6 ms·

There's this obsession now about how everything in tech needs to be worth it strictly monetarily without paying attention to anything else. Personally, I think

There's this obsession now about how everything in tech needs to be worth it strictly monetarily without paying attention to anything else. Personally, I think that attitude is toxic. Teachers don't teach because of how much they'll get paid. Nurses don't become nurses because of how much they'll get paid. Same for fire-fighters, non-profit workers, artists, and everyone else doing jobs they find particularly fulfilling. The same ought to be true of start-ups. Sure, you can make more expected money working at Facebook redesigning their like button, or whatever. But, at a start-up, you can have a huge hand in building something much bigger than yourself from scratch. You get to be a jack-of-all-trades, learning a bit of everything, making something hundreds of thousands of people will use go 0 to 1. You get to be incredibly important to the company and have a say in just about every decision if you want it. That role is still romantic to me, and that's why I've worked and continue to work at start-ups. I know I can make more money somewhere else. I don't care. And I want to work with other people who don't care either. If your motivation is just money, there are plenty of big faceless companies doing fun stuff like ad-tech that will be happy to pay you, and you'll be doing your start-up coworkers a favor by leaving.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago
Dustin Moscovitz makes this argument about what the only good reason is to start a company. (http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec01/ http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec01/). IMO, it should apply to the first ~20 employees too.
Cymen 11y ago
There is nothing wrong with being motivated by both doing excellent work and being well compensated for it. If the motivation is purely money, sure, I see a problem. But you're painting both sets with the same brush.
- AstroChimpHam 11y ago
  There's no problem either way. If you want that big paycheck, enjoy ad tech or high-frequency trading. I'm not judging you. But if you come into a start-up, both the founder and the employee should be clear that more money can be made elsewhere. The start-up is for someone who wants that romantic lifestyle. They still will earn plenty of money, but no, it won't be as much as you'll make at [insert-huge-company-here], and that's OK. It sounds like Box dude from the story had a very cool experience building a company from 50 people to 1,000. I'm sorry all he thinks he got out of it are his stock options.
  - Cymen 11y ago
    I wouldn't use the word romantic but maybe we're talking about the same thing: the excitement and joy you get from building something from scratch as a small team. You truly have to understand the whole solution and the team is small enough that rapid changes in direction are still possible and happen regularly. I agree that has immense value and getting experience with it is worth the cost. This is why I work in startups. But what are you going to do with that experience you have gained. To go back to the romance option, if you can't get someone else into the bed, romance can become very sour. I too see that the Box guy got more value than just the earnings on the options. But that more value is largely theoretical unless he can turn around and put what he learned into practice (and get compensated for it).
- wpietri 11y ago
  Definitely. Indeed, I'd expect an organization with a sense of mission to be better at compensating everybody fairly rather than letting gains accrue to a narrow elite. An interesting example is Kingston, a memory company. In 1996, after the bulk of the company was bought by SoftBank, Kingston's founders gave $100m in bonuses to the 550 employees. It's a shame that doesn't happen more.
kzhahou 11y ago
All you say about motivation is true. People should be in this field and at smaller riskier companies because they love tech and they love changing the world. But what possible argument can be made that if/when the company DOES mint billionaires and multimillionaires, it should only be the two or three founders and the investors that keep up to 95% of the haul? Your point would be appropriate if the problem was people not joining companies at all because no one would make money off them. Not the case. A few people will make money and lots of it. It's time now for employees to demand much higher equity.
- AstroChimpHam 11y ago
  I'm a former employee and now a founder. As an employee I always had a paycheck and could easily leave any time I wanted. As a founder, I spent a year with no salary, paying for servers out of pocket, and stuck with the company because we had paying customers who depend on us. As an employee, I risked maybe $10k of salary vs working elsewhere. As a founder I risked ALL OF IT. I'm making a much bigger risk as a founder than as an employee, so yeah, I expect much bigger rewards. I thought my equity and salary were fair as an employee and I think they're fair now as a founder.
  - sulam 11y ago
    A founder who does everything you describe should own a substantial chunk of what they've built. They de-risked the business on their own dime. Many (most?) startups these days however are funded by an angel or early stage fund and the founder has very little risk. A failure for them means a cush stint as an EIR for their VC earning $120K/yr to look at companies while they decide what to do next. I hope _that_ company is giving substantial equity to early employees, because the risk is much more evenly distributed.
    - AstroChimpHam 11y ago
      No idea where you got that many-most figure. I hang out with a lot of founders. Don't know any except for repeat founders who get founded pre-product. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's rare, and finding that Angel to fund you that early is not easy.
throwaway2048 11y ago
others becomming VERY rich off your hard work while you get less than you would have at an established company leaves a bitter taste in your mouth if you are in it for the money or not.
dclowd9901 11y ago
The problem is when others take advantage of the highly skilled technical staff. We work at startups because of all the reasons you listed KNOWING FULL WELL that it may fold, or it may not net us that big payout. But if that pay day does come along, why is it OK for others to benefit from it at the expense of those who have spent that sweat equity? You argue for the value of passion, but you're also inadvertently siding with people who have done nothing to contribute to the product aside from spreading risk by investing in it.
- AstroChimpHam 11y ago
  Those investors are trusting you with a lot of money. They put in seed money these days at $5m-$10m pre-money valuation. If any of my employees come in asking to trade $50k-$100k of salary for an extra percent of the company during the first year, I'm happy to make them that deal. After the founder who went a year getting paid negative money, the investor putting $1m in their dream and valuing it at $5m-$10m is taking the next highest amount of risk, and I have no problem with the reward they get in exchange.
moistgorilla 11y ago
Sorry but I think your attitude is what is toxic. You are justifying people taking advantage of passionate coders. > and you'll be doing your start-up coworkers a favor by leaving So people fighting for what they are worth is detrimental to coworkers now? Maybe you and your coworkers need a reality check if you feel resentment towards one of your coworkers fighting for fair compensation.
- AstroChimpHam 11y ago
  When did I say it's OK to take advantage of anyone? Of course it's not. All I said is I'm willing to take a $10k-$20k pay cut to work at a start-up I find fulfilling instead of going to work at Google. Why do you think this trade is unfair?
lgleason 11y ago
The only problem is that the investor is in it for profit and happy to take as much money out as they can. But hey that attitude is great for the investors...convince the workers to take less so we can bank more.
douche 11y ago
Nurses make pretty good bank.
- djur 11y ago
  Not really. My mother, a registered nurse for her entire working life, made less at her retirement than I did at 25 as a software developer (and in Portland, not even SF). Even if she had gone into management, she would have never made as much as I do now. And this was as a RN at a hospital with a strong union presence. Hospitals today do everything they can to hire as few RNs as possible, because they draw a higher salary than LPNs and medical assistants. And the better nursing programs out there are extremely expensive, resulting in the same kind of debt load that other professional careers have started having recently.
  - douche 11y ago
    It's all in where you choose to live, I guess. Where I'm from, nurses are the next tier down of earners from the doctor/lawyer strata, and most of the ones I know have reasonable debt loads from state schools.
georgemcbay 11y ago
"Teachers don't teach because of how much they'll get paid." Teachers certainly don't do their work for money, but then again if their school has a couple of really good years their school superintendent doesn't walk away with half a billion dollars while the teacher still gets shitty pay and maybe a $500 Christmas bonus. If you really want to change the world for the better volunteer, do charity work, if you want a big say in direction of a project then work with friends on side projects or contribute to important open source projects. But working for people who stand to get (even more) wealthy from your well-below-market-rate work while you're unlikely to recoup basic opportunity costs is just being a sucker. There's nothing noble in that.
throwawaymaroon 11y ago
I agree with you about this principle generally, but the dynamic changes when the founders are motivated by money made for them by the zeal of those below. Working with startups is probably a great career opportunity for you. But pay attention to the decisions your company owners make, and see how much thought they give to you. If you can manage to be around people so motivated by money for that long, good for you. I couldn't manage it.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago

