If you have offered sizeable equity packages (and have a nice office (or cushy remote benefits) and decent modern tech stack) then even the most boring startups can attract the best - so what is your company doing?
These days, while compensation and equity are of course important, there are other things (e.g. get to work on a wide array of stuff, no "big company" crap, etc.) that are likely going to be the real drivers in being able to attract talent.
Also, TERMS of the stock grants also matter. For example, if the options can be held for 10 years after departure from the company, that would make them more valuable. For the first 1-5 hires it may not make a difference because they'd probably do an 83b and buy all their stock right away, but for the next 5-15 hires the Series A price may still mean they'd need to put several or tens of thousands into their options, which not everyone can do.
Startups could also attract talent by offering atypical work hours (not arriving during rush hour traffic would be nice) or many other things, but they typically aren't willing to do that... for whatever reason. I've personally offered to work at startups in the evening for about 50% of my hourly-equivalent rate for 20 hours per week (so 1/4 of a salary for 1/2 of an employee), and they've not been interested. Until companies are willing to be unconventional to attract talent, I say the cries of "talent shortage" are not genuine. If there was a shortage, they'd be willing to be more flexible than most of them are.
I don't know what your role is, but I can understand why they aren't interested. If you're only willing to work at off hours, remotely, then it's highly likely they could get someone as good or better, more cheaply, by getting remote offshore talent (I worked with some great offshore devs in Brazil and Eastern Europe, for example).
In other words, if you've eliminated any advantage you would bring to the company as a local or US-based developer (assuming you're in the US), then your salary comps are now global developer salaries, not California salaries or wherever else you may live.
Problem is the "big company" stuff you are mentioning is no longer limited to big companies. I see the unicorns of the world trying to act like big companies from mimicking org structures to leetcode puzzles in interviews to downlevelling (our Level N is Level N + k at BigCo X). All this while asking candidates to slog it out for 10+ years before their quantum money is worth something tangible. Equally BigCos for what they are worth are extremely alluring by ensuring one does not live perpetually on ramen and BigCos also do a lot of things so you can move around reasonably (sure not as fluidly). Additionally given BigCos (at least the one I am in) value diversity and collaboration a lot the "bigco"ness is getting more and more of a strawman argument!
What would be ideal for me is startups of say 5-10 folks with roughly similar skill levels (and hence equity) with a really decent shot at a successful exit in a 2-4 year time frame. Where do you find these that are happy with such an exit instead of trying to become a unicorn and not stop until they take over the world by any means necessary?
For instance: only a fool would think that a $500k equity package, based on eg a 409a evaluation, is anything like a $500k equity grant at a FAANG. Because the latter is cash and the former is lottery tickets.
I highly recommend anyone working in startup world to learn more about how it works in details, and understand how their companies deal with it.
You can own 1% of company that's sold for $100M and get $0. And it's all perfectly legal.
Aka, paper money, that you have less than 1% of getting. Even if startup doesn't go bust, things like liquidation preferences will screw people unless they're VC or founders.
Startup stock grants are exciting mostly to people new to the SV. If you've been here for a while, you know how badly cards are rigged against engineers.
What do you mean by the Stanford part?
There are obvious significant advantages to prestige, etc but most companies don't insist on it.
Then you don't deserve to get those people. If you are paying below market rates, well honestly it sucks to be you, and I don't particularly care if you lose employees.
Instead, the only thing that I care about is getting higher salaries for engineers.
If anyone can volunteer a better source that would be much appreciated.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Re...
When a friend applied post-9/11, they didn’t even use up the quota each year.
The country numbers are also skewed because someone from countries other than India/China, say France, shows only once or twice in your data before they get their green card and don't have to renew their work visa.
This is because of the hard cap of 7% per country for work green cards regardless of the size of the country. i.e countries with a billion plus people have the same 7% limit as tiny countries.
You can see that non-consultancy firms like Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook all have approval rates close to 99%.
https://legalservicesincorporated.com/can-i-apply-for-a-gree...
As a Canadian who worked in the US for 4.5 years I'd say it's exactly the opposite. The only disadvantage I found working in the US compared to Canada was the absurd process for getting a green card whilst on an H1-B, which is why I now live in Australia.
Otherwise the US was better in every way to Canada: - weather (SoCal) - salary - job opportunities - cost of living - health care (granted provided as part of the package by my employers)
There's a reason most of the top CS graduates in Canada end up in the US.
I'd be fascinated to hear more if you're open. It's a very common (populist) framing in the US that we have Literally The Worst Healthcare System Ever and every other developed country has a better one- I'd love to hear your perspective as a dual
I had the usual PPO plan when I worked as a SW engineer in the US. It was fine given that my wife and I were young and healthy. We still paid a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket when our son was born after a perfectly normal delivery which was a bit annoying, but again I could afford it so no big deal.
