3 ms·

Engineers making $300k/yr aren't interested in first-hire jobs over at the latest "Uber for X" YC-backed company. There will be exceptions, certainly, but that'

by meritt 10y ago

Engineers making $300k/yr aren't interested in first-hire jobs over at the latest "Uber for X" YC-backed company. There will be exceptions, certainly, but that's going to be incredibly rare. First hires tend to be mid-level aspiring engineers looking for make a name for themselves and get in early but for whatever risk-adverse reason aren't looking for a cofounder type role. They usually need a steady paycheck. Obviously there's always going to be a balance between equity and salary, but the hypothetical scenario we're talking about here is "first employee" which tends to mean a salaried position with benefits.

acconrad 10y ago
> whatever risk-adverse reason aren't looking for a cofounder type role Or can't get it - because they don't have the idea to be a cofounder, or don't have the experience to be a CTO. And to address your comment in the higher tier, I never said the salary had to be competitive - in fact when I was a first employee my salary was cut in half (and my salaary was not that high by any stretch beforehand), but my equity was in a few percentage points. So yes, my point stands, if it requires very little capital or risk to found a company, but it's vital that you hire help, I would expect that you give them meaningful equity, especially if they're doing a great deal of the effort and labor to get there. I don't think that's entitled, I think that's being fair to your employees who are busting their ass to make you rich.
sheepmullet 10y ago
> the hypothetical scenario we're talking about here is "first employee" which tends to mean a salaried position with benefits. Agreed. Which is why they aren't getting co-founder levels of equity. 5% for a key position sounds about right. But if you want them to go all-in on your startup then you are mad not to compensate them for it. If you want mis-aligned incentives for a very key position then go right ahead but don't call someone entitled for wanting to be compensated fairly for the risk and responsibilities.

by meritt 10y ago

acconrad 10y ago

> whatever risk-adverse reason aren't looking for a cofounder type role Or can't get it - because they don't have the idea to be a cofounder, or don't have the experience to be a CTO. And to address your comment in the higher tier, I never said the salary had to be competitive - in fact when I was a first employee my salary was cut in half (and my salaary was not that high by any stretch beforehand), but my equity was in a few percentage points. So yes, my point stands, if it requires very little capital or risk to found a company, but it's vital that you hire help, I would expect that you give them meaningful equity, especially if they're doing a great deal of the effort and labor to get there. I don't think that's entitled, I think that's being fair to your employees who are busting their ass to make you rich.

sheepmullet 10y ago

> the hypothetical scenario we're talking about here is "first employee" which tends to mean a salaried position with benefits. Agreed. Which is why they aren't getting co-founder levels of equity. 5% for a key position sounds about right. But if you want them to go all-in on your startup then you are mad not to compensate them for it. If you want mis-aligned incentives for a very key position then go right ahead but don't call someone entitled for wanting to be compensated fairly for the risk and responsibilities.