4 ms·

> Startups aren't for financial security. They are for the frontiermen who are hoping to strike it rich in the gold rush. Most don't but some do. I think you m

by rohern 14y ago

> Startups aren't for financial security. They are for the frontiermen who are hoping to strike it rich in the gold rush. Most don't but some do. I think you mean "Founding a startup is for the frontiermen..." Being an employee is not. Being an employee is a losing proposition far more often than the 95% you cited.

guptaneil 14y ago
It's a losing proposition, financially speaking. But it sure is a lot more fun and satisfying working at a startup than a large corporation. Although there aren't tangible or financial benefits for working at a startup, there are definitely benefits that a large company simply can't provide, like experience and independence. For someone in their early 20's straight out of college, those benefits can outweigh the financial benefits of a big company.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  The 2009 post by Mark Sussman, "Is it Time for You to Earn or Learn?" comes to mind (I think it was recently reposted to HN) [1] http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for-you-to-earn-or-to-learn/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for...
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 14y ago
  It's a losing proposition, financially speaking. But it sure is a lot more fun and satisfying working at a startup than a large corporation. Maybe. However, I think most us know people that love working for Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, et al. Frankly, I think your independence claim is overstated—financial support is crucial. Shigeru Miyamoto emphasized this perspective in a 2012 New Yorker profile: “There’s a big difference between the money you receive personally from the company and the money you can use in your job.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_... There’re many reasons to found a startup, very few to work for one.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    There’re many reasons to found a startup, very few to work for one. There are good startups out there. I'm almost notorious for startup-bashing because so many of them have awful cultures, but there are decent small/new companies out there. You'll probably have to look outside of VC-istan. VC-istan seems to appeal to the Clueless (see: MacLeod hierarchy) young who will jump at the chance to work "at a startup!" without discrimination. I know someone who's actually looking at building a startup without equity. He will hold 100% of the stock, at least at first. Variable pay will be profit-sharing. He wants this company to last 20+ years without acquisition, so instead of putting the focus on a future cash-out, he wants people to be rewarded continually for good work.
    - technotony 14y ago
      How's he doing with that offer? Is he at least paying market salary?
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        He hasn't started it yet. He's bootstrapping. He plans on paying market to slightly above, and being generous with annual bonuses (the profit-sharing). Wall Street gets a bad rap for its bonuses, and there are some cultural problems with it, but it's a better mechanism for compensation than what VC-istan uses. Also, I think that Wall Street culture is less horrible than VC-istan. On Wall Street, some people get butthurt about their bonuses, but you don't have teams of 15 programmers where every single one is trying to become VP/Eng and get a real slice.
        eldavido 14y ago
        I've read a lot of your writing and agree with some of it. Bootstrapping is attractive, but it's very hard to do. Also, as misguided as employee equity grants might be, it has become the standard for compensation in SV; that a company doesn't offer some token ownership definitely will make it harder to hire. I think it really boils down to, if you want to take part in "VC-istan" as a founder/employee, move to SF, if not, go somewhere else, because it's just too hard to hire/hold down an office/live in SF on bootstrapping.
nonamegiven 14y ago
It sounds like being an employee at a stereotypical startup is like being a native bearer in an African expedition movie from the fifties.

by rohern 14y ago

guptaneil 14y ago

It's a losing proposition, financially speaking. But it sure is a lot more fun and satisfying working at a startup than a large corporation. Although there aren't tangible or financial benefits for working at a startup, there are definitely benefits that a large company simply can't provide, like experience and independence. For someone in their early 20's straight out of college, those benefits can outweigh the financial benefits of a big company.

hkmurakami 14y ago
The 2009 post by Mark Sussman, "Is it Time for You to Earn or Learn?" comes to mind (I think it was recently reposted to HN) [1] http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for-you-to-earn-or-to-learn/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for...
Q6T46nT668w6i3m 14y ago
It's a losing proposition, financially speaking. But it sure is a lot more fun and satisfying working at a startup than a large corporation. Maybe. However, I think most us know people that love working for Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, et al. Frankly, I think your independence claim is overstated—financial support is crucial. Shigeru Miyamoto emphasized this perspective in a 2012 New Yorker profile: “There’s a big difference between the money you receive personally from the company and the money you can use in your job.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_... There’re many reasons to found a startup, very few to work for one.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  There’re many reasons to found a startup, very few to work for one. There are good startups out there. I'm almost notorious for startup-bashing because so many of them have awful cultures, but there are decent small/new companies out there. You'll probably have to look outside of VC-istan. VC-istan seems to appeal to the Clueless (see: MacLeod hierarchy) young who will jump at the chance to work "at a startup!" without discrimination. I know someone who's actually looking at building a startup without equity. He will hold 100% of the stock, at least at first. Variable pay will be profit-sharing. He wants this company to last 20+ years without acquisition, so instead of putting the focus on a future cash-out, he wants people to be rewarded continually for good work.
  - technotony 14y ago
    How's he doing with that offer? Is he at least paying market salary?
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      He hasn't started it yet. He's bootstrapping. He plans on paying market to slightly above, and being generous with annual bonuses (the profit-sharing). Wall Street gets a bad rap for its bonuses, and there are some cultural problems with it, but it's a better mechanism for compensation than what VC-istan uses. Also, I think that Wall Street culture is less horrible than VC-istan. On Wall Street, some people get butthurt about their bonuses, but you don't have teams of 15 programmers where every single one is trying to become VP/Eng and get a real slice.
      - eldavido 14y ago
        I've read a lot of your writing and agree with some of it. Bootstrapping is attractive, but it's very hard to do. Also, as misguided as employee equity grants might be, it has become the standard for compensation in SV; that a company doesn't offer some token ownership definitely will make it harder to hire. I think it really boils down to, if you want to take part in "VC-istan" as a founder/employee, move to SF, if not, go somewhere else, because it's just too hard to hire/hold down an office/live in SF on bootstrapping.

nonamegiven 14y ago

It sounds like being an employee at a stereotypical startup is like being a native bearer in an African expedition movie from the fifties.