these categories barring some
sort of life-changing event.

------
groby_b
I have a very straightforward suggestion for startups: Focus on the engineers
who've put in a decade or more at the big companies.

They are, given the exorbitant salaries, financially set enough to afford the
startup risk, and there's a good chance they'd like to see some more agility
again.

But 1) you'll need to stop lowballing equity for hires, and 2) you need to get
used to the idea that it's not going to be an extension of university life -
these people have all better things in their spare time than playing beer
pong.

Bonus points: Offer an office instead of cubicle mania. Bonus bonus points:
Make sure you hire a diverse workforce from the get-go.

------
afinlayson
I've worked at 3 big tech companies and 3 startups. 2 got bought out, the
other is going strong. I made more money off 1 year of bonus at Google than I
did with any of the successful startups. It's not because I did anything wrong
(I was Eng #1 at one, First iOS Lead at another and Lead for the 3rd) It's
because I was building someone else's vision for the promise that that my
stock will be worth something. When a company gets bought even if you have a
high % when it gets funding, it will be diluted. If the company doesn't do
refreshers often enough you will be working long hours for close to free. The
charming CEOs will talk about how they plan to change the world, the sleazy
ones will tell you they are a sure thing (and what will you do with your
millions). That makes no difference, it's just a lottery ticket. You have to
decide how much of your career to put on that ticket.

Startups are a wild ride, and a thrill to join, you'll learn a lot, and have a
great chance of coming out learning more than you'd learn as a entry level at
a big company. Don't for a second think you have the winning lottery ticket,
because if your number doesn't come up you'll left with memories and the paper
it wasn't written on.

PS I'd argue if you have a group / team, build your own vision. Go big, we
have enough insta-wecha-snapple sauce out there. Build something that will
have real impact. And if you don't have the Team / Vision / Risk tolerance go
somewhere they'll pay you what you are worth. Maybe you'll be even meet some
of those you want to build a team for whats next.

------
api
Maybe startups should try cities like Pittsburgh, Columbus, Atlanta,
Knoxville, etc. Lots of talent that will work for less for the simple reason
that the cost of living is not so stupidly high. Hell even SoCal, Portland,
Austin, and Chicago are bargains compared to NYC or worse SF.

Problem is that all the capital is in NYC and SF, and they still prefer to
invest locally. At this point VCs should just skip the middle man and cut
checks directly to landlords and property speculators.

------
ec109685
Isn’t this also a function of the limited runway VC’s give to startups. If
they 10x’d the amount of funding for seed and series A, startups could afford
to hire the best.

It would add a lot more risk, but given the outsized rewards, it would still
be profitable for some VC’s.

Otherwise, there will be lots of ideas left un-persued because many
experienced engineers will not want themselves or their employees to live (in
relative terms) an ascetic lifestyle while perusing their dream.

------
guelo
It's VCs' and founders' fault for always diluting employees on the big exits.
If they want to gain back trust we need iron-clad poison-pill provisions that
prevent employees from getting screwed out of their equity.

------
INT_MIN
I work at a startup and have for 2 years since graduating college. Its quite
hard to gauge my true value. I know that for the area (according to
Stackoverflow's salary numbers) it seems competitive, but big N companies are
moving in to Culver City which may be changing that.

Since starting, I've seen engineers who can't hack it leave or get fired. I've
been the one engineer who has been productive and seen our projects to
completion. Our team has gotten stronger over the past 2 years however and I
feel that we are in a good position. In this way, I feel that I am valuable,
but I have nothing to compare myself to.

Working at a startup I've also learned an extremely broad area of knowledge,
much of this completely on my own. I'm often worried that that may hurt me if
I apply at a larger company and that hiring managers would question my fit.

------
outime
It’s worth mentioning that this post is focused on USA and (unsurprisingly)
highlights Bay Area.

I’m sure the points exposed apply there but there are many other places in the
USA and the rest of the world where this doesn’t apply and you can find good
talent without needing to offer an exorbitant paycheck.

------
Aeolun
How about you just start giving your first engineers a bit more equity?

------
jedberg
My career path has been startup, public tech, startup, public tech, startup.

I got lucky that the public techs both had the largest stock growth in their
history while I worked there.

All the money I ever made was at the public companies. I also learned a lot of
cool, very specialized skills and got to do a lot of “ohhh so cool” type
stuff.

