5 ms·

Yes, in a few ways I am familiar with: (1) Finance. They make so much "free" money that they can afford to just pay massive salaries and not blink. You just ha

by api 12y ago

Yes, in a few ways I am familiar with: (1) Finance. They make so much "free" money that they can afford to just pay massive salaries and not blink. You just have to be okay with doing things that basically add no value to anything. (2) As a very early employee in a hugely successful startup. But this is roulette, since most startups fail and some only succeed after so much dilution that your share ends up tiny. (3) Working your way up to a CXO level (or near) role in a very large established company. This is hard and takes years of both work and corporate politics. (4) There are some niches, like doing IT for oil and gas operations in remote areas, that I've heard pay very well... but these are almost like joining the army. I'd say #1 and #4 are probably the most straightforward. If you want to pursue #2, you should approach employment with a super-early startup by thinking about it as if you are an investor. Would you take a small chunk in a seed round with this company? If not, pass, cause if you are taking a lower salary + equity you are making a seed investment.

rch 12y ago
Isn't (1) roughly equivalent to working for a monstrous telco monopoly, or stodgy office equipment manufacturer?
- api 12y ago
  Yeah. Any boring money printing machine has to offer fatter salaries to attract talent because there is no other intrinsic appeal. Finance is just a particularly big one. I might also add government, though you want to avoid lower-level contractor positions there and go for higher-end stuff or becoming a direct Federal employee. Also avoid sexy areas like space if your goal is to get rich, since these will have intense competition. This is part of why science pays so badly -- people want to do it.
  - rch 12y ago
    > telco monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs > office equipment manufacturer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
patio11 12y ago
Google/Facebook both minted several thousand millionaires at IPO. The vast majority weren't CXAnything. I don't know whether the article is about income or wealth, but if one puts "big money" at, say, $250k of gross income, then it's clearly achievable in software. Options include a) get a job at AppAmaGooBookSoft and stay in it for 5~10 years or b) hang out your shingle as an independent consultant and charge $8k+ per week at 75% utilization.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  Google/Facebook level IPO's are quite rare, and you had be in relatively early to get enough.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Yes, but I think those events are rare enough to be classed as outliers. Ultimately, the guidance of 'work at a company that's going to make it really big in the future' isn't all that helpful in practice!
- cat9 12y ago
  Or $12k+ per week at 50% utilization. 75% utilization sounds a bit stressful. For that matter, $8k+ per week at 50% utilization is still $165k at the same fudge factor for taxes & overhead. That's already well beyond my threshold for "I've increased this variable to the point that further increases are nice but not a primary motivator, and I'd rather that further optimization focus on quality of life as the primary variable."
dccoolgai 12y ago
(3) also probably takes something akin to an MBA, from what I've observed. Not a hard and fast rule, but just what I've seen. I would also add that the "billion dollar VC series-B startup or bust" is not the only alternative to grinding away under the yoke of someone else. If you find a nice little niche that isn't drenched with developers (non-profits, serving lawyers, etc.) - You won't be a billionaire, but you stand a much better chance of creating a $million+ sustainable product or service company in that space.
watty 12y ago
(3) Isn't a "software employee"
3327 12y ago
great answer
LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
> You just have to be okay with doing things that basically add no value to anything. So, most silicon valley startups?
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Silicon valley startups are good at redistributing the money from the top to the bottom.
  - api 12y ago
    Great point. Startups are one of the only mechanisms doing that in our contemporary financial pyramid economy. They are one of the only true class mobility engines left.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      Are you being sarcastic? I can't believe anyone would really believe this. Look at the profiles of successful VC-funded startup founders[0], it's all about pedigree: "Yet on close inspection, the evidence suggests that the keys to success in the start-up world are not much different than those of many other elite professions. A prestigious degree, a proven track record and personal connections to power-brokers are at least as important as a great idea. Scrappy unknowns with a suitcase and a dream are the exceptions, not the rule. ... That means the founders had held a senior position at a big technology firm, worked at a well-connected smaller one, started a successful company already, or attended one of just three universities - Stanford, Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology." [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-startup-connections-insight-idUSBRE98B15U20130912 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-startup-con...
      - api 12y ago
        No, and I meant relatively speaking compared to other mechanisms. Startups mint new money rather than enrich old money, and they create high paying jobs.
Plough_Jogger 12y ago
(2) As a very early employee in a hugely successful startup. But this is roulette, since most startups fail and some only succeed after so much dilution that your share ends up tiny. This is a very poor way of describing the risk / upside of joining a startup. In the aggregate, the odds of any randomly selected startup may present odds similar to roulette, but practically, you have the ability to choose who you work with and which company you work on. Given the ability to be selective, you can dramatically increase your odds of a successful outcome, assuming that you have the skill set to a) identify / evaluate market opportunity / team capabilities and b) utilize your technical ability to add significant incremental value to the company. The early team at PayPal did not have a 1/48 chance of success; it was probably closer to 1/10. Edit - (Not actually 1/10, but significantly higher odds than those of a startup selected at random) Odds were chosen to correspond to the given example of roulette.
- wuliwong 12y ago
  I would say that being a developer on average doesn't give any special ability to evaluate the probability of success of an early stage startup. And if you don't have an special ability to evaluate the probability of success, 1/48 is probably generous.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  Roulette players also have the ability to be selective. You just put your money on the number/color that is going to be successful, and then you have much better odds than someone who didn't put money on the one that will be successful.
  - Plough_Jogger 12y ago
    'The number/color that is going to be successful' In roulette, there is no competitive advantage between specific numbers or colors. In startups, that is not the case.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  If you can predict company success, why would you be a developer? Technical prowess, does not actually mean company success. Some really successful companies, have had some really bad software practices. And companies with really good developers have failed.
lgieron 12y ago
(4) sounds interesting, can anyone contribute some details?
oilman 12y ago
I have personal experience with (4). I work for a company that creates systems that are used on oil rigs. I came about this job in a round about way. I used to work in SF at a big name tech company, but I'm from a small town with no tech community whatsoever. My parents got sick, and I wanted to live closer, so I made the move home to support them. Found this job though connections and here I am. The systems we create are complicated and require automation (PLCs, embedded systems, PCs) to function, so the company requires programmers. The money is fantastic for two reasons: they have a really hard time finding people and money for oil companies shoots out of the ground (most of the time). The work is different from most systems someone would deal with at a startup. The systems range in age from new to 20 years old. Object oriented is a new and scary thing. I write and debug a lot of pascal and C. Also do a lot of sysadmin work on ancient systems, token ring networks etc. The biggest difference however is work environment. Most rigs have an absolutely awful (think dial up) satellite internet connection, so there is no remote work. Everything gets done on site. This leads to a lot of travel, which is where you make the big money if you are willing to do it. The work environment is a lot different from a startup: Folding chairs and a table in the corner of a room if you are lucky, sitting on the floor if not. You get to see some interesting and scary parts of the world, police escorts from the airport, body guards on the way to the rig in really bad places, which can be very isolating as well as traveling for months at a time.

