4 ms·

Just because a startup doesn't offer lots of monetary benefits doesn't mean it doesn't respect its employees. Generally, the advantage of a startup is that you

Just because a startup doesn't offer lots of monetary benefits doesn't mean it doesn't respect its employees. Generally, the advantage of a startup is that you get far greater independence and autonomy than in a large corporation. You have to personally weigh what matters to you more: money or independence. My point was that startups should favor employees who want independence more than money because as it has been said above, being an employee at a startup is a losing proposition. At least the startup will have optimized for hiring people that are ok with that.

aplusbi 14y ago
You just pointed out why your argument fails - it's a poor indicator. A company that doesn't offer lots of benefits may or may not respect its employees. Likewise an employee willing to accept a below-market offer may or may not be committed to the vision.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Likewise an employee willing to accept a below-market offer may or may not be committed to the vision. What vision? I thought we are all professionals working for the money. It seems bleeding edge capitalism forgets the "free market" and "egoism turns out for the best" and resorts to idealism and religious-like "visions" for the company -- in order to have fools work for less than they could.
  - aplusbi 14y ago
    Uh, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as my point was that offering below market salaries to try and get "good" employees is a stupid idea. That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Uh, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as my point was that offering below market salaries to try and get "good" employees is a stupid idea. Hi, I wasn't answering to your comment as it is, just got inspiration from your "vision" quote (something that one hears often repeated from startup guys). >That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street. Sure (I also care for the work environment, tech involved etc), but that doesn't mean I work for some "vision" or that I even believe that 99% of startups even have a vision worthy of mention.
argonaut 14y ago
What does money have to do with independence? Can't you richly reward autonomous engineers? Are you suggesting there is an inverse correlation between independence and benefits? Are you suggesting there is a mutually exclusive zero-sum relationship between attention paid to benefits and attention paid to independence? All of these are unfounded assumptions.
- guptaneil 14y ago
  I didn't claim that money and independence are mutually exclusive (though I can see how that may have been interpreted). Instead, I made 2 assumptions. 1. Startups don't have as much money as a large corporation. 2. You, as an engineer, have more autonomy at a startup than a large corporation. The reason I would choose to work at a startup over a corporation is because I value my autonomy, even if it means making less money than I would if I took a job at a large company. When I am a 45 year old father, my priorities will probably change. There's nothing wrong with that. The question at hand is, should startups try to compete with large corporations on benefit packages? Benefits are important to feeling welcome and appreciated at work. At no point have I claimed otherwise. My sole claim has been that if I had to make a tradeoff between certain benefits (that don't necessarily impact me as a young recent college graduate) and increased autonomy, I will pick autonomy. This is why startups optimize for recruiting younger developers. If a young developer thinks an idea is cool and believes in it, she will work her ass off. A 45 year old father, on the other hand, has other priorities. To reiterate, there is nothing wrong with that! But if a startup cannot afford to support such an experienced programmer (startups can't offer competitive salary, job safety, 401k, etc), it's better for the 45yo father to consider that before hand, rather than get burned later. If the startup had offered him the same benefits and salary as the large company, he may have accepted the startup's offer. The startup could then go out of business in 2 months, and he'd be screwed. A young college graduate would have far more flexibility to bounce back and find another job, simply because the younger developer has fewer responsibilities. A startup should offer as many benefits as it can. But the reality is that most startups simply cannot provide the same benefits as a large company, and I think that's ok. It's really not as evil as the author makes it seem because startups are targeting a different demographic than him. If a startup's lack of benefits aren't acceptable to you, then you probably also shouldn't be taking the many other risks involved with doing a startup.

aplusbi 14y ago

You just pointed out why your argument fails - it's a poor indicator. A company that doesn't offer lots of benefits may or may not respect its employees. Likewise an employee willing to accept a below-market offer may or may not be committed to the vision.

coldtea 14y ago
>Likewise an employee willing to accept a below-market offer may or may not be committed to the vision. What vision? I thought we are all professionals working for the money. It seems bleeding edge capitalism forgets the "free market" and "egoism turns out for the best" and resorts to idealism and religious-like "visions" for the company -- in order to have fools work for less than they could.
- aplusbi 14y ago
  Uh, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as my point was that offering below market salaries to try and get "good" employees is a stupid idea. That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Uh, I'm not sure why you're responding to me as my point was that offering below market salaries to try and get "good" employees is a stupid idea. Hi, I wasn't answering to your comment as it is, just got inspiration from your "vision" quote (something that one hears often repeated from startup guys). >That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street. Sure (I also care for the work environment, tech involved etc), but that doesn't mean I work for some "vision" or that I even believe that 99% of startups even have a vision worthy of mention.

argonaut 14y ago

What does money have to do with independence? Can't you richly reward autonomous engineers? Are you suggesting there is an inverse correlation between independence and benefits? Are you suggesting there is a mutually exclusive zero-sum relationship between attention paid to benefits and attention paid to independence? All of these are unfounded assumptions.

guptaneil 14y ago
I didn't claim that money and independence are mutually exclusive (though I can see how that may have been interpreted). Instead, I made 2 assumptions. 1. Startups don't have as much money as a large corporation. 2. You, as an engineer, have more autonomy at a startup than a large corporation. The reason I would choose to work at a startup over a corporation is because I value my autonomy, even if it means making less money than I would if I took a job at a large company. When I am a 45 year old father, my priorities will probably change. There's nothing wrong with that. The question at hand is, should startups try to compete with large corporations on benefit packages? Benefits are important to feeling welcome and appreciated at work. At no point have I claimed otherwise. My sole claim has been that if I had to make a tradeoff between certain benefits (that don't necessarily impact me as a young recent college graduate) and increased autonomy, I will pick autonomy. This is why startups optimize for recruiting younger developers. If a young developer thinks an idea is cool and believes in it, she will work her ass off. A 45 year old father, on the other hand, has other priorities. To reiterate, there is nothing wrong with that! But if a startup cannot afford to support such an experienced programmer (startups can't offer competitive salary, job safety, 401k, etc), it's better for the 45yo father to consider that before hand, rather than get burned later. If the startup had offered him the same benefits and salary as the large company, he may have accepted the startup's offer. The startup could then go out of business in 2 months, and he'd be screwed. A young college graduate would have far more flexibility to bounce back and find another job, simply because the younger developer has fewer responsibilities. A startup should offer as many benefits as it can. But the reality is that most startups simply cannot provide the same benefits as a large company, and I think that's ok. It's really not as evil as the author makes it seem because startups are targeting a different demographic than him. If a startup's lack of benefits aren't acceptable to you, then you probably also shouldn't be taking the many other risks involved with doing a startup.