Almost all of the knowledge I learned that allowed me to be successful at the
big companies I learned at the startups, and most of the friends I made at
work that I still talk to were at startups.

Both environments offer something unique.

I usually tell young people to start at a big company with a well known
mentorship program and then quickly move to a startup to learn a bunch of
practical skills.

But YMMV.

------
tanilama
Well said. Startups can't really compete with MGAFA those days. Not the
people, not the resources. For domain like ML, it is hard to imagine what you
can realistically achieve outside of working in those companies.

------
edem
A few years ago I decided to start working for a startup because I wanted to
try out the experience. It was a late-stage startup with no VC money and they
had good prospects for a possible acquisition.

I did the math and I figured that it might work out for me. 2 years later it
turned out that they have been talking about a possible acquisition for the
last 3 years, but nothing happened. I also checked the company's public
information and it turned out that they weren't that transparent about the
shares. I was told that I get 0.5% worth of shares (they refused to tell me
the total amount of shares) and what I saw is that it was true: I had 0.5% of
the _outstanding shares_. But in case of an acquisition, they are free to
dilute them 5-fold because the authorized shares are 5 times as much as the
outstanding ones.

So I decided to join a big company which is paying almost 2 times more right
off the bat and I also get additional shares each year. I made a calculation
and even if the old company gets acquired I get less money (it is just a rough
estimation) than I get at the new company. And that's still a big _if_. I
think that I still started from a much better situation than most of the other
folks working for startups. This company produces profit, they have a business
model I believe in and there is no VC to please. Most of the startups are in a
much worse situation.

I will never work for a startup again.

------
jacquesm
Captable slots for early employees range anywhere from 5 to 40% (collectively,
not individually), depending on who the partners are and what the company does
it might make sense to join a start-up. But it's better to be a founder and if
you are risk averse then it is better to work for a big company with long term
viability.

This definitely isn't one size fits all and there are a lot of people that
will happily try to sell you on their version of the story because 'it worked
for them'.

------
PanosJee
It's fun to watch the Bay losing its startup spirit and becoming a land of
mega corporates. It might resemble Atlanta in 20-30 years. There are so many
other places where joining a startup is the best option you have (excluding
remote gigs). I guess most startups will become remote-first and lure people
who care either about the team or the problem being solved. Building a startup
employer brand will be of paramount importance.

~~~
lotsofpulp
> It might resemble Atlanta in 20-30 years.

Or it might indicate a lower probability of creating another company that
produces FAANGM levels of cash flow.

------
bilekas
Use your brain, when offered a role, do you like the product ?

Do you believe in it ?

Are they paying you a nice amount of money ?

If you can only answer 1/3 please continue to the purgatory state.

------
leoh
I like this piece and I agree that startups can be great. But the first half
of the essay, the hook of the essay, was contingent upon the author declining
a $70k check from Thiel and noting that he walked away from $200 million; and
the end of the essay suggested that one shouldn't work at a startup for the
money (and you really shouldn't, it's unlikely it'll make you much).

------
JDiculous
Agreed, if you're living in SF or NYC I don't see the point in working at a
startup unless you're just really passionate/optimistic about the work/company
or are getting some other perks you wouldn't get at a FAANG.

Personally I work for startups, but only because they let me work remotely,
something I wouldn't be able to do at any FAANG. I would only go back to an
office job to work at a FAANG, since compared to a startup the money, "exit
ops", work life balance, and job security are probably going to be way better.

If startups want to be more competitive and have access to more talent, then
they'd be wise to open to hiring remote workers. Otherwise they're going to
struggle to compete with FAANG type companies. Remote is the one perk that
FAANG companies don't offer, and unfortunately probably won't for the
foreseeable future short of some serious cultural change.

------
bariswheel
If the cost of housing was substantially lower, perhaps these great engineers
would work for startups that could really use their talent, as they might not
care as much to being millionaires so they can afford what's considered a
middle class home for their family in most other places besides SF/Bay Area.

------
Myrmornis
It seems to me that most companies start to gain a
tedious/conventional/corporate atmosphere once they get to more than, I don't
know exactly, somewhere in 100-400 employees. At that point the company has
acquired, in addition to those who care purely about building companies and
building software and building hardware and physical processes, a middle layer
of conventional auxiliary staff, and nice though everybody may be, the company
just becomes a standard corporate office environment. Many people (especially
those who have enjoyed academic environments) strongly don't like such
atmospheres, and for those many people this is a pretty strong incentive to
work at small companies.

------
williamDafoe
I have worked at 3 startups for 3 years of my career. At one, I was a founder
and seed-venture investor; that one lasted 8 years. It was the only company
NOT run by criminals. Total out-of-pocket costs to me (in 2019 dollars) :
$45,000 in 2 startups for shares and for options. Total return : $0. Total
discount to market salary that I worked for : 33%. In 2 out of 3 startups, the
CEOs (1) stole all the money and fled the country, or (2) conned the VCs out
of $2.5m and shut down the business the next day after the final funding round
(all monies went directly into CEO bank accounts.) Ask me what I think about
startups .... Fuck startups.

------
geofft
> _And, to be clear, I’m not saying that one should or should not place money
> or perks above everything_

Why not?

The whole premise of venture _capitalism_ is that money is an appropriate
common denominator for what is valuable in the world, that the best way to
change the world is through establishing a legal entity whose goal is to make
money, that once you have lots of money the best thing you can do is to put
that money to further use instead of directly engaging your own technical
skills.

Why do we tell potential employees at startups "money isn't everything" but
potential founders "you'll make more money this way" and potential funders
"please, sir, some money"?

The startup ecosystem is a way for venture capitalists to get richer, and to
incentivize the people who can directly help them get richer. Evidently it's
not enough - so maybe they should incentivize the people who help them
indirectly get richer. If money isn't everything, don't join a startup _or_ a
big company, go to grad school, where you can actually work on whatever you
want. Or go work for a big company for several years and retire, or find a
half-time consulting gig, or something.

------
cryptica
I agree that the game is clearly rigged in favor of corporations at this
stage.

If money is what you're after then joining a big company is by far the most
rational choice. Eventually, big tech companies will realize this and start
significantly lowering wages until new engineers are paid the same as blue
collar workers.

The reality is that new startups do not disrupt corporations; they feed them.

The only way I can see to end corporate dominance is with blockchain tech
because it can disrupt the incentive structures that feed corporarions. The
new generation of developers can build a new financial system using
cryptocurrency as the decentralized foundation in which to store value.

------
willbw
While I understand your sentiment, there is a 2015 Dan Luu article which goes
into far more depth saying basically the same thing:
[https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/](https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/)

I can see you just started writing on this blog so I don't want to discourage
you, but I was struck by the formatting of your notes page and this post being
so similar to Dan's along with the topic and content of this post. Keep
writing but I would maybe suggest something with more of an original spin.