Dustin Moscovitz makes this argument about what the only good reason is to start a company. (http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec01/ http://startupclass.samaltman.com/courses/lec01/). IMO, it should apply to the first ~20 employees too.

Cymen 11y ago

There is nothing wrong with being motivated by both doing excellent work and being well compensated for it. If the motivation is purely money, sure, I see a problem. But you're painting both sets with the same brush.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago
There's no problem either way. If you want that big paycheck, enjoy ad tech or high-frequency trading. I'm not judging you. But if you come into a start-up, both the founder and the employee should be clear that more money can be made elsewhere. The start-up is for someone who wants that romantic lifestyle. They still will earn plenty of money, but no, it won't be as much as you'll make at [insert-huge-company-here], and that's OK. It sounds like Box dude from the story had a very cool experience building a company from 50 people to 1,000. I'm sorry all he thinks he got out of it are his stock options.
- Cymen 11y ago
  I wouldn't use the word romantic but maybe we're talking about the same thing: the excitement and joy you get from building something from scratch as a small team. You truly have to understand the whole solution and the team is small enough that rapid changes in direction are still possible and happen regularly. I agree that has immense value and getting experience with it is worth the cost. This is why I work in startups. But what are you going to do with that experience you have gained. To go back to the romance option, if you can't get someone else into the bed, romance can become very sour. I too see that the Box guy got more value than just the earnings on the options. But that more value is largely theoretical unless he can turn around and put what he learned into practice (and get compensated for it).
wpietri 11y ago
Definitely. Indeed, I'd expect an organization with a sense of mission to be better at compensating everybody fairly rather than letting gains accrue to a narrow elite. An interesting example is Kingston, a memory company. In 1996, after the bulk of the company was bought by SoftBank, Kingston's founders gave $100m in bonuses to the 550 employees. It's a shame that doesn't happen more.

