3 ms·
That doesn't sound right to me. As far as I can tell, for most positions, if you just care about money and are not counting on the IPO lottery, you're better o
by chubot 10y ago
That doesn't sound right to me. As far as I can tell, for most positions, if you just care about money and are not counting on the IPO lottery, you're better off working at Google or Facebook (assuming you can get the job). In other words, overfunded startups aren't paying THAT much.
And even then, most people would not call you "rich" by Silicon Valley standards. I would say "rich" at a minimum requires you to be able to buy a house in Silicon Valley or SF.
- geggam 10y ago... buy a modest house in SF or a castle... or an island with a house only rich people have houses in SF ... for now
- Swizec 10y agoThis is true, my strategy hedges bets. Get enough cash to cover expenses and save a lot -> no downside. Still participate in the potential upside. Low risk, high reward is the name of the game. A job at Google or Facebook, if you can get it, is just as stable these days as a job at a startup is.
- tracker1 10y agoDepending on where you are, any job at $BIG_CORP is generally more stable than any startup I've worked for... at least outside SV. I've spent most of my life in the Phoenix area, and the job market for developers (outside late 2001 through mid 2002) has been very good, especially compared to cost of living. It's all been line of business work for the most part, and none of it too exciting. But it pays consistently. And does leave enough time to work on secondary projects. I've never really seen the draw into the startup lottery, it just seems like a bad bet as an employee most of the time.