~~~
sayrer
I've always thought this problem to be overstated. It doesn't make financial
sense to work for a startup, but the upside is that you get to work on
something you care about (and even the startup salaries aren't that bad in the
grand scheme).

~~~
amznthrowaway5
> the upside is that you get to work on something you care about

As a counter example, I found this is far more true at big companies, where
you can switch teams until you find one that fits your interest, then at a
startup where you are expected to work on basic infra that the company doesn't
handle. For the data/ML related jobs that I was looking for and the industry
is moving towards, big companies have tons of valuable data that startups
could only dream of acquiring.

~~~
sayrer
I like the Elad Gil take on this issue: at big companies, you can have more
/impact/, for the reasons you state.

At small companies, you have more control. That's in the high-growth handbook.
:)

------
chrshawkes
A few things developers are waking up to...

burnout, working evenings and weekends, a life outside of code, having
children or families, master in a specific field vs jack of all trades (master
of none), money is more important than free snacks, working your butt off to
watch all the credit go to the founders (as well as the money), long term
stability, benefits and retirement is much less risky than hoping for an
equity payout

I feel the startup founders should enjoy reaping what they have sown.

------
Bella-Xiang
I really agree with your opinion, especially the words in the last paragraph.
I am working in a startup now for half a year, in which all the rules you
mentioned is done well, so as a fresh graduate, I never regret working for a
startup. There, I have learned a lot of different skills that definitely will
be my great treasures in the future. So, for the fresh graduates, I think
working for a startup makes great sense that helps them find their true value.

------
ec109685
> The two things I really like about working for smaller places or starting a
> company is you get very direct access to users and customers and their
> problems

I don’t understand this at all. Big companies have lots of individual
projects, where engineers get direct access to customers. At my big co, we all
watch every App Store review come in, conduct thousands of interviews with
customers and have a direct say on what gets built.

