Why you should join a big company first | Hacker News Reader

Why you should join a big company first

geekwire.com

57 pointsbmj182 comments

I used to advise people to go work for an existing company for a few years before trying to start their own, but I now think that was bad advice. It's true that you learn things working for a big company, but you learn more, faster, starting your own.

A lot of people we've funded have said they wished they'd quit their corporate job sooner. I don't remember any saying they wished they'd stayed in it longer.

The one point in this article that's valid is the last one. Startups take over your life. So if you want to focus on other things besides work, you're better off with a regular job than trying to start a startup.

>A lot of people we've funded have said they wished they'd quit their corporate job sooner. I don't remember any saying they wished they'd stayed in it longer.

I feel like the fact that you funded these people constitutes a very significant selection effect here.

You're getting a biased sample at YC, because everybody who wishes they'd stayed at their corporate job longer stays at the corporate job. Or they wash out and go back to corporate life before applying to YC, or you sense their lack of passion for their startup at the interview stage and don't let them in. Corporate life, after all, is the "default" choice, the one that doesn't take any particular decision to make.

If I had to advise people, I'd say "It's time to do a startup when you have more trouble concentrating on your job because you're distracted by your startup idea than you have trouble concentrating on your startup because you're distracted by your job." That comes at different times for different people, and it's not uncommon for someone to bounce between the two of them multiple times during their lifetime. Above all, I don't think it's a binary choice: it's silly to think in terms of "I'm a startup person" or "I'm a big company person", you should evaluate every opportunity available to you on its own merits rather than relying on your preconceptions of what you think it'll be like.

What are the advantages of being an employee of a startup vs an employee of a big corporation, besides working with smart people?

> So if you want to focus on other things besides work, you're better off with a regular job than trying to start a startup.

Or, alternately: if you're a rational agent interested in maximizing risk-adjusted returns, you're better off with a regular job than trying to start a startup.

Depends how good you are. If you're very good, you have better expected value working for yourself than averaging your work together with a bunch of other people. If not you're better off working for someone else.

(You're making a common statistical mistake here. You're concluding that because 1/x startups succeed, the odds of each person's startup succeeding is 1/x. You can see this clearly if you ask what the probability is that someone is over 6 feet tall. Although 1/x people are, the probability for each person is either 1 or 0. And while no one's chances of succeeding are 1, the startup case is closer to the height example than to rolling dice. Someone like the young Bill Gates would have a much higher probability of succeeding than a person selected at random.)

Of course, most people who think they are two standard deviations above the mean in expected returns, are not in fact that much out of the ordinary (monetarily, anyway). So the a priori expected return also needs to adjust for the risk that your self-assessment is incorrect.

You are making a common mistake inherent in backwards-looking risk assessment, considering the Bill Gates example after Bill Gates is already massively wealthy. Prior to Bill Gates founding Microsoft, or even in its early years, his main advantages were in coming from a wealthy family, and few people bet on his company getting exceptionally huge (as evidenced by the early Microsoft market cap, which was not exactly tens of billions). I would argue the ultimate outcome there, whether Bill Gates "succeeds" into $50b or "fails" into a mere $10m, is closer to rolling dice, and not reliably predictable.

In any case, Bill Gates was a trust-fund kid with a multi-million inheritance backstopping him, so is excluded from the field of consideration I'm positing here, which is what decision is best for kids who come from less-wealthy families.

> (You're making a common statistical mistake here. You're concluding that because 1/x startups succeed, the odds of each person's startup succeeding is 1/x. You can see this clearly if you ask what the probability is that someone is over 6 feet tall. Although 1/x people are, the probability for each person is either 1 or 0. And while no one's chances of succeeding are 1, the startup case is closer to the height example than to rolling dice. Someone like the young Bill Gates would have a much higher probability of succeeding than a person selected at random.)

More convincing evidence of this (and evidence that this analogy applies to the case of startups) would be to compare the probability of someone who has already succeeded at a startup working on a new startup versus someone who has never worked at a startup before or has failed in their previous attempts. Can you share that data?

This data's been collected across the VC industry:

http://www.vcconfidential.com/2009/02/josh-lerner-on-serial-...

