Make Stronger Offers to Engineering Candidates and Boost Your Closes
firstround.com
firstround.com
There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. Money buys them stuff. Money lets them have a nice roof over their head. Money lets their family not worry about a slum in the economy. Everything else is secondary.
Here's a magic formula: MaxMoney(Min(work))
402 "PAY_ME_MORE_MONEY"
P.S. That's why it is called a job and not hobby or volunteering.
P.P.S. Finance industry figured it out - which is why they are starting to raid the interwebz companies with a great success. In finance everything is solved by paying people more money. Sucky stack? $30K extra. Wear suit? $30k extra. Non-tech manager irritating you? Another $20k extra.
1) Respect. By that I mean professional respect - I want to feel that my contributions are valued and that people recognize my talents :)
2) Team. Working with dirtbags is miserable no matter how much you get paid. Sure, I'd do it if you threw enough money at me, but all else being equal, I'd like to work on a team full of smart, pleasant people.
3) Growth. Learning opportunities (conferences, training, etc.), promotions, stimulating projects, etc.
4) Time. As in my time. Overtime is kept to a minimum and really only happens when there is a true emergency. This kind of ties in with #1.
To an extent you can substitute cash for any or all of these. However, if your working environment and/or culture is toxic, you're going to have trouble with retention no matter what else you do.
If you're emotionally stable enough and a hard worker outside of your career, you might want to just grow yourself a nest egg (pension, housing, shares, etc.) or make as much money as possible to provide for your children/wife/hedonism.
Also, it's a good thing to learn how to placate toxic personalities and to be low maintenance.
Not saying that it's easy, but I wanted to say this because I think people assume too readily that their own personal comfort is the most important thing when they take a job. Personally, as my emotional health has gotten better and I've made deeper connections with people, I've prioritised very different things than my younger self.
I don’t care about respect when I’m sitting on a boat off the coast of Nice. “Comfortable” for me means having the option to not work.
Give me $3.6 million today and I will never touch an office door for the rest of my life.
Yes, you can choose to live in rural India for <10k a year, but that's exactly what you are getting away from by going after these high paying jobs. I want to live in a good / safe place, have good schooling opportunities for my children, have the ability to enjoy the activities around at a fun level (skiing - about $500 per day, cycling - about $5-10k a year, eventually it adds up).
Finally the concern about uncertainities of future means you can pretty much never afford to go out of touch with the industry that made you all your money. Yeah I can F off on my bike / paint etc after $X MM, but there might come a day when that isn't enough and here I am with zero marketable/sellable skills having to downgrade my life style because I chose to not practice my profession. You might think but I will do open source, but I will do hobby projects etc. - in reality, I have seen very few (again with equal or more discipline to what they were putting into their desk job) succeed in keeping up with the market via a 'hobby'.
If I didn't make it clear, I don't see myself not working on software until the day I die :). It might be lower hours, but it is going to be a significant portion of my time. The alternatives are too risky, but again YMMV because your risk tolerance is different.
Money is important, but
#1 is solved by more money. Want me to work in a team that mocks my work? $100k extra will do it
#2 is solved by more money. Want me to work with dirtbags? $100k
#3 is solved by more money. Want me to wear a "super junior nobody" title? As long as you're up front about it, $100k.
#4 is solved by money. My overtime rate is 2x normal rate
You know why? Money buys more than just "roof" and "comfort". It buys everything. Planes. Parachutes. Yachts. Horses. Jet skis. Vacation homes. College and private school for kids.
If you think that more money doesn't motivate you, either you've never been paid enough, or you need to go find some interesting hobbies. You'll quickly find they cost money (and do not accept "but I'm happy at work" statements as payment)
The only difference the extra money makes is that once you got used to the money, you're trapped in that position.
Try them.
I promise you that when you're making a 14-person formation in freeall, or flying a new faster turboprop, or signing for your new yacht, your work will not be on your mind.
However, what does bring you lots of additional happiness is being able to afford a home that is large enough for you within a short walking distance of work. In many places like SF or NYC that requires a serious amount of money (many millions), and yet it does significantly improve your happiness in a way that a lesser amount of money cannot by buying you more available time each day.
