Hacker News Reader

I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming evenings", and other perks like the article mentions because when you step back and look at it they're trying to replace your life outside of work with excuses why you shouldn't leave work. Bind your job to your necessities and leaving becomes so much harder.

This isn't always the case, especially in larger companies. Sometimes perks are just perks.

Companies are in the business of making money. They only provide perks because they believe that it makes you a happier employee and that way you will work better and/or more hours. Perks aren't just perks. They are an incentive that either complements or replaces higher pay/better conditions. Never believe that they are giving you free drinks, lunch, gym membership and laundry services because, well, why not?

Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks.

Having say a small fund to use for sporting activities can improve interpersonal relationships between employees and provide a way for new employees who might have relocated for the job a way to meet new people. The dividends this can pay can be well in excess of the costs.

> Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks.

Or you could just, you know, pay them more.

I think you missed a critical piece about economies of scale.

A larger company would likely be able to negotiate a lower per-instance cost for a "perk" than an employee would be able to get themselves. Hence if you "just paid them more" with the idea that they would be going to get that same perk, it would cost some multiple more given that they don't have the same purchasing power as the company.

You can disagree that they would go and choose the same perk, but this line of reasoning assumes that there is no consistency of preferences eg. Gourmet coffee or good food is fungible as a perk regardless of the provider.

The extra that you have to pay somebody to compensate for the lack of say gym services could well be substantially more than it costs a larger company to deliver gym services themselves.

Consider that a gym membership might cost $50/month at a private gym because the gym needs to make a profit. There is also dead loss because of time travelling between work and the gym.

A company might well be able to provide on site gym services to employees at a much cheaper rate, especially if they already have space that is underutilised, they don't need it to be profitable and the facilities are so close that employees can just work out during their lunch break.

So with everything factored in you might be comparing $60/month to compensate an employee for a private gym vs $15-20/month with an employer provided gym.

The net result is healthier employees because more of them are likely to use the gym than if it was not provided and it's also a more efficient way to provide gym services if it is used by more than X% of employees.

I do somewhat believe this, but this ignores the fact that people will trade money for time and convenience. Things like not having to worry about doing laundry, or cook, or pick a place to eat, etc. are often things people will "pay for" via a slightly lower salary.

I shouldn't make it sound like I dislike creative perks, but I definitely have a problem when the company tried using those as selling points in lieu of more traditional job perks that I was looking for. Perks that I like are spending accounts, flexible hours, pension, additional work holidays. The company I moved to after turning down those types had ones like: 1 paid day off per year to use volunteering; 0% interest loan on tech purchases (with certain stipulations), 1% yearly salary towards a spending account of my choice. 1 year into the company and I had 30 days of paid time off to use whenever I wanted (within reason... I couldn't go jet away mid launch for 5 weeks)

I'm just trying to say that the fact that they thought going against the grain and being creative in an attempt to match the stories you hear out of Google or the like rubbed me the wrong way.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, then. The article specifically points out that playing the "perk war" is a bad idea, and people who are swayed by things like laundry service are likely not the people you want.

I'd say perks are never just perks, especially in larger companies.

Every perk is a line on a balance sheet that someone is justifying. If that person wants to keep their job, that justification isn't "just perks".

The only place where perks are just perks is small companies that aren't startups.

Almost exactly this comment comes up in every thread that talks about start-up culture, or one that discusses internal dynamics in successful high growth start-ups.

There is a kind of "formula" that is thrown around in the startup world as the ingredients of successful startups before they really get huge:

- Small teams

- Very fast growth of user base

- Less than robust technical infrastructure

- Obsessive and arguably irrationally enthusiastic founders

Why all these? Because they are CHEAP to start and stop and feedback is immediate and focused on the team. They are also pretty fragile, hence why you need people who will persevere in the face of insane obstacles. In a startup it you will have too few people for all of the tasks that you need which requires a certain type of personality, someone super flexible, adaptable and dedicated to expanding your capabilities no matter what.

Thiel et al. are not describing work environments of people who want a comfortable life as a first goal. They are describing work environments of people who are rabidly pursuing a massive goal (hold aside for a moment judgements about what those goals should be).

I am unsure why this post almost always shows up on these types of discussions, considering that this forum is arguably for the rabidly focused founders, rather than just people who are technology focused.

Amen. There's so much more the life than work. I think I probably realized this more after I had a kid, but it saddens me when people work and that's it.

That's definitely their choice, and if it makes them happy, then kudos to that. But if it's because they haven't tried other things, that's the part that's sad.