Among VC-backed entrepreneurs, 34 percent of successful entrepreneurs succeed in their next venture, as compared to 23 percent of failed entrepreneurs and 22 percent of first-time entrepreneurs. This would suggest that yes, there is something about the entrepreneur that influences success, but it only improves your odds by about 50%.

(Note that there are a number of confounding factors in the study, like it only looking at VC-funded entrepreneurs - total success rates are likely much lower, since very few prospective founders get funding - and that repeat entrepreneurs have many external advantages like better access to funding, a name in the press, a better reputation for recruiting, and a pre-existing network.)

What are your thoughts on joining a big company vs joining a startup (as opposed to starting a company yourself)? On average, it seems one would still learn faster and be able to take on many new roles as an employee at a startup, but an employe also is in a chaotic world that he or she doesn't completely control (and often working with incomplete information).

Do you think this trade-off is worth it? And, since I'm guessing you lean towards 'yes' on that question, do you think there are different questions a prospective startup-employee should ask as opposed to the questions a potential investor in the startup would ask?

That would be a good middle ground. You'd learn a lot more about how startups operate in a startup than in a big company. If you join early enough your experience will be close to that of a founder.

Joining, not launching, a start-up is what the article's author is actually comparing to a corp job: "Should I join Microsoft or a startup?"

Financially and over the long term, a stable well-paid job early in one's career combined with low expenses (no kids, no mortgage, often no car and cheap health insurance) results in a larger lump of money accruing compound interest over a longer period of time.

a stable well-paid job early in one's career combined with low expenses (no kids, no mortgage, often no car and cheap health insurance) results in a larger lump of money accruing compound interest over a longer period of time.

And yet you won't get rich. The chances of getting rich as an employee of a startup are admittedly small, but nonzero.

The chances of you getting rich (say, hitting $1M) by accumulating some capital from your corp job and then using it to pick the right stocks on the market are probably greater than working at a start-up with a sub-1% equity and a reduced pay and waiting for the big exit, which in this case would have to be well in the over $100M territory.

Working at a start-up obviously has its non-monetary benefits over other forms of employment, but getting rich, on average, is probably not one of them.

Smart, hardworking people (the same people who might succeed with a startup) can absolutely get rich (in the "don't really need to worry about money" sense, not in the "absurd conspicuous consumption" sense) working for $BIGCORP in their 20s.

How, and over what timeframe?

Define a target (say, 1MM), a realistic interest rate, and head over to any compounding growth goal calculator; it'll tell you how much you need to set aside over 10-15 years to hit that target.

To compare meaningfully to startup careers, you need to factor in the premium you pay to work at a startup (in reduced wages) and the very low odds of any given startup making its employee equity liquid.

Generally, the difference between the BigCo path to 1MM and the startup path is that, barring dramatic changes in the nature of our industry (which changes would also confound the startup comparison), the BigCo path is reasonably contingent only on your execution. You can fire on all cylinders in every startup you work at and never end up in the money.

It all depends on the startup. Don't go work for a startup just because it's a startup. You're better off at BigCo. But if you really believe in the startup, and they'll give you meaningful equity and compensation that is enough for your lifestyle, and you want the responsibility, I'd lean towards the startup. Again, the key here is that you really believe in the startup. There aren't many that you can honestly say that about early enough to make the compensation difference worth it.

Also, depending on your life phase, presence of employer-paid health insurance should be seriously considered.

What's "meaningful equity"? 1% of 0 is the same as 50% of 0.

That's part of my point. My main point is that you should only do a startup if you truly believe in it (and you should realistically assess this before accepting, as hard as it may be). I think the biggest point of these articles is "don't join a startup for joining a startup's sake." That said, I like to think joining Dropbox or Google while a student and they are startups would have made sense (even discounting hindsight being 20/20, sorry for using these two, but they were the best examples I could come up with) if you were an avid user of either or had the opportunity to meet Larry/Sergey. Meaningful equity to me is enough that if it hits, you at least have enough money to spend a few years doing what you want. My main point is, there are some startups worth joining. But don't join a startup because working at a startup is "better."