by api 12y ago

rch 12y ago

Isn't (1) roughly equivalent to working for a monstrous telco monopoly, or stodgy office equipment manufacturer?

api 12y ago
Yeah. Any boring money printing machine has to offer fatter salaries to attract talent because there is no other intrinsic appeal. Finance is just a particularly big one. I might also add government, though you want to avoid lower-level contractor positions there and go for higher-end stuff or becoming a direct Federal employee. Also avoid sexy areas like space if your goal is to get rich, since these will have intense competition. This is part of why science pays so badly -- people want to do it.
- rch 12y ago
  > telco monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs > office equipment manufacturer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

patio11 12y ago

Google/Facebook both minted several thousand millionaires at IPO. The vast majority weren't CXAnything. I don't know whether the article is about income or wealth, but if one puts "big money" at, say, $250k of gross income, then it's clearly achievable in software. Options include a) get a job at AppAmaGooBookSoft and stay in it for 5~10 years or b) hang out your shingle as an independent consultant and charge $8k+ per week at 75% utilization.

UK-AL 12y ago
Google/Facebook level IPO's are quite rare, and you had be in relatively early to get enough.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Yes, but I think those events are rare enough to be classed as outliers. Ultimately, the guidance of 'work at a company that's going to make it really big in the future' isn't all that helpful in practice!
cat9 12y ago
Or $12k+ per week at 50% utilization. 75% utilization sounds a bit stressful. For that matter, $8k+ per week at 50% utilization is still $165k at the same fudge factor for taxes & overhead. That's already well beyond my threshold for "I've increased this variable to the point that further increases are nice but not a primary motivator, and I'd rather that further optimization focus on quality of life as the primary variable."