------
vectorEQ
i'd say if a start-up is hiring outside of founders / stock offerings then
they are no longer a startup and should offer somewhat realistic wages. before
that time, people accept to get paid less with prospect of their stock options
exploding and that compensating for the lack of initial wages.

that being said, if a person wants to work at a startup, i'd say they already
accept that the wage will be much lower than at some big corporate or company
who is making good income already. it seems a bit if not a lot silly to me
that someone would join a startup in the early phases but then demand a
corporate salary. startups are kind of a popular term, but think about it...
people used to actually build stuff and then get funded / success, instead of
wanting funding upfront without any actual effort put in (thats exaggerating i
know). A lot of startups these days though really ask for ALOT of money from
investors without having even an MVP or viable product yet. I can't see why
someone would pay for just an idea ... it seems a lazy way to make a startup.
Building something, prove it works, and investors will have no issue to
invest?

------
grumpy8
YC has been saying that for a while, but great & early employee need way more
equity; they're the one who change the game.

------
anovikov
Better solution is to make do with as little staff as possible. Lower
headcount makes management overhead and friction inefficiencies lower and
saves you money big time. And this is something big companies can't replicate.
This is how a startup was supposed to be: do one thing and do it perfectly,
with as few people as possible.

------
Apocryphon
Sounds like wealth inequality doesn't just affect private individuals- it's
affecting corporations themselves!

------
nayuki
The blog post echoes sentiments in TechLead's video last month about the same
topic:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btbvv9kfLqo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btbvv9kfLqo)
"Software Engineer Salaries in 2020. How much do programmers make?"

------
kazinator
Working for a startup makes sense if you think it has good odds of making it,
and you are in for a share of it.

~~~
IBCNU
Also - outside of the bay (I live in Chicago) you actually make more money
working for a startup (at least I do) than for a larger company (as a senior
engineer with a lot of early stage experience). I think it might be the nature
of the market here.

------
EGreg
My main question is how do you attract developers to join your open source
project? Wordpress and RoR and all those other projects?

Instead of startups I want to attract people to a project to change the world
just like the OP is saying. But where to find the first few developers who
would do it not for the money?

------
exabrial
I work for startups because generally there's not useless word docs and red
tape. You can have a fully reproducible engineering cycle without all the
nasty forms.

I can't find the link but a while ago hacker news how to link to an article
about useless jobs at large companies. Reminds me a lot of this.

------
antcas
The consensus on HN is pretty clearly towards being a founder or working at
Bigtech Co vs being an employee at a startup.

So, if you're a founder, how do you tip the equation to make working at your
startup attractive to talent who presumably also read HN?

What would make you interested in joining a startup as an employee?

------
mrkmcknz
Frequently in the UK I'm seeing options that are clawed back if you leave the
company at any point. EMI options that can only be exercised under certain
conditions such as an exit.

------
jgelsey
Actually, my observation over the last 20 years of being a venture investor,
bigco acquirer and startup CEO (including at a unicorn) is that the risk-
adjusted $ compensation is the same at a startup and at bigco. Startups just
have more beta in the comp. You learn a _lot_ more at a startup and hence it's
the experience you want if you hope to do your own startup. If you just care
about short-term $ then absolutely stay at bigco. If you want experiences
unavailable at bigcos and are willing to take the chance of making less, but
also the chance of making 10X+ more, do startups.

~~~
senordevnyc
Show your work, because I flat out do not believe you. Just the fact that you
were investing in these startups, acquiring them, and working as a CEO at a
unicorn indicates that you have a vastly skewed perception of the typical
startup.

------
skqr
Just hire abroad. Working in a completely remote environment is entirely
feasible, and it's actually in many, many ways, more comfortable and
productive.

------
vjktyu
A solution could be to let engineers work for multiple companies at once and
laws to prevent employers from penalizing such behaviour.

------
luke_heine
Awesome post! Also this is where nailing PMF is so Important too before hiring

------
JackPoach
Many new startups (with massive VC backing), aren't really startups

------
senordevnyc
Strongly agree with this. I just did about seven weeks of interviewing in NYC
for senior iOS roles, at both startups and big tech companies.

To be frank, it was a total shitshow. Especially on the startup side.

Here’s some of the bullshit I faced interviewing at early stage companies
before accepting an offer literally 2.5x as high as the (multiple) offers that
startups made.