$200 dinner is nothing special. You can easily spend $200 for two people in any major market in any non-garbage restaurant:
Appetizers ~ 17-20 each Mains 29-60 each Bottle of wine - 40 and above Tax ~ 10% Tip ~ 20%
Or you have; there's significant evidence that behind a certain level, additional income doesn't actually provide additional improvement in most measures of satisfaction and subjective quality of life (IIRC, some studied in the 1990s showed this on average at somewhere around $250,000 in then-current dollars in the US.) Once you've reached the point where that occurs, it only motivates to the extent that knowing you've missed an opportunity to run up a higher score is disappointing to you.
I've been poor, and I was much more motivated by money then than now, when I'm being paid much more.
However, it's also important to take into account the cost of living. That $400K/year figure (accounting for inflation), which marks something like 90% of the way up the asymptotic curve, is an average across the US. But if you're living in very expensive parts of the country, you need a good deal more than that in order to be able to afford a nice house, with separate bedrooms for all of the children that you (would like to) have, with a short commute, and then a bunch more in the way for child care, college tuition, maybe private school, extracurricular activities, and a whole host of others if you have those children.
To give you an anecdote, I know a guy who's making $500K/year and has all of those expenses, except he does not live in the city, and he's barely treading water. He's experiencing significant financial stress that more money would be a solution to. And this is at $500K/year, which is not quite enough to support his lifestyle.
Where does your friend live that $500k does not pay for rent or a mortgage on a nice house, dinner at restaurants on a regular basis, and still money in the savings account?
But I'm not here to debate this other person's life choices, nor could I. The point is that even $500K/year is not enough for a decent number of people, whereas, say, $1M would be.
A limit to how much you want to spend on hobbies. Only so many restaurant meals I can eat. Only so much time in the day, and so much more to do with it than, all that horror show.
It's easy to find other things to prioritize when you have F-U money in the bank.
I mean I might put up with a lot if I'm being paid so much that I'd be able to retire after only a couple of years :)
BTW this was obviously a gross generalization that was only signalling that such jobs exists and that there is a significant amount of them. At the same time, most finance coding jobs probably don't pay top market rates.
Sign me up.
See, had an uncomfortable conversation with a wife of fourteen years who went through hell and back and managed to claw from the bottom to a relatively stable plateau*: she's freaking out because we don't have much savings (read: not 7 figures in liquid cash). Probably for no reason considering most of people that she knows won't be able to pull out ten thousand from a bank account. But this is life and her not carrying about finances carries more weight that I would have to color code a spreadsheet.
Is it worth an extra $100k to be able to employ dirtbags alongside you? Maybe for some jobs that involve ethically dubious actions, but probably not for most.
Is it worth an extra $100k to be able to give you a super junior title? No, titles are free.
Is it worth 2x your normal rate to get you to work overtime? Maybe, but that's pretty expensive. They would be better off if they could get another person to do it at a normal rate.
So, you might be willing to put up with those things for more money, but for the employer it is usually a waste of money pay that. It doesn't make sense for an employer to pay extra for those things unless they are really getting a lot of value out of it.
Good business? No, but not all businesspeople are good at business. People get into it for very different reasons.
I've worked for a lot of acerbic bosses. I charge extra. Right now, with things so tight, it's approaching a 100% premium. You know what? The "jerks" keep paying it, because they can't find anything else.
Are they good bosses? Hahahahaha! No. About the only thing I do is make it really clear is that I'm there for the money, and I will walk off if I don't like it. So, I get the extra pay, without the abuse.
However, this article is explicitly targeted at businesses, so obviously they should be providing advice on how not to be a poorly run business.
>So, you might be willing to put up with those things for more money, but for the employer it is usually a waste of money pay that. It doesn't make sense for an employer to pay extra for those things unless they are really getting a lot of value out of it.
Good. The whole point is to make it painful for the company to have you work overtime regularly. In fact, 2x is quite cheap and a better way to accomplish that would be to charge more for each overtime hour (so that 16 hour days would cost much more than 2 normal 8 hour days).
If the company can't extract enough value out of the employee's time, maybe they shouldn't ask them to work overtime.
Exactly my point. For highly-remunerated workers like software developers, companies can rarely get as much value out of poor working conditions as it will cost them in extra wages, so it is usually a poor business decision to have poor working conditions.
For 3, I'd have to be paid a lot more. There is always a serious concern that while I have all the skills to do my current job, I don't have the skills to do most developer jobs out there (stuck with old paradigms and technology). So me getting paid a little extra now may mean I'll be out of a job soon with little to show on my resume.
4 is definitely an option for me if it significantly reduces the time to retirement.