dccoolgai 12y ago

(3) also probably takes something akin to an MBA, from what I've observed. Not a hard and fast rule, but just what I've seen. I would also add that the "billion dollar VC series-B startup or bust" is not the only alternative to grinding away under the yoke of someone else. If you find a nice little niche that isn't drenched with developers (non-profits, serving lawyers, etc.) - You won't be a billionaire, but you stand a much better chance of creating a $million+ sustainable product or service company in that space.

watty 12y ago

(3) Isn't a "software employee"

3327 12y ago

great answer

LeonRobrotsky 12y ago

> You just have to be okay with doing things that basically add no value to anything. So, most silicon valley startups?

venomsnake 12y ago
Silicon valley startups are good at redistributing the money from the top to the bottom.
- api 12y ago
  Great point. Startups are one of the only mechanisms doing that in our contemporary financial pyramid economy. They are one of the only true class mobility engines left.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    Are you being sarcastic? I can't believe anyone would really believe this. Look at the profiles of successful VC-funded startup founders[0], it's all about pedigree: "Yet on close inspection, the evidence suggests that the keys to success in the start-up world are not much different than those of many other elite professions. A prestigious degree, a proven track record and personal connections to power-brokers are at least as important as a great idea. Scrappy unknowns with a suitcase and a dream are the exceptions, not the rule. ... That means the founders had held a senior position at a big technology firm, worked at a well-connected smaller one, started a successful company already, or attended one of just three universities - Stanford, Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology." [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-startup-connections-insight-idUSBRE98B15U20130912 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-usa-startup-con...
    - api 12y ago
      No, and I meant relatively speaking compared to other mechanisms. Startups mint new money rather than enrich old money, and they create high paying jobs.

Plough_Jogger 12y ago

(2) As a very early employee in a hugely successful startup. But this is roulette, since most startups fail and some only succeed after so much dilution that your share ends up tiny. This is a very poor way of describing the risk / upside of joining a startup. In the aggregate, the odds of any randomly selected startup may present odds similar to roulette, but practically, you have the ability to choose who you work with and which company you work on. Given the ability to be selective, you can dramatically increase your odds of a successful outcome, assuming that you have the skill set to a) identify / evaluate market opportunity / team capabilities and b) utilize your technical ability to add significant incremental value to the company. The early team at PayPal did not have a 1/48 chance of success; it was probably closer to 1/10. Edit - (Not actually 1/10, but significantly higher odds than those of a startup selected at random) Odds were chosen to correspond to the given example of roulette.

wuliwong 12y ago
I would say that being a developer on average doesn't give any special ability to evaluate the probability of success of an early stage startup. And if you don't have an special ability to evaluate the probability of success, 1/48 is probably generous.
wlesieutre 12y ago
Roulette players also have the ability to be selective. You just put your money on the number/color that is going to be successful, and then you have much better odds than someone who didn't put money on the one that will be successful.
- Plough_Jogger 12y ago
  'The number/color that is going to be successful' In roulette, there is no competitive advantage between specific numbers or colors. In startups, that is not the case.
UK-AL 12y ago
If you can predict company success, why would you be a developer? Technical prowess, does not actually mean company success. Some really successful companies, have had some really bad software practices. And companies with really good developers have failed.

lgieron 12y ago

(4) sounds interesting, can anyone contribute some details?

oilman 12y ago

I have personal experience with (4). I work for a company that creates systems that are used on oil rigs. I came about this job in a round about way. I used to work in SF at a big name tech company, but I'm from a small town with no tech community whatsoever. My parents got sick, and I wanted to live closer, so I made the move home to support them. Found this job though connections and here I am. The systems we create are complicated and require automation (PLCs, embedded systems, PCs) to function, so the company requires programmers. The money is fantastic for two reasons: they have a really hard time finding people and money for oil companies shoots out of the ground (most of the time). The work is different from most systems someone would deal with at a startup. The systems range in age from new to 20 years old. Object oriented is a new and scary thing. I write and debug a lot of pascal and C. Also do a lot of sysadmin work on ancient systems, token ring networks etc. The biggest difference however is work environment. Most rigs have an absolutely awful (think dial up) satellite internet connection, so there is no remote work. Everything gets done on site. This leads to a lot of travel, which is where you make the big money if you are willing to do it. The work environment is a lot different from a startup: Folding chairs and a table in the corner of a room if you are lucky, sitting on the floor if not. You get to see some interesting and scary parts of the world, police escorts from the airport, body guards on the way to the rig in really bad places, which can be very isolating as well as traveling for months at a time.