What if you founded the company - would you wear the company logo more often? I think the common sense and entirely reasonable answer would be "Yes, of course I would". And therein lies the beginning of a productive conversation pinning down the real difference between owning a company and just working there. In fact, it might also be the start of a good convo regarding how workplaces, and our relationships to them, have changed over the years - wearing the company logo uniform might have been required in our factory-driven past, but with the fracturing of market attention, companies making small, virtual services need all the help they can get to reach their market, including things like social media mentions from every employee.

And so the blurring of personal and work lives begins. This is not a new phenomena - so-called "promoters" have been doing it forever, and it's given charismatic, attractive people with a penchant for parties, small talk, and manipulation a way to make a living that's borderline honest. Engineers especially resent the addition of a work responsibility that we didn't sign up for. We make it work; we don't market it.

Which segues into the third interesting convo, talk about the possibility that fractured public attention might try to ground and balance itself by paying more attention to people who know what they're talking about. For better or for worse, people who can write real software do in fact know how to do something hard and real, and so people will listen to us, perhaps more than we realize.

The fact that this sets off alarm bells means you're well-adjusted, not weird. This is institutionalized conformity at it's best. It smacks of immature college grads trying fruitlessly to fill the social void that emerges from both workaholism and leaving college.

Demand interesting problems, reasonable autonomy, good pay (incl. equity), a real business plan (yeah I'm a dreamer), and a regular work schedule. The rest is details.

Life's too short to sell your social life to your employer.

I'm puzzled as to why there's so much negativity toward the idea of having a social life that involves your co-workers. There was a line in the article that really rang a bell with me, about how you spend a large amount of your waking life at work, so why not try to work with people you'd like to hang out with otherwise.

I have very strong social circles both in and out of my company, and those circles even mix. I've been markedly less happy working at companies where I wouldn't consider going out for a beer with the people I work with.

Now, it's unclear if Thiel is actually advocating centering your entire social life around your company. If that's the case, I certainly disagree with that premise, but I would find it intolerable working just with people who I only cared to see during work hours.

It's hard to know for sure what Thiel is advocating.

I'm just deeply suspicious of the "work hard/play harder" culture that often springs up around startups, mostly because it de-emphasizes the need to leave work. It's good to have multiple social circles.

I am the same way, my job is not my identity. I don't want any work perks, I just want to work. It doesn't say anything about my passion, or desire to succeed. It just means I have a full life outside of work, and don't desire someone replacing my activities with theirs.

I've worked in a couple startups, and I doubt you could find a person who wasn't happy with my work, or ability to work with others.

I just don't socialize with colleagues. I already have friends.

I agree 1000%.

And I'm not sure, but honestly, the couple of YC companies that took an interest in hiring me convinced me to stay far away. One of them expected me to build a demo project on a national holiday before interviewing me.

It's amazing they asked, because you got a clear indication that they will have no respect for your life. Good to know that early.

I mean, every startup I've worked with has behaved in some way like this. But there are extremes. I work for a large company now, and couldn't be happier. I work at least 2/3rds what I did at a startup, and I get paid more.

It's amazing. I never had a vacation that wasn't interrupted by tons of work while working at a startup. Never. Never had a vacation. Worked on Christmas multiple times.

I was shocked like hell I had my first vacation at big corp. Off for weeks, and no one emailed me once. I didn't even know what to do with myself.

> It's amazing they asked, because you got a clear indication that they will have no respect for your life. Good to know that early.

Its doubly amazing because I told them I'd be busy that day in a previous email. :)

> I mean, every startup I've worked with has behaved in some way like this. But there are extremes. I work for a large company now, and couldn't be happier. I work at least 2/3rds what I did at a startup, and I get paid more.

I prefer small companies. Like, where I work now the IT team is about 10 people. So startups are always tempting. Its just a question of finding the right one.

Right now, I work 5 days a week and handle some backend stuff on Saturdays. I don't mind the hours, I mind my personal time being interrupted without cause. :)

> Its doubly amazing because I told them I'd be busy that day in a previous email. :)

I think this sounds intentional. They were screening you, looking for employees who wanted to work with them so bad they'd drop everything.

I actually give them some kudos for that in that they were being indirectly honest about their expectations. You got a quick sense that it was a poor fit and bowed out, which is in both parties' best interest.

> They were screening you, looking for employees who wanted to work with them so bad they'd drop everything.

It isn't healthy in personal or business relationships for one partner to expect you to break promises. I keep my agreements and I expect others to do the same. If you expect other people to break promises to indulge your whims, you are too selfish for me to tolerate you.