I personally love working at the startup I work at, although we are later stage and moving out of the startup phase (I get paid market, and have solid insurance).

What number do you count as "rich"? I assume you're talking net worth, and not income.

Take on challenging tasks and do good work. Save at least 25% of pre-tax salary and all bonuses. Don't let it all be invested in your employers stock; ideally diversify via an index fund. Given typical bigcorp compensation at the moment, this puts your timeline to financial comfort, if not independence, under 10 years without any hardship in the meantime.

It is not unheard of for a senior engineer at say Netflix to earn 250k/year.

Assuming they live the same lifestyle as others working for a startup, they can easily bank 50k year after taxes. 15 years of that with even conservative growth and I would say you meet my definition of rich.

As usual, PG is 100% right, fighting for us hackers.

The article, and others like it, are nefarious corporate PR pieces put out by Microsoft, Google, Apple and others designed to trick us into not realizing the tremendous power we now hold. With the advent of internet,, the transaction costs that first led to the corporation have almost disappeared. This is 'The Age Of The Virtual Corporation'.

Work for The Man and you'll just make Larry Ellison, Steve Balmer, Tim Cook richer.

At first I thought this was satire, so bizarre was the vitriol against big corp.

I work at one of the big "nefarious corporate" companies, and my life is incredibly happy; I'm proud of getting a job here and proud of the work I do. More importantly, I have time and money to travel, play music, live a healthier lifestyle and generally enjoy life outside of (and in addition to) work. Who gives a shit if "The Man" is getting rich off my work? I don't envy what he has. Being able to afford a Lotus wouldn't make me nearly as happy as spending time with my wife.

If you feel compelled to pursue a startup because it's your passion, that's wonderful...but doing so with the expectation of riches is unrealistic, statistically speaking. Plus, growth in wealth is proven not to linearly increase happiness.

EDIT: But who am I to tell you how you (or anyone) how to live their life? If that's your path, then by all means pursue it.

I'm not even that concerned about getting rich. It's more about doing exactly what I want, when I want, and making a big impact (in terms of helping people) - without giving the billionaires any more power and money.

As Jesus said - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God.

I'm an atheist, but there's a solid truth in that saying. If you can't make a living on your own, it's OK to join that corp, but otherwise, it's the modern version of dealing with the devil.

> It's more about doing exactly what I want, when I want, and making a big impact (in terms of helping people) - without giving the billionaires any more power and money.

> ...it's the modern version of dealing with the devil.

Hey, I get that bureaucracy sucks. It is an inevitable function of increased size. Have you had experience at any of the big companies you name, though? I don't mean to be challenging, but my view of them was more negative before I joined one; all of my meaningful work experience prior had been with very small employers, so I assumed big corporate life was like a Dilbert strip.

Finding what motivates you is a difficult and intensely personal process, so it shouldn't be approached as a universal truth. For me, I've found that I really enjoy programming for its own sake. Although I will always treasure the memories and experience I got working at a startup, I am also very satisfied working in a larger setting; I still get to do what I care about most in a work setting, which is to design software and write code.

Taking a job that gives me the opportunity to do what I love while also allowing time to pursue my passions outside of work is a perfectly reasonable way to live my life - hardly "dealing with the devil". I asked earlier, "who am I to tell you how to live your life?", but the inverse applies as well.

I think we're coming from different angles - you're talking about life satisfaction, I'm talking about life purpose.

The startup life might be harder, in the short run, but I think it bestows a grander life purpose because at the minimum you are not helping the already rich get richer.

Sorry but I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Judging by your writing, you sound very young and inexperienced.

The definition of employment is trading some kind of value (usually knowledge, skill and labor) for money. When you work for a company, you are doing that trade with your employer, who in turn resells your services to their customers, while taking a cut of the profits. In effect, your employer is a middleman providing a degree of stability, security and pretty much instant ability to sell your services, in return for making a profit off your work. By being a startup owner/founder, you are doing essentially the same thing, except that now your boss is your customer. You still answer to somebody. As long as you want to sell something to the world, you will always have a 'boss'.

