Founders don't work many more hours per day than early employees at x100 less than early employees. They work many more months/years before earning an income at all.
By the time the employees start to get hired, a large part of the risk and work that a founder does to earn their hopeful future fat stacks has already been done.
Now, are startup compensation packages a little low and relying on the money making reputation of past decades? Sure. That doesnt mean there isn't a world of difference between working hard on something that has a decent amount of vetting for below market rate, and working hard on working that's almost certainly not going to pan out for zero dollars.
> Founders don't work many more hours per day than early employees at x100 less than early employees. They work many more months/years before earning an income at all.
>
> By the time the employees start to get hired, a large part of the risk and work that a founder does to earn their hopeful future fat stacks has already been done.
What you describe isn't the case for most tech startups I know.
These startups need a lot of highly involved technical work done, and often need to hire a small team early on. They typically get seed money quickly. It's not unusual to see seed money right from the start.
> Now, are startup compensation packages a little low and relying on the money making reputation of past decades? Sure.
The point in this thread is not that it's "a little low".
The numbers quoted is that if you're a good engineer at a top tech company, you can almost guarantee about $2m over 4-5 years. In a startup, you'd make less than half of that in cash, with the only compensation being some stock options, that people are rapidly realizing are worth nothing in most cases.
That's a big difference, especially over many years. And we didn't even mention the large gaps in benefits, healthcare, work-life balance, job stability...
The bottom line is that the startups were so good at squeezing the real value out of their job offers, that now only irrational developers will choose them over bigger already successful companies.
If good means experienced/senior, which is what the people pulling those numbers in are, then yeah I certainly don't think startups are anywhere near competitive with big companies for talent. I don't think they really need to be, or should try to be.
If you're 15 years in at Google then yeah, no shit you shouldnt take a job at some hinky dink no name company. You're severely demoting yourself. You wouldn't go wait tables at a restaurant and expect the compensation to be competitive with your software engineer salary. Your skills aren't that useful to the restaurant, they wouldn't make anywhere near enough money from you for it to make sense.
Senior level big software company employee vs startup employee is like that but on a less extreme scale. You're more useful to them than you are to a restaurant, but you still have a lot of skills and experience that it doesn't make sense for them to pay for that it does for a big company.
Its on me for not specifying and making assumptions, but imo when talking startup competitiveness it should be focused on fresh grads or those with a couple years experience in industry but not necessarily at big tech. That's where startups are going to find their cost effective generalists, and its where I think the compensation is "a little low and relying on past reputation".
Also, with good devs making $400-500k/year at bigco, I think it needs to be kept in mind that those numbers are with a lot of their compensation being in stock and big tech stock having risen a lot in the last decade. Someone whose compensation at Facebook happened to turn out to be $400k/year would have been getting signed each year for far less.
Using those numbers would be like evaluating startup packages as if theyre guaranteed a large ipo.
As for startups getting funding right from the start, that means they're being funded based on founder credentials rather than the qualities of the business. If you have those kind of credentials and use them to start a company then your opportunity cost is likely huge. That's the founders additional risk there.
By the time the employees start to get hired, a large part of the risk and work that a founder does to earn their hopeful future fat stacks has already been done.
Now, are startup compensation packages a little low and relying on the money making reputation of past decades? Sure. That doesnt mean there isn't a world of difference between working hard on something that has a decent amount of vetting for below market rate, and working hard on working that's almost certainly not going to pan out for zero dollars.