>You know why? Money buys more than just "roof" and "comfort". It buys everything. Planes. Parachutes. Yachts. Horses. Jet skis. Vacation homes. College and private school for kids.
Of all these, only the last one interests me.
To be totally frank, an average paying job which lets me retire at, say, 60 and gives me a lot of free time and is very low stress is ideal, and none of the above would interest me. The only reason I don't stick to such a job is because I know job situations are fickle. Management changes, etc. But if I knew the job situation (decent pay, lots of free time and no stress) would stay forever, I'd just stick to it.
Which is what the parent was saying: Past a certain point, money isn't a great motivator.
I will give you $35k/year for 40 hours a week total compensation and you get all the other 4.
Why aren't you taking this job? The reason is because you know that it is a laughable salary.
FRC has an agenda. Its agenda is convince naive people to go work for their startups ( and other startups ) for Magic and Unicorns, rather than $$.
P.S. Thanks for downvotes!
>Money is important, but past a certain point (when you are able to live comfortably and are no longer feeling stressed about your personal/family finances), other factors come into play.
It's difficult to counter his comment when you don't address it and give an obviously low salary.
Pacifists, for example, will refuse to kill someone who is pointing a gun at their family because of their, in my not humble opinion, stupid beliefs. I may think their beliefs are stupid but I cannot say that they themselves are full of crap because, after all, they live their beliefs.
The people who are making claims that money is not the only mandatory thing and everything else is optional nice to have thing(s) tend to weasel out of the lets solve for money being zero ( or minimum wage ).
Unfortunately, while pacifists do not disrupt my life (when their world collides with reality, they die and their ideas die with them ) the people who are claiming that conferences are more important than $$ disrupt my market. This means that my goal is to illustrate as much as possible how silly their positions are.
Except it wasn't his claim.
The claim is pretty well known: Below a certain threshold, money is the most important thing. Above it, it is not. This is very different from the extreme pacifist mindset. The equivalent would be: "There are certain circumstances where it is important to kill another. Outside of those circumstances, it should not be the primary means."
As an aside: Telling people what is important to them and ignoring their own claims on what is important to them will not make you many friends.
The claim is horse manure which is why it includes no numbers for the threshold. My number matched his claim. Except that the claim is not what was meant. What was meant is "if I'm compensated well into six figures then the other things matter more than incremental dollar".
The article is describing how to peddle low salaries + magic pixie dust as a way to swindle the candidates to accept non-competitive offers.
> Telling people what is important to them and ignoring their own claims on what is important to them will not make you many friends.
That's ok. I do not need many friends. Especially if I have to accept as friends those that claim 'oh, it is excellent' when in reality they mean something else.
Attribution of intention is a common step towards the breakdown of dialogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias#Types
>That's ok. I do not need many friends.
OK, perhaps I was too narrow in my statement. Let me rephrase:
Telling people what is important to them and ignoring their own claims on what is important to them will not get you fruitful conversations.
Which is likely why people are downvoting you instead of replying to you. You are giving strong signals of poor communications, and people are not finding it worthwhile to engage with you.
Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
There's no absolute threshold. It's relative. I recently left one job for another that paid less than half as much. Things is, both were well into six figures, so the difference doesn't mean much to me.
Still, if the old job had paid into seven figures instead of "just" six, I wouldn't have left. It was a boring, easy job, but not intolerable. At seven figures, I would've ridden that horse into the ground.
Back in 2000, I got exposed to this out of school-- VP of whatever offers me $27k (with a salary review in 6 months) to be a DBA. "I got up and said 'thanks'". He followed me out to the parking lot and doubled the offer.
At the end of the day, money matters, and all of the bullshit about "other factors" are just brought into the mix because fringe benefits are cheaper than cash. For me, a good working environment is the ante. If you're an asshole, you don't make the cut. The rest is all about compensation.
If you commit to giving me premium health insurance, I'll accept a discount in pay. If you commit to giving me more vacation time, I'll accept a discount in pay. I can play ping pong at the gym for free and my Dr. Pepper habit costs me about $10/week. If you're not an asshole, expect me to take <=10 days of PTO, have a $10k healthcare deductible, you'd best be paying a 50-70% premium to what I'm making today, as I'm going to have to hire minions to do shit for me.
Which is not disputed by anyone in this thread. Why do we keep bringing it up?
