Paul Graham on Startups, Innovation, and Creativity (2009) [audio]
econtalk.org
econtalk.org
* starting a startup got even cheaper
* there are even more lego bricks
* more & better angels & super angels
* more & better founder-led vcs
* still (even more?) difficult to tell which (stupid) ideas will work
* good strategy: iterate & adapt (ooda, explore & exploit, …)
* early stage investment works on reputation (founders do due diligence & due diligence got easier)
* immigration of talent/founders helps the US, visas are challenging
Is that true in general, when you factor in the cost of a developer's time, now they can get paid a few mill instead from FAANG over those years each.
edit: I'd say there is way more competition (for talent & market/use-cases) though among startups as well as between startups and FAANG.
Startups are a rich person’s game....either from the VC perspective or the Zuckerbergs or Gates, etc etc who already have the nest egg and time to tough it out.
I’ve seen a lot of harm come to young people who feel like they should risk it all to fit into a VC’s portfolio and driven like a slave while bearing the lion’s share of the risk.
At my own startup, I just tell engineers I'll pay as much as their current company (excludes some of the salaries at the FAANG companies though) just that they will get much more equity that could become large.
Strictly better expected value.
Even so, very hard to recruit folks to early stage startups. I feel like there's much less appetite for risk these days. (Or perceived risk since we pay just as much so there's really not much on the line)
I had one former colleague turn down my request because his current company gives great health insurance and 401k contributions. I was like "you are 22 years old! Take a tiny risk!"
I had one former colleague turn down my request because his current company gives great health insurance and 401k contributions. I was like "you are 22 years old! Take a tiny risk!"
Don't you realize you've contradicted yourself here? Perhaps you've failed to consider that great health insurance and 401k plans are part of the total compensation package. If you're matching base salary but ignoring other benefits, you're not matching anything.
I think "there's really not much on the line" and "take a tiny risk" are consistent.
We have solid health insurance (not like the top plan), but no 401k contributions and therein lies the "risk" I refer to.
This tweet comes to mind: https://twitter.com/downloadcue/status/1160254519592144896
Read the replies to get a dose of reality.
Granted, you could be the next Google/Facebook... whatever, but the smart odds are generally on the safe company with the better overall package. I bet that company also doesn't require working weekends (something most employees would rather not).
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this. Let's say an engineer's current compensation consists of:
- $N cash per year, and
- A single stock grant of shares in a publicly traded company (worth $4N at today's closing price), vesting linearly over 4 years
So the engineer's total annual compensation is worth $2N ($N cash, plus $N worth of stock vesting at the end of the year).
When you say you'll pay as much as her current company (and that she 'will get much more equity'), are you saying you'll match her current liquid compensation (cash plus vesting of marketable securities) or just the cash portion?
If the latter (you're only matching the cash portion) then, even if her compensation has 'strictly better expected value' (based on a coon understanding of the probability distribution of outcomes), she may still prefer to avoid the 95% chance that her new compensation turns out to be worth only half of her current compensation.
Once the prospective hire also factors in the common startup expectation that you sign over all your waking hours to the company, the surprisingly substantial value of benefits, and the added risk that the startup goes belly-up or can't make payroll regularly at some point, that offer of matching salary starts to look much less attractive.
Not saying that your frustration isn't warranted, or that all of these factors necessarily pertain in your startup - just that there are entirely valid reasons why the person on the other end of the table might refuse. (After all, the thing that makes much of modern economics / commerce possible is that risk is subjective.)
How do I listen to stuff like this without losing my sanity? :P I’ve tried downloading podcast apps on my iPhone, but I can never find the episode through them... :/
Thanks though.
This essay on his website was interesting - saying maybe you could do it, if you funded a critical mass of startups, "for the cost of a stadium". http://www.paulgraham.com/maybe.html
And I know he wrote later about being impressed by Detroit. (I thought there was a whole essay, but all I'm coming up with is this: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/595736193297457152 )
> It makes you wonder what else is coming [...] The impulse is "there won't be something like that ever again". But of course there will be in about 3 years probably. Whatever it is, it's probably being built now. You just can't tell what it is. And you know what I can't tell either.
This has been recorded in 2009, the year bitcoin has been released as open source software. So PG was pretty spot on that great stuff was being built as they speak.