1\. Shitty equity: one startup wanted me to be engineer #7 and completely own
the mobile app and strategy, which is the single point of interaction for
their customers. They offered me 0.1% and spun some story about how much it
would be worth when they were worth $800mm. Their last valuation was about
$35mm. Even if their numbers were real, I’d still make more at a big tech
company in equity alone. They also made it clear they wouldn’t budge.

2\. Bad work/life balance: the big tech company where I accepted apparently
has no issue with people taking off whatever time they need (avg is about 25
days per year), working normal 40 hour weeks, and working from home if needed.
By contrast, the startups felt way more restrictive here.

3\. Terrible interview process: almost all these startups had pretty
disorganized process. Worse: they did the standard whiteboard algorithms
interviews, whereas multiple bigger tech companies had more iOS-specific
interview loops. Even worse, the startups tended to have a _higher_ bar for
hiring than the bigger tech companies. This one is subjective and could be
random or misperception on my part too.

4\. Most infuriating of all, all of these startups (except coinbase) had a
60-90 day option exercise window for employees who left before a liquidity
window. Let me be clear: fuck you if you think this is fair. IPO might be 7-10
years out and if I stay and add value for anything short of that, you’re going
to ask me to take a huge risk to exercise my options (and pay the taxes) on
your probably worthless stock, otherwise you’ll just keep it? Fuck you.

The entire thing left a bad taste in my mouth. It’s pretty clear that these
founders and investors don’t give much of a fuck about their talent, and
watching them get squeezed by big tech companies offering sky high comp fills
me with glee.

Be a founder, investor, or big co employee. Fuck being an employee for a
startup so they can bleed you dry.

~~~
cj
From your post, it sounds like you value:

1) Safety and predictability in compensation

2) Ownership over your company’s strategy (e.g. mobile) only if you’re paid
highly for doing it (not a bad thing, but many other people exist who would
willingly take a pay cut for the ability to have an actual impact on company
strategy)

3) A highly organized and logical hiring process and qualification evaluation

4) Custom negotiated options contract outside of industry norms OR BigCo stock
that has value today

5) 5 weeks of paid vacation

It definitely sounds like you made the correct decision by choosing BigCo over
startup.

~~~
Hermitian909
I think the point is more that startups are really overestimating what they're
offering, or hoping their employees are too stupid to realize the disparity.
So far as I can tell the only thing most startups offer anymore is ownership,
lack of large company culture/bureaucracy, and more opportunities to switch
roles.

Equity is basically always monopoly, you generally can't even evaluate its
value because no one will show you the cap table. _Highly_ profitable startups
still regularly manage to deliver a pittance to early employees on exit. Even
if the exit _does_ deliver oftentimes the yearly compensations disparity is so
large that if they'd just stayed at BigCo and invested the bulk of their
earnings they would have earned as much or more. This is all while working
_significantly_ more hours per year.

The list of upsides is _really_ small relative to the risk. If startups want
talent the industry norms are going to have to change.

~~~
marvin
I've always thought that the shitty startup practices when it comes to equity
is due to insufficient competition for talent. Looks like this is about to
change, since startups now obviously struggle to get the best people.

Not showing the relevant details of the cap table is _ridiculous_ , companies
that do this are banking on a pool of candidates that are either morons or
don't care what they're paid.

Imagine the following situation: You're in a foreign market, and a vendor
tries to sell you a fancy-looking machine. You know he's legally bound not to
lie, so you ask what the machine is worth. He says "it's worth 2 billion Magic
Moneys!!" but refuses to give you any information that would help you suss out
whether that's 20 cents or 20 million dollars.

------
account73466
I feel like it is hard for people to say what they truly love before they have
at least $1M in their bank account. If you have FU money, your view on working
at a FAANG vs building a startup can change. You will find it easier to know
what you truly LOVE.

~~~
siquick
I'm glad all the great artists, musicians, writers, theorists, scientists,
teachers, and inventors throughout history didn't read this post.

~~~
alasdair_
A remarkably large number of the most notable of those people came from
wealthy families - that’s what allowed them the single-minded focus, instead
of worrying about food and healthcare.

~~~
CuriouslyC
And a lot of them suffered in poverty to pursue what they loved. Is there
survivorship bias there? Sure. You don't become great without taking some
chances though.

------
robsinatra
Dunning and Kruger explained how people drastically overestimate their value.
The author won't be earning what he thinks he deserves, isn't working on
projects he thinks he deserves, and doesn't get the promotions he thinks he
deserves wherever he goes. His reality may never change for him and that's his
cross to carry.