kzhahou 11y ago

All you say about motivation is true. People should be in this field and at smaller riskier companies because they love tech and they love changing the world. But what possible argument can be made that if/when the company DOES mint billionaires and multimillionaires, it should only be the two or three founders and the investors that keep up to 95% of the haul? Your point would be appropriate if the problem was people not joining companies at all because no one would make money off them. Not the case. A few people will make money and lots of it. It's time now for employees to demand much higher equity.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago
I'm a former employee and now a founder. As an employee I always had a paycheck and could easily leave any time I wanted. As a founder, I spent a year with no salary, paying for servers out of pocket, and stuck with the company because we had paying customers who depend on us. As an employee, I risked maybe $10k of salary vs working elsewhere. As a founder I risked ALL OF IT. I'm making a much bigger risk as a founder than as an employee, so yeah, I expect much bigger rewards. I thought my equity and salary were fair as an employee and I think they're fair now as a founder.
- sulam 11y ago
  A founder who does everything you describe should own a substantial chunk of what they've built. They de-risked the business on their own dime. Many (most?) startups these days however are funded by an angel or early stage fund and the founder has very little risk. A failure for them means a cush stint as an EIR for their VC earning $120K/yr to look at companies while they decide what to do next. I hope _that_ company is giving substantial equity to early employees, because the risk is much more evenly distributed.
  - AstroChimpHam 11y ago
    No idea where you got that many-most figure. I hang out with a lot of founders. Don't know any except for repeat founders who get founded pre-product. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's rare, and finding that Angel to fund you that early is not easy.

throwaway2048 11y ago

others becomming VERY rich off your hard work while you get less than you would have at an established company leaves a bitter taste in your mouth if you are in it for the money or not.

dclowd9901 11y ago

The problem is when others take advantage of the highly skilled technical staff. We work at startups because of all the reasons you listed KNOWING FULL WELL that it may fold, or it may not net us that big payout. But if that pay day does come along, why is it OK for others to benefit from it at the expense of those who have spent that sweat equity? You argue for the value of passion, but you're also inadvertently siding with people who have done nothing to contribute to the product aside from spreading risk by investing in it.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago
Those investors are trusting you with a lot of money. They put in seed money these days at $5m-$10m pre-money valuation. If any of my employees come in asking to trade $50k-$100k of salary for an extra percent of the company during the first year, I'm happy to make them that deal. After the founder who went a year getting paid negative money, the investor putting $1m in their dream and valuing it at $5m-$10m is taking the next highest amount of risk, and I have no problem with the reward they get in exchange.

moistgorilla 11y ago

Sorry but I think your attitude is what is toxic. You are justifying people taking advantage of passionate coders. > and you'll be doing your start-up coworkers a favor by leaving So people fighting for what they are worth is detrimental to coworkers now? Maybe you and your coworkers need a reality check if you feel resentment towards one of your coworkers fighting for fair compensation.

AstroChimpHam 11y ago
When did I say it's OK to take advantage of anyone? Of course it's not. All I said is I'm willing to take a $10k-$20k pay cut to work at a start-up I find fulfilling instead of going to work at Google. Why do you think this trade is unfair?

lgleason 11y ago

The only problem is that the investor is in it for profit and happy to take as much money out as they can. But hey that attitude is great for the investors...convince the workers to take less so we can bank more.

douche 11y ago

Nurses make pretty good bank.

djur 11y ago
Not really. My mother, a registered nurse for her entire working life, made less at her retirement than I did at 25 as a software developer (and in Portland, not even SF). Even if she had gone into management, she would have never made as much as I do now. And this was as a RN at a hospital with a strong union presence. Hospitals today do everything they can to hire as few RNs as possible, because they draw a higher salary than LPNs and medical assistants. And the better nursing programs out there are extremely expensive, resulting in the same kind of debt load that other professional careers have started having recently.
- douche 11y ago
  It's all in where you choose to live, I guess. Where I'm from, nurses are the next tier down of earners from the doctor/lawyer strata, and most of the ones I know have reasonable debt loads from state schools.

georgemcbay 11y ago

"Teachers don't teach because of how much they'll get paid." Teachers certainly don't do their work for money, but then again if their school has a couple of really good years their school superintendent doesn't walk away with half a billion dollars while the teacher still gets shitty pay and maybe a $500 Christmas bonus. If you really want to change the world for the better volunteer, do charity work, if you want a big say in direction of a project then work with friends on side projects or contribute to important open source projects. But working for people who stand to get (even more) wealthy from your well-below-market-rate work while you're unlikely to recoup basic opportunity costs is just being a sucker. There's nothing noble in that.

throwawaymaroon 11y ago

I agree with you about this principle generally, but the dynamic changes when the founders are motivated by money made for them by the zeal of those below. Working with startups is probably a great career opportunity for you. But pay attention to the decisions your company owners make, and see how much thought they give to you. If you can manage to be around people so motivated by money for that long, good for you. I couldn't manage it.