I don't see what's so wrong with working for another person. So what if it makes them richer, is that a bad thing? It also makes you richer, so equating it with "dealing with the devil" is just immature.

aah ... I think you should holding off throwing around labels like maturity, that's a bad way of making arguments.

Of course you're using a third party for branding/funding, however, as I mentioned in my original comment, corporations exist to reduce the transaction costs of collaborating and distributing - costs which are greatly reduced with widespread internet access.

This means you can have a 'virtual corporation', wherein you have much more freedom to decide your course of action.

In the end the customers is your boss - true, but you have much more say in what the product is (and this is good or bad, depending how skilled you are and your risk tolerance).

So, the people you hire, they will be dealing with the devil?

I'm a big believer in utility-style pay by sip business. The employer-employee relationship is inherently prone to abuse and to mispricing, usually in the employer's favor. I've never hired anyone and never intend to.

As Jesus said - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God

It does not suggest poor people have it easier.After all,Jesus was technically a rich person doing an internship on earth.

Work for The Man and you'll just make Larry Ellison, Steve Balmer, Tim Cook richer.

Incidentally, someone interviewed The Man not too long ago: http://www.raptitude.com/2013/09/an-interview-with-the-man/

The strongest reason that it's bad advice is that existing companies are very hard to quit for most people. The comforts they provide are so compelling that few escape, even when they might quite desperately want to. Existing companies almost(!) completely satisfy Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And beyond simply being compelling, they're extremely consuming, of time and energy.

Just imagine how many more great startups would exist if Google (and others) didn't have 100k of the best developers strapped into The Matrix (:D)

As a developer, any job where you get to do a deep variety of tasks is likely going to be good early in your career. I worked at a small company that allowed me to learn how to manage production servers and write code that ran millions of dollars worth of business.

It was hard. But I learned a lot (and made some mistakes). The problem? It was a small company, and there was no depth. There are limits to how far you can go on your own generally speaking. (in particular if the company is not expanding/hiring)

I never really got into the business side of things, but something similar applies. If you want to learn a lot about how business is done, you're going to have to get in on the very early stages, getting your hands dirty, curating customers, and seeing how/participating in how the business plan is put together.

> A lot of people we've funded have said they wished they'd quit their corporate job sooner

sure, when things turn out positive, people wish they would have made the decision sooner.

also - wished they had quit their corporate job sooner, or wished they'd never taken the corporate job to begin with? big difference.

either way i'm willing to bet that out of most people who failed to receive funding, then ran out of money and had to find another job, generally under less than ideal conditions, are glad they've got some corporate experience on the resume.

"I don't remember any saying they wished they'd stayed in it longer."

Do you usually keep in touch with the ones who fail?

They say that, but is it possible that they are undervaluing what they learnt in those few years?

I left my job to start a company. On reflection, the two periods during which I've learnt the most have been the last couple of years in my job, and the first 6 months of starting a company. I don't think the second period of learning would've been nearly as fruitful without the first period of learning, though.

Perhaps it depends on the circumstances of the corporate job. I had the good fortune of having an excellent manager and an interesting role. Most corporate jobs mightn't be like that.

The article opens with the question:

    > “Should I join Microsoft or a startup?”

but really seems to answer the question:

    > "Should I join Microsoft or start a startup"

which is really very different.

Yeah, I was a bit confused by what the author meant.

I can see it not being a good idea to start your own startup super early for the reasons the author lists. I don't think there's anything wrong with joining a growing startup early on, though.

Exactly I suggest to change the title cause it is misleading.

I think his audience is people who already know they want to start a startup, but aren't sure about when.

And as someone who worked for 2 startups, founded one, ended up at a big company, and hope that there will eventually be another startup in my life: I agree with him. I learned a lot working for a big company, and had I known that when I started out, I probably would've been much more effective at evaluating the startup opportunities that were available to me. Having a couple years at Google or Microsoft on your resume doesn't hurt you when you're doing your own thing, and can give you a bunch of experiences that you simply can't get when you're bouncing around between startups.

What would you say is the minimum number of years you should "put in", without looking like a job hopper?

