I have worked for mega-companies via acqui-hire and I feel like my preference is based in solid experience. I’ve never hired into a company with more than 30 employees in my 30+ years as a developer and probably never will. My current gig is now grown well into the size range where I frequently am reminded why I don’t like bigger companies :(
If $200K/year at senior/principal isn't "sustainable"--well, move out of the SFBA, I guess.
There was much more of a delta when I started doing this ~10 years ago, but even then few people were in a hard spot (again, SFBA types maybe excluded, get another two roommates I guess).
This is in my opinion the biggest luxury of working in tech over a lot of other occupations, being able to fairly comfortably value other things over salary and not having to take whatever job that pays a little more.
For me, I take joy from my work. I get to build something new and cool, and I work with a bunch of fun people.
We have enough money, and sometimes enough is enough. I could earn much more at another company, but why? What would I do with the excess money? Buy more shit I won't use? I earn enough money to support my family and I get it from a job I find personally satisfying. More money won't make me any happier, and will just cause more problems. No thanks.
Trying to maximize my salary at all costs just so "number go up" seems incredibly unhealthy and shortsighted. I'd rather be happy and fulfilled.
So I make around 3x what I actually need to but save the rest. I expect to have enough to “retire” in a few years and then I’ll be able to pick jobs purely based on interest and fun and not pay. For me that’s worthwhile.
Sounds like you have an exit plan already worked out? You sound like you have a good retirement saved up or something else working to keep you free of worry.
For the majority of ppl working in this world, they don't have any options which is also accompanied by debt, and the future is always uncertain unless progress is upwards, and most of the time there is a ceiling to potential... There's often no healthy choices for people who didn't have the ability to save up.
In the end this is just a job, and we should focus on what's best for ourselves. This is possible and necessary with both large and small employers.
Knowing everyone you work with is certainly nice. At big companies you usually work as part of a team of, say, 8-12. And depending on your role and level you might rarely interact with others. At a startup you might have to talk to customers or other partner companies. So I wouldn’t even say it’s universally better in that way.
I do think a big benefit of startups is it’s much easier to get a sense of ownership for what you are doing which generally leads to more job satisfaction. Feeling like a mere cog can be demoralizing.
This is true, but why the focus on building new things? Improving and utilizing existing code bases is where most of the value from a software developer can be gained.
My default position has been that equity is monopoly money, and it’s been that position since the Simpsons mocked the dot com crash. “Oh, Bart: it’s not about how much stock you have, it’s about how much copper wire you can rip out of the wall before they catch you!”
There's an easy fix to that, and the only way I'd accept equity. Having my equity tied to founder equity value.
Thus, I will accept dilution, as long as a founders do, and this of course includes clauses for enrichment in any other form.
So a big new salary, or cash on the side, or any other method to take alternative comp, while dilution happens, lets me get mine.
Which is, of course, fair for me.
No games, no tricks.
So what you're saying, is the next lawyer in the chain, can always fool the prior?
If that is the case, then is an employment contract not the same? Suddenly, your contract now has you working for minimum wage?
Because 'next lawyer in chain' can always destroy all prior contracts?
So it is all pointless? Or are these lawyers only able to negate all equity claims?
Thus, the founders always get nothing? Or is it the VCs which get their equity diluted to 0, all the time, because no one can make a solid equity contract?
Note: if this happened to you, more info may aid us all.
Right?
Because there is no way to protect equity.
Right?
Because VCs can do anything they want? Because all contracts, and lawyers are worthless, right?
And only VC lawyers know how to write proper contracts, right?
So you will always lose?
Next on HN: now that American capitalism is proven null and void, on to the next bad thing!
What a load of hogwash. Do as I said in my original post.