>At the end of the day, money matters, and all of the bullshit about "other factors" are just brought into the mix because fringe benefits are cheaper than cash. For me, a good working environment is the ante. If you're an asshole, you don't make the cut. The rest is all about compensation.
You do realize you just admitted there is something you care about more than compensation?
If you’re buying eggs at the supermarket, they need to be of uniform size and not be spoiled, for example. Other than that, they’re a pure commodity.
I would certainly never sacrifice any of these for a minor bump in pay, but oftentimes you don't have to sacrifice any of them even for a major bump in pay.
My problem is with that statement. I know this is a very common belief, but has anyone actually hit that point?
I have gone through several cycles over the past 10 years, where I thought 20% more money would get me there. At each point, what was required to be comfortable would change.
At first it was having enough money for me, then having enough that I could get married and buy a house and help my wife, then it was having enough money for my kids to go to a decent day care. Now I'm worried we don't have enough to send our kids to private school.
Once I hit that, I will probably want to have enough money that my wife doesn't need to work. I wonder if that's when I can relax and the stress of finance will go away?
Anxiety is destroying me in my current job, even though I love my co-workers. I need to figure out how to value money less and find an employer that would work with me on a 4 day week schedule.
I grew up in Utah, and would NEVER had considered private school for my child there. My experience was fantastic.
But the difference in quality of education between these two states is so extreme, its hard to believe they are part of the same country and adhere to any of the same federal standards.
This is too vague to be quantifiable in the way you intend.
Money is important because it's by far the most common medium by which we acquire things that are necessary for life (e.g. food, shelter). It's important to have sufficient income to have these things in the present and to be able to stash enough reserves of money to have them in the future. Money is important (full stop).
Here's my entirely subjective, anecdotal view: I've never met a person who says "money isn't the most important thing (about a job)" who also was not either: a) well off enough their entire lives that they never really had to worry about not having money or b) engaging in some serious sweet lemons rationalization so as to avoid facing their reality.
I've quit a higher paying position because of bad leadership and no growth opportunities, but I dug myself into that hole, and I'm absolutely looking forward to a raise (and I'm not yet at the point where I'm not stressed about finances).
Most companies talk as if they have higher values but in reality they are only about money. I always find it condescending to tell people who aren't independently wealthy that money is not that important while at the same time the owners of a company try to squeeze out every bit of profit.
But yes, eventually it's just cheaper to create the better working conditions than to pay everybody the extra money :)
Of course it's different for everyone but I would speculate that most people are also strongly motivated by other factors, once money is not too strong a constraint on what they can do.
If you are working 60 hours a week you better be making 50% extra (or get 50% time off at a later data) or you are NOT making good money.
As people get older and have a family they start realizing that they were morons when in their twenties and thirties they did anything other than get boatload of extra money because when you are old, it is money that is needed to optimize time.
True. Once a certain threshold is met.
> and it certainly does not buy you more time
False. Money buys a lot of time. An extra $XX,000 a year invested will have you living off your capital instead of work after Y years. The moment you go from working for someone else to being supported by your wealth you just bought 50% of your waking life back.
That's not true for everyone. I've taken $20k less salary to work on technologies that were more interesting. Money is just one dimension and one can be strategic about it.
People can have other priorities besides money. Salary is important but it's not the only priority nor is it always the most important priority.
Someone previously said that the best programmers are "coin-operated". Well, I guess I'm a substandard programmer because I'm definitely not coin-operated. I may prefer a $150k job that utilizes machine learning to analyze cancer cells instead of $175k to trick people into clicking ads.
If job salary is the most important factor for a candidate, that's absolutely fine. This essay really isn't intended for candidates with that mindset.
I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. And that’s why the suggestion matters: nobody is going to change their job requirements to recruit more candidates...you are best off paying more money.
It doesn't matter where it ends in the context of the reply to notyourday's assertion that only _one_ thing matters to non-mentally impaired people and that is _money_.
>I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary.
Totally understandable and that's why I began my comment that priorities will be different for different people. That's ok. The world needs all types.
My comment is informed by my experience with various tech jobs with wildly different salaries. I earned 2x the Google/Facebook salaries working for finance companies for 10 years. It was the worst 10 years of my life. The massive salary (massive for a programmer) let me buy nice toys, travel to expensive exotic places, and build up a nest egg but it was also soul-sucking misery. I look back at that period with regret. If I had to do it over, I should have taken a lesser paying $150k job with a company working on things that were interesting to me.