It's heavily dependent on what you want to get out of it. From a resume POV, you want to show that you fully exploit the opportunities that are available to you, and yet also will seek out new opportunities if there are no more opportunities available to you. How long that translates to depends on how many opportunities are available to you.

I would say that if you're looking for technical skills, those max out at about 18 months. If you're looking to develop leadership, sales (as an engineer) or soft skills, plan on staying a minimum of 4 years, because it takes 2 years or so before people recognize that you have the technical skills to be worth listening to, and then another couple years to actually develop the soft skills. Persistence is another hard one: if you're trying to develop persistence, you need to get put on an ambitious project, and then you need to stick it out until the moonshot succeeds, which frequently takes 3ish years. Soft intrapersonal skills like recognizing your own blind spots and learning how to compensate for them are really hard: many people will never develop these skills, but if you do it usually takes being put on a project that's outside of your comfort zone, and then seeking therapy to deal with the anxiety and avoidance this creates, which usually takes all the time required to develop the skills above plus a year or so.

This really resonated with me, I was one of those cocky, over-achieving kids who thought I could start a company fresh out of college.

Instead, I've worked in Product for 26 months and learnt some really good skills: how to write real requirements, how to manage expectations (up and down), how to negotiate, how to measure and to focus on moving the needle, how to build a GTM plan and execute against it, how to deal with fireman issues, how to develop with a SOA, the list goes on.

And picked up a bunch of payments industry expertise along the way.

I'm still determined to start my own business, but definitely a hell-of-a-lot more confident in my chances of success.

You do learn lots of good things at companies, but you can also learn bad habits -- you can acquire a predilection for long meetings, acquire a taste for political point-scoring over (more difficult, less fun) compromise, and a default position of creating process over improving communication. Those things are survival skills at a big company, but very bad for small ones. The trick is to identify which of the skills you're picking up are good or bad and using them appropriately when you strike out on your own.

Excellent point - I find the long meetings aren't such a difficult thing to avoid - but certainly politics and unnecessary process have no place in a startup.

The other big lesson I learnt, the hidden cost of complexity, and importance of keeping things simple (I don't think you can get this until you meet the real world): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6331082 (just submitted to HN, realised it hadn't been shared yet)

It had: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5914209 :)

apologies - well it was a damn good article :)

Certainly!

Are those really survival skills at a big company? I make a point about skipping meetings that aren't specifically scheduled with me (many other top engineers at my employer do), I get basically nowhere without compromise, and I usually prefer to disseminate information rather than create process.

This attitude is Seattle's m.o. and I think it's unfortunate.

Recently I was talking with a CS advisor at the UW, my alma mater, and "corporate first, startup later" seems to be their default advice to students. His advice gave me the impression the UW was now a staging ground for Microsoft and Google lifers. Contrast this with Stanford's embracing of early entrepreneurship and risk-taking, and you get a sense for what makes Silicon Valley Silicon Valley.

I'd be interested in some numbers as far as Stanford goes. If we restrict it to students who don't come from already well-off families who can backstop a risky career (say, look at students from families making <$100k/yr), what proportion get a salaried job right out of school? I would be surprised if it's <90%.

2011-2012 Salary Survey from the Stanford Computer Forum

CS/EE Undergrads

Data: I received 135 responses which described 380 job offers. 95% of the job offers were primarily located in the Bay Area, 5% were from the Midwest and East Coast. 10% of the job offers were from start-ups.

Salary offers ranged from $65,500 to $92,000. The average salary offer was $79,360. The median salary offer was $ 78,750.

About 70% of students were offered stock options. About 80% of students were offered signing bonuses. And about 60% were offered relocation assistance and there were others who did not report the statistics since relocating did not apply to them. Relocation assistance ranged from $3,000 to $10,000 with an average of $3,500. Bonuses ranged from $5,000 to $25,000 with an average of $5,700. I did not calculate the range of stock options because stock options offered by companies are so different in their actual and potential values.

Students who replied averaged about 2 job offers. However, students may not have reported on all the offers they received. The average student who replied to the survey all had some job experience, nearly all of it through summer internships and averaged 3 summer of work. Location, scope of work, salary/benefits, environment/culture, company were the important factors in accepting the offers for the undergrads.

