3 ms·

Experience suggests this may be wise. I feel there's a huge "repricing" of the value of early-stage tech employment occurring as capable developers realize jus

Experience suggests this may be wise. I feel there's a huge "repricing" of the value of early-stage tech employment occurring as capable developers realize just how shitty the standard 90k + .1% job offer for 50-60 hours/wk, little autonomy, and zero chance for promotion is, in a city where apartments cost 3400/mo, gas is 3.50/gal and income taxes are 9.4%. (And the city wants a "tech tax" on payroll of companies) I worked in this kind of environment for a few years, gained some great experience/connections, and enjoyed it to a large extent, but probably wouldn't do it again.

nostrademons 10y ago
I've noticed both sides of this repricing - it works both ways. Good, experienced American developers are realizing that $90K + 0.1% equity is a really shitty deal relative to what the rest of the tech industry pays, and they're giving up startup work for AmaGooAppBook. At the same time, entrepreneurs are realizing that they don't actually need a good engineer to build v1 of their product, and so they're relying more on international contractors sourced through UpWork, Alibaba, etc. Most startups I know actually have entirely-international dev teams now, and hiring your first local engineer is considered a milestone like getting funded (and often comes after getting funded). I suspect that the real losers in this are entrepreneurs - the startup field has become so competitive lately that there's likely to be a shake-out where the vast majority of startups fail, and many founders are paying for these outsourced dev teams out-of-pocket.
- eldavido 10y ago
  Thank you for the very insightful comment. This is yet another example of what I call the "Hollywood-ization of tech", where the industry (we?) are trying to sort out the relative value of being attached to something big vs. money vs. relationships. I think our industry is maturing. I see it all around me. The industry-wide career ladder is starting to solidify, we're getting more concerned about credentials/pedigree, salaries are going way up, people are getting more concerned about their "careers", etc. I don't know that it'll ever get to the point of, say, law or banking, but it's a hell of a lot closer than it was 15-20 years ago, when there was much more of a "homesteading" feel to everything, and the suggestion that software could be a prestigious career choice was the last thing on anyone's mind. To be clear, I don't know if any of this is good or bad, but it's definitely happening.
- eldavido 10y ago
  Another thing (sorry for double reply but it's really a totally different comment) I think you have to frame "losers" in a financial context. Let's assume the hypothetical "entrepreneur" of your comment is an ambitious 25-30 year old male (they usually are), then the relevant question becomes, "am I better off being an entrepreneur or working for someone else". I think that's as much a question about the value of autonomy vs. money. I have little doubt most people, given that they could work at say, Goldman, would be better off financially doing that than trying to do a tech startup. So in that sense, they've definitely "lost". Then there's the investor's perspective...a company that takes a $100k investment and turns it into $1M for the investor is a pretty good outcome. And I think there's a lot of potential for wins on that scale, but that's not how things are being done today. Instead, money is piling into OKish opportunities by the truckload, because every investor has the hubris to think their deal flow is as good as Greylock/a16z/USV/KPCB, etc. They'll win because they have their pick of what deal to do, and there certainly are great companies; there just aren't enough to go around to all the low-tier family offices and rich-doctor syndicates, and other "fools" who are piling into tech equity. The point is, I think you have to frame win vs. loss in terms of opportunity cost. If the broad market declines 10% and you only lose 2%, that might be a "win" even though, objectively, it's a "loss".

nostrademons 10y ago

I've noticed both sides of this repricing - it works both ways. Good, experienced American developers are realizing that $90K + 0.1% equity is a really shitty deal relative to what the rest of the tech industry pays, and they're giving up startup work for AmaGooAppBook. At the same time, entrepreneurs are realizing that they don't actually need a good engineer to build v1 of their product, and so they're relying more on international contractors sourced through UpWork, Alibaba, etc. Most startups I know actually have entirely-international dev teams now, and hiring your first local engineer is considered a milestone like getting funded (and often comes after getting funded). I suspect that the real losers in this are entrepreneurs - the startup field has become so competitive lately that there's likely to be a shake-out where the vast majority of startups fail, and many founders are paying for these outsourced dev teams out-of-pocket.

eldavido 10y ago
Thank you for the very insightful comment. This is yet another example of what I call the "Hollywood-ization of tech", where the industry (we?) are trying to sort out the relative value of being attached to something big vs. money vs. relationships. I think our industry is maturing. I see it all around me. The industry-wide career ladder is starting to solidify, we're getting more concerned about credentials/pedigree, salaries are going way up, people are getting more concerned about their "careers", etc. I don't know that it'll ever get to the point of, say, law or banking, but it's a hell of a lot closer than it was 15-20 years ago, when there was much more of a "homesteading" feel to everything, and the suggestion that software could be a prestigious career choice was the last thing on anyone's mind. To be clear, I don't know if any of this is good or bad, but it's definitely happening.
eldavido 10y ago
Another thing (sorry for double reply but it's really a totally different comment) I think you have to frame "losers" in a financial context. Let's assume the hypothetical "entrepreneur" of your comment is an ambitious 25-30 year old male (they usually are), then the relevant question becomes, "am I better off being an entrepreneur or working for someone else". I think that's as much a question about the value of autonomy vs. money. I have little doubt most people, given that they could work at say, Goldman, would be better off financially doing that than trying to do a tech startup. So in that sense, they've definitely "lost". Then there's the investor's perspective...a company that takes a $100k investment and turns it into $1M for the investor is a pretty good outcome. And I think there's a lot of potential for wins on that scale, but that's not how things are being done today. Instead, money is piling into OKish opportunities by the truckload, because every investor has the hubris to think their deal flow is as good as Greylock/a16z/USV/KPCB, etc. They'll win because they have their pick of what deal to do, and there certainly are great companies; there just aren't enough to go around to all the low-tier family offices and rich-doctor syndicates, and other "fools" who are piling into tech equity. The point is, I think you have to frame win vs. loss in terms of opportunity cost. If the broad market declines 10% and you only lose 2%, that might be a "win" even though, objectively, it's a "loss".