However, that doesn't mean other programmers can't accept the miserable finance job with insanely high pay. If it pays big money, they'll be fine with it because they can compartmentalize the job and find meaning elsewhere. Some people can do that, but that's not me. Terrible work and uninspiring colleagues just spills over into personal life even when I'm not physically at the job site.
From the perspective of the recruiter, you can't change the problems you are working on and hiring for, you have little to no control over company culture, location, or any other factor. You can really only pay more money. Sure, you could change working conditions or benefits, but that is just a redirection of money...it's still more money.
From the perspective of the developer, lots of things matter. Money absolutely matters, but so do working conditions, benefits, quality of life, technology, tooling, location, commute options, and on and on. Your position is obvious...but how much control does the recruiter have over all of this? Almost none. If they are having trouble hiring, they need to pay more, full stop.
That means that Space X has a lot of leeway to negotiate on price, whereas SalesForce may be a lot more constrained. SalesForce can't make their business more exciting and enticing, their hand has been forced.
No, the company can also _not_ pay more money and use that constraint as a hiring filter. Example from the article:
>There is one motivation that should raise a red flag, though. “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check.
Another personal related story... In my of my past jobs, the hiring manager said upfront that "We pay a lot but we never pay the most, and we never match other offers. We want candidates to look at our whole package and decide we're the right choice."
I have to admit that when I first heard the manager brazenly admit that they didn't pay the most and that they don't get into bidding wars for talent, it seemed like corporate self-sabotage. However, I later realized it was very creative game theory to hire the specific type of people they wanted. I ended up taking that job because they were at the forefront of data warehousing which I really wanted to get into. It was one of the best jobs I ever had. Although they didn't have the highest starting salaries, they did have the highest raises and bonuses but I didn't know that at the time I took the job.
(I'm not recommending that companies not pay people the most. It's just interesting that one company used a seeming "disadvantage" of lower salary and flipped it around as a advantageous hiring tool. Very interesting reverse-psychology.)
If some recruiter is reading tea leaves to figure out what motivates me so that they can lowball me, that’s different.
They either dropped you on a head or you are that young and naive person FRC needs.
Had this at a previous job (I was actually right at market rate, or slightly below, but a year prior the company was offering about 20% below market for this position). And every time I asked for clarification, or performed the job that was asked for (instead of what they "really wanted", since I wasn't a mind reader), I got that thrown in my face. Can't believe I stuck around for 3 years there.
Just before the annual review they had him trained how to handle it, and I'm pretty sure he was just regurgitating bullshit fed to him during his training.
I later found out he asked a mother of two why is she so fixated on earning more money. Pretty lame gimmicks -- just say to your employees "Hey, your performance was ok but nothing special, I have this budget and for an ok performance the firm only gives you 3% salary increase this year".
That's just a bullying strategy for underpaid people. If you are really highly paid you are in the "in" group and they will make sure that you get what you need. Otherwise they would be wasting your expensive time.
They are not going to pay you more than you are worth. That's the maximum they would pay you. The argument made in the article is how to pay below maximum and get away with it.
If I can make X in tech, or 2X-3X in financial services dealing with more day to day pain, I’m taking more money every day of the week. I don’t care about the team, the mission, the working environment, just the total dollars.
That doesn't mean they've achieved some sort of global optimum. Confirmation bias is a significant effect here, and it works the same way for people who are doing what they consider to be "socially meaningful" work, or whatever, as for people who are "maximizing paychecks".
There are waaaaaay more startups claiming to help the social good or that they’re changing the world versus the number that are just money-driven enterprises. My problem is the disingenuity and virtue signaling being used to underpay workers.
However, I think $500,000k for 3 years is probably not a great deal, and I probably wouldn't have accepted that bargain.
...yeah, I'm still a bit bitter about the compensation. Not necessarily the experience, though.
*that said, there are very few companies that offer such conditions. 90% of places i ever interviewed at feel more like "work" and i'd want to maximize income for being there
Geat candidates get multiple offers, so I want my offer to be money plus valued intangibles, while my competitors just offer money. That way they have to outbid me to get the candidate; whereas I just have to _match_ them to win.
There's more to it than money. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.
I think time and health are the most valuable assets one can have, followed immediately by money.
You can have all the money in the world but without health, you will not enjoy it.
You can have all the money in the world but without time, you will not enjoy it.
Having more money is fantastic, if and only if the first two criterias are met in my opinion.
