4 ms·

Software is already fantastically profitable. Productive SaaS companies right now collect ~500k in revenue per employee. If what you describe happens (33% cut

Software is already fantastically profitable. Productive SaaS companies right now collect ~500k in revenue per employee. If what you describe happens (33% cut to salaries) then the bar for your own startup to be worth it is suddenly lower. If large companies don’t pay us good salaries then why would we not go and build better competitors without the legacy and dead weight?

DrewADesign 8mo ago
Go for it. I got out of that ridiculous ouroboro of an industry years ago. That might be great for you, but surely you can’t imagine VC funding enough startups to save the software labor market? The tech workforce is giant. Do you think there are tens or hundreds of thousands of ways to make unique new software products where even a single digit percentage are commercially viable? Software isn’t fungible: it needs to solve specific problems that people have, and do it well enough to deal with the hassle of switching software. This isn’t an individual problem— it’s an industry-wide problem. (I pulled the 2/3 number out of a hat to illustrate the point. I put exactly zero analysis into that.)
palmotea 8mo ago
> If what you describe happens (33% cut to salaries) then the bar for your own startup to be worth it is suddenly lower. That sounds like a material reduction in quality of life. Running a startup seems like it would entail way more hours worked and way more pressure, even if you were making better money. IMHO, that's not a good trade off.
- bayarearefugee 8mo ago
  > Running a startup seems like it would entail way more hours worked and way more pressure, even if you were making better money. It is also ignoring scalability issues in the sense that if a large number of people now working regular jobs in tech are forced down this path, the amount of competition among these startups would be astronomical which would result is downward pressure on both the ability to fundraise and the ability to generate revenue for your particular startup. Impossible for me to believe each individual startup founder would find some profitable niche to fit into.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

DrewADesign 8mo ago

Go for it. I got out of that ridiculous ouroboro of an industry years ago. That might be great for you, but surely you can’t imagine VC funding enough startups to save the software labor market? The tech workforce is giant. Do you think there are tens or hundreds of thousands of ways to make unique new software products where even a single digit percentage are commercially viable? Software isn’t fungible: it needs to solve specific problems that people have, and do it well enough to deal with the hassle of switching software. This isn’t an individual problem— it’s an industry-wide problem. (I pulled the 2/3 number out of a hat to illustrate the point. I put exactly zero analysis into that.)

palmotea 8mo ago

> If what you describe happens (33% cut to salaries) then the bar for your own startup to be worth it is suddenly lower. That sounds like a material reduction in quality of life. Running a startup seems like it would entail way more hours worked and way more pressure, even if you were making better money. IMHO, that's not a good trade off.

bayarearefugee 8mo ago
> Running a startup seems like it would entail way more hours worked and way more pressure, even if you were making better money. It is also ignoring scalability issues in the sense that if a large number of people now working regular jobs in tech are forced down this path, the amount of competition among these startups would be astronomical which would result is downward pressure on both the ability to fundraise and the ability to generate revenue for your particular startup. Impossible for me to believe each individual startup founder would find some profitable niche to fit into.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]