FWIW, if anyone did ask my advice about what benefits to offer, I'd tell them to err on the side of generosity. I certainly tell them to err on that side with equity grants.
FWIW, if anyone did ask my advice about what benefits to offer, I'd tell them to err on the side of generosity. I certainly tell them to err on that side with equity grants.
It's unfair that YC is being singled out here. These are genuine VC-istan issues, not limited to YC startups.
All of the YC founders I know are great, but sample size is small.
I didn't see anything in the article state that you guys were explicitly advising founders to do these things. One of the first things the OP says is:
"YC seems to be a cult which is quite adept at turning college students into millionaires while creating billions of dollars of wealth for Venture Capitalists."
So the outcomes he's referring to may just be a direct result of the level of prior business experience amongst people you accept into the program.
http://blog.statwing.com/a-statistical-portrait-of-a-y-combi...
Edit: To clarify, there is huge difference between offering no benefits and offering fewer benefits than a large company. I'm not advocating treating employees like crap. I'm saying that there is a potential benefit to startups who don't try to compete on monetary benefits. Startups should provide as many benefits as possible, but not worry about competing with the financial packages that a large company can provide.
Also, if you disagree, please give your reasoning below. Downvoting to show disagreement just seems lazy.
These benefits also make an employees life easier, giving them more time to spend on your precious startup.
There are other ways to weed out the "another job" candidates.
When someone in the valley says "there is a shortage of talent", what they really mean is... there is a shortage of "talent willing to work for a pathetic salary".
I see a lot about how these start-ups state "competitive salary, great compensation, etc."
Instead, just say, "hey, we will pay you crap but come work for us anyway because you believe in our idea."
Somehow, I don't think that would get traction, when its put that way.
What vision? I thought we are all professionals working for the money.
It seems bleeding edge capitalism forgets the "free market" and "egoism turns out for the best" and resorts to idealism and religious-like "visions" for the company -- in order to have fools work for less than they could.
That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street.
Hi, I wasn't answering to your comment as it is, just got inspiration from your "vision" quote (something that one hears often repeated from startup guys).
>That said, most people don't work solely for money and I'm sure you don't either. If they did, then everyone would want to work on Wall Street.
Sure (I also care for the work environment, tech involved etc), but that doesn't mean I work for some "vision" or that I even believe that 99% of startups even have a vision worthy of mention.
1. Startups don't have as much money as a large corporation.
2. You, as an engineer, have more autonomy at a startup than a large corporation.
The reason I would choose to work at a startup over a corporation is because I value my autonomy, even if it means making less money than I would if I took a job at a large company. When I am a 45 year old father, my priorities will probably change. There's nothing wrong with that.
The question at hand is, should startups try to compete with large corporations on benefit packages? Benefits are important to feeling welcome and appreciated at work. At no point have I claimed otherwise.
My sole claim has been that if I had to make a tradeoff between certain benefits (that don't necessarily impact me as a young recent college graduate) and increased autonomy, I will pick autonomy. This is why startups optimize for recruiting younger developers. If a young developer thinks an idea is cool and believes in it, she will work her ass off. A 45 year old father, on the other hand, has other priorities. To reiterate, there is nothing wrong with that! But if a startup cannot afford to support such an experienced programmer (startups can't offer competitive salary, job safety, 401k, etc), it's better for the 45yo father to consider that before hand, rather than get burned later.
If the startup had offered him the same benefits and salary as the large company, he may have accepted the startup's offer. The startup could then go out of business in 2 months, and he'd be screwed. A young college graduate would have far more flexibility to bounce back and find another job, simply because the younger developer has fewer responsibilities.
A startup should offer as many benefits as it can. But the reality is that most startups simply cannot provide the same benefits as a large company, and I think that's ok. It's really not as evil as the author makes it seem because startups are targeting a different demographic than him.
If a startup's lack of benefits aren't acceptable to you, then you probably also shouldn't be taking the many other risks involved with doing a startup.
I've worked with companies who have a 1-month "escape hatch" on-boarding plan, wherein either the employer or employee can terminate the agreement no-harm-no-foul if expectations are not aligned. This is obviously more of a social agreement, as most companies use at-will employment contracts. This way, you can still treat your employees right.
Regarding compensation: the total package should be enough that people don't worry about money. Ever. If you're doing your job, you may not make them rich but you pay enough that people aren't worried about daily living expenses.
The issue here-- why benefits are so important-- is that VC-istan startups are in such a state where the concerns of a 45-year-old with kids are seen as freaky and unusual. There's a very large talent pool that's being overlooked.
For example, a 45 year old father who might be screwed if the startup shuts down 2 months later probably should not be applying to startups. However, a young recent college grad will have a much easier time bouncing back if the startup shuts down, simply because she has fewer responsibilities than the father. As a result, a lot of those benefits that the father is looking for are also less important to the recent college grad.
Of course, the startup should give the best possible benefits it can afford. But I don't see anything wrong with the startup focusing its limited resources on finding the employees that are better fits.
There's nothing wrong with paying less because your resources are better placed elsewhere. I just don't buy the idea that paying less gets you better candidates. Sure, it might filter, a little bit, for people who really care about your business. But it's also going to filter, a lot, for people who can't get better jobs elsewhere.