I would never, ever, ask people to fail to meet their obligations to other people unless it was an emergency. Anyone who does is someone to avoid at any reasonable cost.

> I think this sounds intentional.

I know it wasn't intentional because I had made it clear in the previous email that it was a line I wouldn't cross. The effort they went through after that email made it very, very illogical for them to have continued the conversation. They wasted at least 30 minutes of their time on the phone + whatever it took to setup the environment they wanted me to use.

The alternative is they didn't believe me, in which case they are stupid, given the weight I give to promises and clearly established boundaries. I'm assuming since they got into YC they aren't stupid.

I used to work for a startup that took Peter Thiel's cult culture advice to heart. They paid employees 60-80% of market salary in exchange for the chance to participate in their mission to change an industry. Free food abounded, and there was a cultural expectation to stay at work through dinner.

The result? From what I've seen, this company is still doing well, but around a dozen employees I knew have left. Hopefully they make the compensation changes required to make employees feel respected for their time.

The fourth point in the article raises some red flags for me. I agree with the Capn:

>My job is not my identity, I feel its healthy to generate a life outside your work that is entirely separate;

You've hit on an important point here. There are lots of way to express similar sentiments, and you state it in a very practically appealing way (i.e. wrapping our identity firmly around our jobs is a dangerous path). I agree, but will state it slightly differently

As active agents we _do_ things, but those things we do are separate from who we _are_ (IMO, of course). If what I _do_ is be a Google employee and all I _am_ is a Google employee, what room is there left to grow? Ask yourself the question: who is this I?

If I is what you do, perhaps consider the consequences of a future where that job opportunity is no longer available or you don't enjoy doing it anymore. So instead of building your self identity on something external to yourself (in this case, a job), identify with something that is more concrete in it's foundation (what that is is up to you).

If what I _do_ is be a Google employee and all I _am_ is a Google employee, what room is there left to grow?

Because it is itself the process of growing. It is an intermediate phase.

Using myself as an example I know where I want to be in the next 20 years, but I also know there are some intermediate steps to get there. All of those require my identity to be tied to the thing I am working on in order for me to

1. Truly dedicate the work needed to make it successful and

2. signaling to the world that I am tied to these successes and organizations.

You know that Elon musk (or insert person) was part of Paypal/SpaceX/Tesla/SolarCity (or insert company) because he ties his personality to it.

>Because it is itself the process of growing. It is an intermediate phase.

I think you missed what I was saying, you are conflating issues as well. I believe you can be tied to your successes and dedicate yourself to something without it consuming your identity.

I am not saying that what you do is not a part of who you are, of course it is. But I believe there is a greater whole being ignored when your identity is limited to what you do at any given time.

Said differently: I simply don't believe you can be something external to yourself. Certainly you can trick yourself into thinking that it is who you are (in whatever "phase" of life you are in), but again, IMO, that is a reductive line of thinking.

As for the Elon Musk example, you are flipping the conversation. You are attributing personality traits to a companies actions. Of course that will happen, a company is made up of people who make decisions. That does not mean the company makes the man.

It's very reductive, and it's also supported by culture. Culture wants to objectify you into being the x guy, whether it's FP evangelist or maintainer of $COOL_OSS_PROJECT or whatever.

Resist that for your own sake. You cannot reinvent yourself if you've cast your identity in stone.

I simply don't believe you can be something external to yourself. Certainly you can trick yourself into thinking that it is who you are (in whatever "phase" of life you are in), but again, IMO, that is a reductive line of thinking.

That's the crux of it and I think is wrong with lot's of examples to prove otherwise.

Look at any U.S. Marine. They ARE Marines, or any Olympic athlete, they are whatever their sporting role is.

Of course setting up the idea as though the only way to do it is to "trick yourself" makes it impossible to refute so I will just leave it at this:

Common startup wisdom seems to believe that if you want to be the founder of a billion dollar company, you probably need to "trick yourself," or however you want to say it, into believing you are your company.

Fair enough, my wording was a bit more limiting than I meant it to be. But I hear you, and you make some good points.

I guess I'll just use an old saying to put it one other way: 'the river is separate from the bed on which it flows'.

I think you're looking at #3 the wrong way - it's not a bijection, it's meant to be surjective. Every person is meant to be responsible for one thing, but many people may be responsible for the same thing. The aim of that is to reduce the task switching overhead from people frequently changing foci, and allow them to focus all their resources on improving one core competency.