CS/EE Masters

Data: I received 150 responses which described 345 job offers. 94% of the job offers were primarily located in the Bay Area, 6% were in the Midwest and East Coast. 15% of the job offers were from start-ups.

Salary offers ranged from $70,000 to $105,300. The average salary offer was $98,246. The median salary offer was $87,650.

About 78% of students were offered stock options. About 66% of students were offered signing bonuses. And about 43% were offered relocation assistance and there others who did not report the statistics since relocating did not apply to them. Relocation assistance ranged from $3,000 to $8,000 with an average of $2,500. Bonuses ranged from $5,000 to $35,000 with an average of $6,325. I did not calculate the range of stock options because stock options offered by companies are so different in their actual and potential values.

Students who replied averaged about 3 job offers. However, students may not have reported on all the offers they received. The Masters had a little more summer experience than the undergraduates, an average of 3 summer internships.

Like the undergrads, location, scope of work, company, and salary/benefits, and environment/culture seem to be the important factors for the MS grads.

CS/EE PhD's

Data: I received 30 responses which described 75 job offers. 80% of the job offers were primarily located in the Bay Area, 20% were in the Midwest and East Coast. 30% of the job offers were from start-ups. 5% of the job offers were from a university.

Salary offers ranged from $133,250 to $146,980. The average salary offer was $143,083. The median salary offer was $140,115.

About 50% of students were offered stock options. About 50% of students were offered signing bonuses. Bonuses ranged from $5,000 to $19,500 with an average of $7,200. Relocation assistance ranged from $5,000 to $10,000 with an average of $6,500. However, they may not have reported on all the benefits they received. I did not calculate the range of stock options because stock options offered by companies are so different in their actual and potential values.

Students who replied averaged about 3 job offers. However, students may not have reported on all the offers they received. The PhDs had about the same amount of summer experience as the Masters, an average of 2 summer internships and with the exception of 2 full-time experience.

Like the undergraduates and masters, location, company, environment/culture, salary/benefits, scope of work seem to be the important factors when it came to accepting their job offer.

Yep. If I had it to do over, I'd do it that way. The options are better now, though. 15 years ago, if you wanted a big software company you had Microsoft, and, uh... Sun? Oracle? Now you have Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, not to mention the in-betweeners like Square, Dropbox, and Github. It's an incredible time to be starting off in Software. Unless you're sitting on the idea of the century (hint: probably not) it's not a bad idea to accumulate up cash, pay off debt, and build a great network.

How many employees does Square have?

A friend of my works at Square, I believe he said there were 600ish in the office here in San Francisco

This is clearly from a business perspective.

But if you're an engineer, I personally think that working for a big _software_ company early in your career is important. It's just plain easy to work on software in a small company because you don't have legacy code, existing products, existing customers, existing practices. Also you have no real way to judge whether your code is good or bad until its come under the glare of experienced engineers.

Also, people shouldn't take any of Robert Scoble's advice.

Agreed. I'm glad I left TripAdvisor when I did, but what I learned there was incredibly valuable. Working with very, very good people and learning from them early on has proven to be a really big long-term benefit.

But I fucked off to a small medical-software company that I could work at while making video games, I have no taste for the work-for-my-social-startup-so-I-can-buy-a-Lotus world.

So do you make the games for fun, or do you plan to switch to them fulltime in the future?

I'd like to make them full-time, but unless I move to the hinterlands or something I don't know if I'll ever be able to pay my rent on them.

I believe big companies are a good route for most devs early in their careers but most of the bullet points about why big companies are helpful are only applicable for senior team members. For junior people almost all of these would be faster/easier to accomplish at a startup where you've negotiated for more salary/less equity.

> You learn how (and how not) to run your own business—on someone else’s dime.

I have worked everywhere from startups where I was hired employee #1 to Fortune 50 companies. Odds are your own business will start small. You learn about how to run your own business when you sit 20 feet from the CEO and the sales team and finance and HR and marketing etc. You don't learn as much about how to run a company when you are the company's 104th Java programmer in that particular city. Maybe at a big company you learn about their particular, complex procedure that it takes to change one line of production code.

