5 ms·

Is there any evidence of that programmers avoid working at startups? Is there any evidence that disproportionate returns (as opposed to risk avoidance) is the

Is there any evidence of that programmers avoid working at startups? Is there any evidence that disproportionate returns (as opposed to risk avoidance) is the major reason? I'm not saying increased compensation wouldn't increase interest (that applies to any job). But, there is nothing in this article to suggest that startups are hurting to recruit and that this is due to compensation rather than life/work balance and job stability.

gcb 17y ago
i personaly avoid to code for startups because of previous experiences with crazy hours and insane amounts of work. (But i do plan to hire some people soon and demand that from them) The point is that a better compensation migth, well, compensate this.
potatolicious 17y ago
I wouldn't work for a startup without a significant amount of equity - startups are infamous for extended crunch mode, a complete lack of work/life balance, etc. Sorry, if that's the expectation I think I rightfully expect at least a "best case" scenario of getting rich.
mattiss 17y ago
I would never work at a startup without 1 or more of the following: 1.) Same pay as big-corp + much more interesting problem domain. 2.) More pay than big-corp scaled by the extra hours (not a 1:1 scaling) 3.) Large amount of equity. Enough that if the founders become tens of millionaires, I become a millionaire.
- enjo 17y ago
  The issue being actually accomplishing #3. As a founder I can't afford to give you a huge chunk of the company (lets say 10% all by yourself). So I give you and the other 4 employees each 5%. That is going to be diluted down to god knows how little by series C. Probably something in the range of 0.5%-1% in a lot of cases. Now your screwed either way. The simple fact is, when investors are involved there is NEVER enough equity to go around.
  - mattiss 17y ago
    5% is still pretty good. The fact is most people offer .1% -> 1%, which is practically worthless after dilution.
  - dustingetz 17y ago
    "In the general case, if n is the fraction of the company you're giving up, the deal is a good one if it makes the company worth more than 1/(1 - n)." http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html you took money because it made your smaller % worth more. so why are we even talking about %s?

gcb 17y ago

i personaly avoid to code for startups because of previous experiences with crazy hours and insane amounts of work. (But i do plan to hire some people soon and demand that from them) The point is that a better compensation migth, well, compensate this.

potatolicious 17y ago

I wouldn't work for a startup without a significant amount of equity - startups are infamous for extended crunch mode, a complete lack of work/life balance, etc. Sorry, if that's the expectation I think I rightfully expect at least a "best case" scenario of getting rich.

mattiss 17y ago

I would never work at a startup without 1 or more of the following: 1.) Same pay as big-corp + much more interesting problem domain. 2.) More pay than big-corp scaled by the extra hours (not a 1:1 scaling) 3.) Large amount of equity. Enough that if the founders become tens of millionaires, I become a millionaire.

enjo 17y ago
The issue being actually accomplishing #3. As a founder I can't afford to give you a huge chunk of the company (lets say 10% all by yourself). So I give you and the other 4 employees each 5%. That is going to be diluted down to god knows how little by series C. Probably something in the range of 0.5%-1% in a lot of cases. Now your screwed either way. The simple fact is, when investors are involved there is NEVER enough equity to go around.
- mattiss 17y ago
  5% is still pretty good. The fact is most people offer .1% -> 1%, which is practically worthless after dilution.
- dustingetz 17y ago
  "In the general case, if n is the fraction of the company you're giving up, the deal is a good one if it makes the company worth more than 1/(1 - n)." http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html you took money because it made your smaller % worth more. so why are we even talking about %s?