3 ms·

This is an interesting take, and largely correct, but you describe these "waves" as if they are some literary or artistic trends that just play themselves out,

This is an interesting take, and largely correct, but you describe these "waves" as if they are some literary or artistic trends that just play themselves out, and not takes on a very real situation, which is what they really are. Yes, the 2nd wave of cynicism is now well-established, the comments are predictable and preaching-to-the-choir. However, has it become any less correct or accepted? This isn't literature or art where folks will become disenchanted with a take purely because it has become cliche. IMHO the answer is "no". This take has indeed become so established, that it is now simply taken for granted, as the foundation for discussion on sites like Blind. Everyone understands that startups now provide less value to their employees than top tech companies (FAANG etc), the startup culture in the US is doing nothing to address this (senior engineers are still getting crumbs of equity, your total compensation at a startup will still be far lower than FAANG, there is effectively zero concern for providing the long-term career growth you'd get in top tech, etc), so nobody takes startups seriously as an option unless they are among the handful of well-known unicorns. Everyone is targeting top tech ("FAANG") and pre-IPO unicorns and that's it. It's widely accepted that you'd look at any non-unicorn non-pre-IPO startups only as a fallback option after completely failing to get an offer from any of the above. Even then, you'd constantly try to ascend to the real winning options, and any call from a FAANG recruiter will take you away from the startup role you had to settle for. I believe startup culture can change that, but it will take much effort and actual sacrifice (e.g. reserving more equity for employees). Until then, startups will remain a strictly less desirable option, and just because everyone now knows and agrees on this take doesn't make it any less true. I anything, it's becoming more entrenched and harder to change.

dang 5y ago
I agree with you except I don't think it's that binary. There's a lot of hiring going on at YC startups, so "everyone now knows and agrees on this take" is a considerable overstatement. Here's where I do agree: (1) the impact of FAANG compensation is enormous, to such an extent that a lot of people (including on HN) simply refuse to believe what they hear about it, because it breaks their model of the world—even though those things are often true; (2) startups need to adjust to this. I've felt for years that the equity shift that took place from investors to founders needs to be followed up with a comparable shift in favor of early employees. On the other hand: while this shift has been happening somewhat, it's surprising to me that it hasn't taken deeper hold yet, which makes me wonder what I'm missing. I would have thought, and it sounds like you think so too, that startups have little choice but to make this shift quickly or die from starvation for top talent. It's not playing out that way. Startups continue to thrive, even though there haven't been massive structural changes yet. (I'm looking at it through YC-colored glasses, which is a privileged position, but not one that's so dissociated from the larger ecosystem as to change this point.) It may not be thriving to the extent that FAANG is, with some exceptions—but that's because nothing is.
- NeverFade 5y ago
  > There's a lot of hiring going on at YC startups, so "everyone now knows and agrees on this take" is a considerable overstatement. Consider this sentence in my response: "It's widely accepted that you'd look at any non-unicorn non-pre-IPO startups only as a fallback option after completely failing to get an offer from any of the above." Only a minority of engineers can secure employment at top-tech and pre-IPO unicorns. The rest will have to settle. My claim isn't that companies below the top won't be able to hire at all, but rather that they will have to settle for engineers: 1. Who couldn't get hired at top tech or pre-IPO unicorns which are universally seen as better options. 2. Who would leave if they can get a shot at these better options. > (2) startups need to adjust to this. I've felt for years that the equity shift that took place from investors to founders needs to be followed up with a comparable shift in favor of early employees. Yeah, I agree. When I get startup offers these days, the equity portion is so small that I just ignore it. So when I get the startup offer, I hear "$200k base + <some equity number I just ignore>", while FAANGs are offering me $400k of cold, hard cash. The startup simply don't have a chance. > On the other hand: while this shift has been happening somewhat, it's surprising to me that it hasn't taken deeper hold yet, which makes me wonder what I'm missing. My theory: startups just accepted that they'll have to initially scramble with 2nd tier, overworked staff. This isn't actually new, just the well-worn B-team/A-team strategy of startup staffing: you start out with a small team of B-players willing to take the risk (often for a very small upside) because they have no prayer of a better offer so just paying them market rate is good enough to get them to work hard and sacrifice their WLB. If your business pans out, you are now in the coveted "pre-IPO unicorn" position and can start hiring the A-team to replace your current B-team. > Startups continue to thrive, even though there haven't been massive structural changes yet. Indeed, as long as founders and VCs see it this way, then the situation will continue. I suspect the A-team/B-team strategy is just working well-enough for their needs: the B-team gets them a pretty minimal viable product, and by the time they need to deal with the difficult scaling and reliability issues associated with success, that success allows them to hire the FAANG-grade A-team that can actually deal with these. It's hard for founders and VCs, the hoarders of startup equity, to give it up unless they absolutely have to. There are no clear statistics like "if we gave up X% we can expect Y% better chance of success", and like you said, the current state seems "good enough" and still far from the catastrophic failure mode that would force them to act. So all that's really happening is that the B-team/A-team paradigm reigns unchallenged, and under that paradigm, it's actually expected and accepted for engineers to see B-team startup positions as fallbacks. > It may not be thriving to the extent that FAANG is, with some exceptions—but that's because nothing is. Personally I think there are huge long-term issues with the level of concentrated success that FAANGs are enjoying, but that's a topic for a different conversation.

