3 ms·

> many would have made the same amount of money if they struck out on their own, opening a small boutique firm Surely this it the same in tech. Most employees

by rr808 3y ago

> many would have made the same amount of money if they struck out on their own, opening a small boutique firm Surely this it the same in tech. Most employees of FAANG companies could do something in a small company but the big company is just more prestigious and less risky. Every small business is like this now, doctors offices, restaurants, stores are all chains.

metadat 3y ago
Big companies also pay in RSUs which immediately convert to real money. Most of the time, startup equity is funny money. Especially for the rank and file.
mertd 3y ago
Tech is winner takes all. It's very hard to make FAANG salary level income with a couple of clients.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
> Most employees of FAANG companies could do something in a small company but the big company is just more prestigious and less risky It's the opposite. At a FAANG they won't have to be on-call 24x7x365 and will get great salary and publicly tradable stock but at a small startup they will have to be on call 24x7x365 for "ESOPS" that is so skewed in the favour of the startup and the founders and VCs that they get the double whammy of slaving at much lower salary where they have the ESOP bone in front of them dangling from a thin thread. I mean it can't get more ridiculous than this that you have to pay and then pay taxes for something you can't do jackshit with it, and if you get fired you have the "opportunity" to pay a company that just fired you and pay taxes again on something that's not even paper money and that too within few weeks to few months.
int0x2e 3y ago
FWIW, there's a study that looked at patent filings and paper publications for inventors in small vs. large companies. It seems that as a whole, when people choose the Big-X route, they tend to make fewer inventions and publish fewer papers and their inventions and papers get cited less. So, in theory, by going to work in Big-Tech, you're choosing greater comfort and prestige, while reducing your overall impact on the world, while the startup route holds much more expected impact, but a much higher likelihood of reduced financial comfort. There's a part of me that thinks that nations that encourage hoarding talent would be less successful than those that encourage innovation, and therefore, I wonder if we need some sort of innovation grant (i.e.: for every successful patent application/company registration/etc. that is NOT fraudulent, the submitter gets 24 months of financial support at the median income level, so they can chase that dream)

by rr808 3y ago

metadat 3y ago

Big companies also pay in RSUs which immediately convert to real money. Most of the time, startup equity is funny money. Especially for the rank and file.

mertd 3y ago

Tech is winner takes all. It's very hard to make FAANG salary level income with a couple of clients.

crossroadsguy 3y ago

> Most employees of FAANG companies could do something in a small company but the big company is just more prestigious and less risky It's the opposite. At a FAANG they won't have to be on-call 24x7x365 and will get great salary and publicly tradable stock but at a small startup they will have to be on call 24x7x365 for "ESOPS" that is so skewed in the favour of the startup and the founders and VCs that they get the double whammy of slaving at much lower salary where they have the ESOP bone in front of them dangling from a thin thread. I mean it can't get more ridiculous than this that you have to pay and then pay taxes for something you can't do jackshit with it, and if you get fired you have the "opportunity" to pay a company that just fired you and pay taxes again on something that's not even paper money and that too within few weeks to few months.

int0x2e 3y ago

FWIW, there's a study that looked at patent filings and paper publications for inventors in small vs. large companies. It seems that as a whole, when people choose the Big-X route, they tend to make fewer inventions and publish fewer papers and their inventions and papers get cited less. So, in theory, by going to work in Big-Tech, you're choosing greater comfort and prestige, while reducing your overall impact on the world, while the startup route holds much more expected impact, but a much higher likelihood of reduced financial comfort. There's a part of me that thinks that nations that encourage hoarding talent would be less successful than those that encourage innovation, and therefore, I wonder if we need some sort of innovation grant (i.e.: for every successful patent application/company registration/etc. that is NOT fraudulent, the submitter gets 24 months of financial support at the median income level, so they can chase that dream)