3 ms·

I don't think my experiences follow this, I've had very cushy well-paying jobs both in VC-funded startups and FAANG. I think there is this romantic notion that

I don't think my experiences follow this, I've had very cushy well-paying jobs both in VC-funded startups and FAANG. I think there is this romantic notion that the software industry is this cut-throat free market utopia where the best ideas win, and I just don't think it's so. Most large companies have a sizable monopoly and most VC funded companies of certain size usually have years of runway. In both cases, people can and do coast. Obviously the new economic realities will have something to say about this, but in my experience long hours is not required for high pay and status in software.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Kinda agree, kinda disagree. For VC-funded startups, in the early stages I do think a very high workload is the norm, depending on the job. At most startups, there is simply not enough redundancy early on, especially before product market fit. Note I don't think this applies to everyone, but I've worked in early stage startups, and up to about the size of, say, 20 developers, it was easy to point out 5-10 folks where the company would have really been in deep doodoo if they didn't deliver. Of course, for startups where it's already pretty clear they are the "favorites" (think Stripe, AirBnB a couple years after their founding, etc.), I don't think that's true. And FAANGs are a whole different ball game. They are pretty famous for having a large subset of their dev teams that are more on the 10-4 schedule.
- greesil 4y ago
  Having worked in both in MANGA and startup land, I can can say that not delivering is a big problem in both places. Culturally, startup land seemed to have a lot of younger people without families, and I suspect that is one important factor why hours are less at big corp. The other factor is you're in demand of you're in the MANGA club, so the boss doesn't have that much leverage.
- lumost 4y ago
  One of the most painful, obvious, and annoying lessons I learned in my software career is that if you're team needs to grind hard - it's unlikely to be successful. Software is a great business when its working, high margin, low maintenance, and great growth economics. When companies are successful at it, they often are so successful that there is very little internal pressure to produce. No successful company survives as a country club, so there is a high pressure for high quality delivery of some number of projects per year, or at least appreciable progress. There simply isn't any need for the company to push people beyond a 40 hour work week.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    I disagree with this when it comes to early-stage startups, primarily because the world often throws you curveballs that even the best planning can't avoid, and at an early stage there just isn't enough spare capacity to deal with it without scrambling. I worked at a startup that was very well managed IMO. We selected a critical partner early on. About 2 years later that critical partner was bought out by a larger corporation, and they decided to close the business line we depended on (lots of other customers were kicked off and pissed). They even tried to bring up BS contract issues to get out of their contract early. We had fortunately already started adding an additional partner to take advantage of more functionality and not have a single point of failure, but it was still a mad, stressful dash to get everything switched over. Startups just fundamentally don't have the level of repeatability/predictability at an early stage that would make bulletproof planning possible.
    - lumost 4y ago
      > Startups just fundamentally don't have the level of repeatability/predictability at an early stage that would make bulletproof planning possible. Agreed, startups are often low margin, chaotic businesses at the outset, with poor product/market fit. At the start, these are not "good" software businesses, many of these startups will fail/be bought early/struggle. Early in my career I sought out teams who had strong "hustle", when I eventually went to work at a big tech - I was surprised at the slower pace.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Kinda agree, kinda disagree. For VC-funded startups, in the early stages I do think a very high workload is the norm, depending on the job. At most startups, there is simply not enough redundancy early on, especially before product market fit. Note I don't think this applies to everyone, but I've worked in early stage startups, and up to about the size of, say, 20 developers, it was easy to point out 5-10 folks where the company would have really been in deep doodoo if they didn't deliver. Of course, for startups where it's already pretty clear they are the "favorites" (think Stripe, AirBnB a couple years after their founding, etc.), I don't think that's true. And FAANGs are a whole different ball game. They are pretty famous for having a large subset of their dev teams that are more on the 10-4 schedule.

greesil 4y ago
Having worked in both in MANGA and startup land, I can can say that not delivering is a big problem in both places. Culturally, startup land seemed to have a lot of younger people without families, and I suspect that is one important factor why hours are less at big corp. The other factor is you're in demand of you're in the MANGA club, so the boss doesn't have that much leverage.
lumost 4y ago
One of the most painful, obvious, and annoying lessons I learned in my software career is that if you're team needs to grind hard - it's unlikely to be successful. Software is a great business when its working, high margin, low maintenance, and great growth economics. When companies are successful at it, they often are so successful that there is very little internal pressure to produce. No successful company survives as a country club, so there is a high pressure for high quality delivery of some number of projects per year, or at least appreciable progress. There simply isn't any need for the company to push people beyond a 40 hour work week.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I disagree with this when it comes to early-stage startups, primarily because the world often throws you curveballs that even the best planning can't avoid, and at an early stage there just isn't enough spare capacity to deal with it without scrambling. I worked at a startup that was very well managed IMO. We selected a critical partner early on. About 2 years later that critical partner was bought out by a larger corporation, and they decided to close the business line we depended on (lots of other customers were kicked off and pissed). They even tried to bring up BS contract issues to get out of their contract early. We had fortunately already started adding an additional partner to take advantage of more functionality and not have a single point of failure, but it was still a mad, stressful dash to get everything switched over. Startups just fundamentally don't have the level of repeatability/predictability at an early stage that would make bulletproof planning possible.
  - lumost 4y ago
    > Startups just fundamentally don't have the level of repeatability/predictability at an early stage that would make bulletproof planning possible. Agreed, startups are often low margin, chaotic businesses at the outset, with poor product/market fit. At the start, these are not "good" software businesses, many of these startups will fail/be bought early/struggle. Early in my career I sought out teams who had strong "hustle", when I eventually went to work at a big tech - I was surprised at the slower pace.