Couldn't agree with this more. I worked at startups first, and I think I would have been much better off getting a decent amount of experience under my belt first.

Recently I graduated from college and decided to go for a big multinational company with employees all over the globe and customers also. The reasons I chose to do so are similar to the ones the author chose.

Some drawbacks so far are the politics it takes to get a project going and the maze of people in a large corporation. Many times it takes several meetings just to find the right person to answer a question. Also having to interface with people around the globe to get sign off on things pose a time zone conflict and more hours are wasted.

Sometimes the answers to the problems that I face are not known to one side of the business because they have no idea how the other side does things. There are massive silos of information and systems that make it harder to navigate than a smaller shop.

I feel like getting a job at a larger company as an engineer is easier than getting a job at a startup anyways. Sure when you start your own thing there are no rules, but any startup with a couple senior engineers that have had to train up some employees from scratch know how much work it is. If you are joining a large company then you have a better opportunity to learn from more people. Your support base is larger.

Side note: who can you actually hire within your network if you join/start a startup? I thought I knew people, but every time I've ever asked if anyone wants a referral for (enter reputable startup brand here using awesome tech) I get no responses among my network. Every good engineer I know right now actually has a job that they like.

the experience i had in large-company life (ages 21-25) gave me the confidence to dump a large amount of personal money into my startup. if i didn't know it was possible to make decent money at such an early age, i would have been scared to death. to me it was no big deal.

in retrospect it was a pretty brave/risky thing to do, but it didn't feel like it at the time. money came, money went. simple as that.

to a certain extent, i feel the same way now. if everything went to hell tomorrow, i could just get a job and probably earn in the neighborhood of $150k/year on salary.

we, the founders, have 100% ownership of our company, which is profitable and growing at approximately 75-100% a year.

5 years spent in megacorp life versus seeking funding and giving up ownership was well worth it.

if you aren't willing to take risk right out of college, not even a midlife crisis will be enough to motivate you to build something great

I think more and more young talented developers choose to work for small cool companies or even attempt to start their own, instead of choosing to be a cog at a corporate giant. And this probably has the giants worried.

It's true that corporate experience is useful, but it can also cause depression and frustration, seeing your youth fleeting while you implement inconsequential features and fix trivial defects in a mammoth project you couldn't possibly be more emotionally detached from.

Get out as soon as it makes sense and not a moment later.

Joining a big company has many benefits such as being able to see what leads to bureaucracy in order to avoid it, meet at least one awful manager so you will never be like that person, meet at least one amazing mentor and grow, and learn see beyond appearance to recognize truly skilled/smart people vs. overconfident fakers. I think many of these skills are necessary for building a successful company and the relationships formed at these companies are invaluable.

The time window for playing the startup game is very short. Fresh out of college you don't have as many financial responsibilities as a few years down the road. Take that financial freedom as a license to risk working at or launching a startup.

You won't be able to do it when you have a mortgage, two kids to feed and clothe, and college savings on the horizon.

Sure you can! You can arguably do it better. :)

If you learn to save and manage your money intelligently instead of getting on the consumer treadmill as soon as you score a real job then you'll be in great shape to start later. You'll have savings, connections and experience.

Not everyone has a mortgage and kids later on in life.

Great article, but as usual I'm put off by how the headline frames this as universal advice, a practice that's reached epidemic proportions in blogging. If this comment were a post on my blog, I might call it "Shooting people who frame their advice as universal and why you need to do it"

I don't know that startup vs. big matters as much as small vs. big. If you can work for a profitable small company where you matter and you wear many many hats, you will be far better prepared to make an impact on your own if/when you do start your own company.

What really is a startup, these days? A handful of hackers in a garage or a co-working space? Somewhere established but still youthful and fresh- Path? Square? Quora? Someplace much older but with a sense of dynamism and a startup ethos- Google? Apple?

If there's a chance your paycheck won't clear, it's a startup.

/I kid, I kid. Sort of.

If you work at a startup with a decent runway worth of funding, this should never be an issue.

This is a good metric.

http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com