dang 5y ago

I agree with you except I don't think it's that binary. There's a lot of hiring going on at YC startups, so "everyone now knows and agrees on this take" is a considerable overstatement. Here's where I do agree: (1) the impact of FAANG compensation is enormous, to such an extent that a lot of people (including on HN) simply refuse to believe what they hear about it, because it breaks their model of the world—even though those things are often true; (2) startups need to adjust to this. I've felt for years that the equity shift that took place from investors to founders needs to be followed up with a comparable shift in favor of early employees. On the other hand: while this shift has been happening somewhat, it's surprising to me that it hasn't taken deeper hold yet, which makes me wonder what I'm missing. I would have thought, and it sounds like you think so too, that startups have little choice but to make this shift quickly or die from starvation for top talent. It's not playing out that way. Startups continue to thrive, even though there haven't been massive structural changes yet. (I'm looking at it through YC-colored glasses, which is a privileged position, but not one that's so dissociated from the larger ecosystem as to change this point.) It may not be thriving to the extent that FAANG is, with some exceptions—but that's because nothing is.

NeverFade 5y ago
> There's a lot of hiring going on at YC startups, so "everyone now knows and agrees on this take" is a considerable overstatement. Consider this sentence in my response: "It's widely accepted that you'd look at any non-unicorn non-pre-IPO startups only as a fallback option after completely failing to get an offer from any of the above." Only a minority of engineers can secure employment at top-tech and pre-IPO unicorns. The rest will have to settle. My claim isn't that companies below the top won't be able to hire at all, but rather that they will have to settle for engineers: 1. Who couldn't get hired at top tech or pre-IPO unicorns which are universally seen as better options. 2. Who would leave if they can get a shot at these better options. > (2) startups need to adjust to this. I've felt for years that the equity shift that took place from investors to founders needs to be followed up with a comparable shift in favor of early employees. Yeah, I agree. When I get startup offers these days, the equity portion is so small that I just ignore it. So when I get the startup offer, I hear "$200k base + <some equity number I just ignore>", while FAANGs are offering me $400k of cold, hard cash. The startup simply don't have a chance. > On the other hand: while this shift has been happening somewhat, it's surprising to me that it hasn't taken deeper hold yet, which makes me wonder what I'm missing. My theory: startups just accepted that they'll have to initially scramble with 2nd tier, overworked staff. This isn't actually new, just the well-worn B-team/A-team strategy of startup staffing: you start out with a small team of B-players willing to take the risk (often for a very small upside) because they have no prayer of a better offer so just paying them market rate is good enough to get them to work hard and sacrifice their WLB. If your business pans out, you are now in the coveted "pre-IPO unicorn" position and can start hiring the A-team to replace your current B-team. > Startups continue to thrive, even though there haven't been massive structural changes yet. Indeed, as long as founders and VCs see it this way, then the situation will continue. I suspect the A-team/B-team strategy is just working well-enough for their needs: the B-team gets them a pretty minimal viable product, and by the time they need to deal with the difficult scaling and reliability issues associated with success, that success allows them to hire the FAANG-grade A-team that can actually deal with these. It's hard for founders and VCs, the hoarders of startup equity, to give it up unless they absolutely have to. There are no clear statistics like "if we gave up X% we can expect Y% better chance of success", and like you said, the current state seems "good enough" and still far from the catastrophic failure mode that would force them to act. So all that's really happening is that the B-team/A-team paradigm reigns unchallenged, and under that paradigm, it's actually expected and accepted for engineers to see B-team startup positions as fallbacks. > It may not be thriving to the extent that FAANG is, with some exceptions—but that's because nothing is. Personally I think there are huge long-term issues with the level of concentrated success that FAANGs are enjoying, but that's a topic for a different conversation.