However, our next door neighbour, who was an American citizen and worked as a courier, did not have health insurance provided through his employer which was almost certainly a contributing factor to him dropping dead of a heart attack in his mid 40s leaving behind a wife and young son. I think it's safe to assume that his life expectancy would have been higher if he'd lived in a country like Canada or Australia where there is universal healthcare, especially for potentially life threatening conditions.
I think it's unfortunate that Canada is used as the most common comparison in the universal healthcare debate in the US since (even as a Canadian) I think the Canadian healthcare system is worse than pretty much any other developed country except the US!
I'm currently living in Australia where I think the healthcare system is excellent since it combines a base universal healthcare system with a parallel private system with relatively affordable private insurance (which I pay for myself, it's totally separate from your employer). This model is similar in most other West countries (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Sweden (!)), the notable exception being Canada where there is no meaningful private healthcare option, unless you can afford to pay cash in the US, which e.g. a former boss of Vancouver did. So it makes it more difficult for Americans to claim the Canadian system is better when the fact is that many (albeit relatively wealthy) Canadians jump the public queue in Canada by going to the US.
[1] https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/978/~/how-to-ob...
Salary is quite irrelevant. It seems like a large cohort of USCIS officers are trying to eliminate everyone on the H1B, and this is being encouraged by the Trump administration. The sad thing is that denials are completely arbitrary and random, and depends on who looks at the case. I know one person who got approved (for a job as a SWE), soon after graduating from college (transitioning from OPT), despite a low (~100k) salary. So some people get lucky, and slip through the cracks, so to speak.
But in general, USCIS isn't judging cases by their merit, they're not treating jobs with high salaries favorably; the general attitude of this administration seems to be that: if you're from another country, we don't want you here, no matter how well-qualified or well-paid you are.
Reading things like this on HN reminds me to put the screen away and go outside and breathe some fresh air.
https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/san-fra...
Offshoring is what is happening and will accelerate. Search the article for 'Toronto'.
I have sympathy for cash poor startup founders, but offering substantial equity works wonders. Like a real amount, not something that rounds to 0. It's hard to feel bad for someone who wants to keep all the upside and not pay a good salary. Someone making 500k elsewhere should be a key hire, so spend or dilute yourself accordingly.
It's a short term vs long term balance. As an American you should want US to remain dominant in the startup ecosystem. Restricting startup access to skilled workers is counter-productive in the long run, even if it serves your short-term interests.
One would assume that the business still pays taxes, bills, rent etc.
It's still a net gain to the economy, especially when the alternative is for the work to go overseas.
Unironically yes. Thats is what they should do. If you pay below market wages, well sucks to be you, I don't care if you complain.
But to give an actual good face alternative, they could hire lower skilled employees from non-traditional backgrounds, and train them up.
What boggles my mind is that a seemingly large number of companies, who are priced entirely out of the market in SV, still try and compete there, rather than opening an office in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, etc.
Plenty of local talent, and the low end of the SF payscale is fiercely competitive in any of the above, largely because the cost of living is half-or-less of anything in the Bay.
You won't have to pay Google-in-Mountain-View competitive wages, sure, but you do need to be competitive against the general tech market, inclusive of SV remote companies.
Assume a reasonably skilled, experienced software engineer. According to Indeed's Salary Search[1], in San Francisco, they could reasonably expect to hit an annual salary of USD 170k at Companies That Are Not Google, whereas in Salt Lake City, that number drops to USD 90k.
USD 90k is well below the bottom of the market in the Bay, and is near-as-makes-no-difference half of what our hypothetical engineer would make in SF.
In terms of raw-cost-of-living, sure, those numbers work out. However, people do like to also build up their savings account, and that's where things fall apart.
Post-tax, the SF salary will net you USD 110k. Your annual cost of living will run you somewhere around USD 77k. In Utah, you'll net USD 64k post-tax, and your annual living expenses will run you somewhere around USD 48k.
Rent is 70% higher in SF, and cost-of-goods is 20% higher, but you also don't need to own a car or pay for car insurance, both of which you will need in Salt Lake.
In SF, our hypothetical engineer will be able to bank USD 33k annually, more if they contribute to a 401(k) or other tax-deferred savings vehicle. In Salt Lake, that number drops down to USD 16k per annum.
That's a massive gap, which is often similarly reflected in long-term compensation -- e.g., the engineer in SF might see USD 100k+ in annual stock options, whereas the one in Salt Lake will probably see half that.
To be competitive on salary, that Salt Lake company would need to lay USD 120k on the table. That's 30% less than in SF -- plus all the other operational savings -- but not "half", which is what "market" seems to be at present.
It is apparently tough to find "quality talent" say some here; I did get a job offer with a nice compensation package in just two weeks when I recently started applying places and the word I heard was that it was competitive on employer's side.