I think it's a matter of calculating the risk/reward which greatly based on your personal situation, we can't lump everyone in the same basket.
There is a balance to keep.
> There is one motivation that should raise a red flag, though.
> “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time
> on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check.
What if engineers want to buy houses or support families? What if they have elite backgrounds and want a similarly high level of living as their friends?
Offering bread-and-circuses and work-as-lifestyle to software engineers when they're fresh and naive or wishing to prioritise other things over money is fine. But eventually people start wanting to be able to get a pay-off for their investment in "learning". If all you're offering is warm-fuzzies, they'll go somewhere in which the remuneration is able to support investment outside from themselves.
Ugh. No sh*t, Sherlock! And we're expected to believe money isn't driving the entire process for you? There are things I care about besides money, like not working for manipulative jerks, but at the end of a day it's a "job," preceded by a "salary negotiation" in which I trade my labor for payment, most of which will take the form of "money."
EDIT: > Ask them what they are maximizing for in their job search and how they’re approaching that. People are not used to this question and may be more candid, saving you a longer time investment.
Wow, this is a horrible and cynical person.
It's right there in the name, even!!! It's not "First Round Hugs" or "First Round Charity", is it?
Part of the reason that I left my old job was that we were a "startup", and my boss wanted the whole team to "believe in the product", he really did drink that kool aid that we were helping the world. In reality we were helping minimise costs for business owners, we even had some email us and thank us because they managed to reduce their staffing numbers due to increased efficiency.
At my current company, we make some relatively boring enterprise software (minimum price $2500 per month sort of level). I don't think that anyone really "believes" in the software, in the sense that we don't think we're saving the world. We make software that helps specific businesses do a specific task. I couldn't explain to the average person what the software we make even does without boring them to sleep.
I'm actually much happier here at my new "boring" job. The code I write and the problems I solve are actually more interesting than my old job. That's not to mention that the money is much better, and I don't have to sit shoulder-to-shoulder on some shitty hot desk in a coworking space (I like coworking, but not hot desks).
Sticking with Glassdoor (so it's apples to apples) cash comp for a senior developer averages $101k (4% above the national average). So I'd say SpaceX is doing pretty good at $155k.
But it's actually about how to save money by finding people who aren't motivated by money.
I think IBM would qualify there, with the one exception of their occasional mass firings ("resource action").
“At a certain point, I’m very
explicit: ‘Look, I think 5X is
Absolutely conservative given
how we’re growing
>> We only hire "passionate" engineers who have proven themselves to be "rock stars" and we call them "family" so that they can "take one for the team" and forgo a "raise" because we didn't meet our quarter. But we did make enough to give ourselves "bonuses!"
I am motivated by money because every company I work for is motivated by money. They want theirs, I want mine. I factor into my asking salary a "what if I get screwed" amount.
If I was offered a position somewhere that actively took "hits" for their customers and/or employees, I might stick around. As it is, everyone above me is looking for a payday, and paying me less makes theirs better.
I can guarantee that the moment it is cheaper to screw you than keep you a successful company will screw you. If a company is not successful, they may miscalculate when they screw you and instead screw themselves in addition to screwing you.
- All the companies I have and am working for have very smart folk, very personable people you want to work with / learn from.
- All the companies pay well, have great benefits.
- I don't care for perks, I can afford the $20 a day to spend on food and snacks.
- All of em have great challenges to tackle, and usually you are sought after by the teams with exactly those. No one is going to pay you double your worth to sit around / purely 'learn on the job'. Past experience counts big when it comes to leveling/team choices in all of them.
- All of them are exponentially growing.
- Almost all of them are dabbling in each others areas of work: Everyone is doing databases/fs/networking/user applications/web dev and what not.
For me the choice of snap was purely because I wanted a small company experience without the risk of a pure startup, in fact all the benefits and better compared to the big 5. Unless you have a specific requirement like that, sadly money will end up being the differentiator.
To add some irony to the whole discussion, they know this as well: All the offers I got from the big companies were with few $$$ of each other. I didn't tell them my current salary with Amazon, it didn't even come close to the numbers on glassdoor for my then level, but magically they seem to 'know' (shrug).
So while I need the money to be good, I also want to feel like we are starting a mutually beneficial arrangement on other levels than just pay.
This should become an increasingly hot strategy, as all those young engineers at google and facebook begin to age and start thinking about having families.
Then again, if all you want is young interns that'll work for free, keep hiring in SF.