Hacker News Reader

Comment by bunkydoo | Hacker News Reader

I'm gonna be straight with y'all, I earn more as a post office mail carrier than I ever did as a programmer for a silicon valley startup with $1 million dollars seed funding. I also surprisingly have more freedom even though I work basically like a slave. Nobody wants to admit it but we are in a tech bubble. Sure, if you are in the right startup things might be different. I had a great valley experience - but it was all a façade, the next recession will really highlight the failures of silicon valley startup culture. Wall Street got pounded last time, and I'm sure I'll get downvoted night and day for saying this here - but I'm sorry guys, you are the new problem. Silicon Valley is the new Wall Street. There, I said it. Ironically I worked in both places before joining the postal service. So I do have perspective. My claims aren't baseless either, your startup that might even be funded at a million dollars like my employer's was is just a tax write-off for your investor when it fails. They are playing slots with your dreams, time, and skill - the only person who truly loses is you.

View on HN

Wow, someone gives a company $1million and you claim that the person is playing with dreams, time and skills?

Give us a break. No startup has to accept investor money. If you don't want their million, don't take it. Bootstrap with your own cash.

The reality is that going into startup for money is a big risk, it's a big gamble. Go in for the fun, go in to learn new things, play with new tech, go in to avoid ( big company politics, enterprise style software development, meetings, locked down environments).

Do it for the for the fun and if you make money great, if you don't, you come out with new experience. Long before fullstack became a buzz word, I earned my badges due to startup. I coded, I did design, I touched the DB, I setup the servers, wired the network, setup the firewalls. It was hella fun, I made $0. But my experiences from then still serves me till this very day.

Cheer up, the world is not such a terrible place.

The reality is that going into startup for money is a big risk, it's a big gamble.

Isn't that exactly what the parent comment said?

This reminds me of some documentary I watched about the Klondike Gold Rush. Someone (who obviously didn't make money at it) was interviewed by a reporter, and he said he would do it again any time just to be a part of the excitement and fun. It's cliche, but it really is about the journey not the destination.

You sound like an employee who thinks they're an employer.

> Do it for the for the fun and if you make money great, if you don't, you come out with new experience. Long before fullstack became a buzz word, I earned my badges due to startup. I coded, I did design, I touched the DB, I setup the servers, wired the network, setup the firewalls. It was hella fun, I made $0. But my experiences from then still serves me till this very day.

You can have these experiences at a large tech company too, while also being paid well and while collaborating with experienced people who can teach you a lot.

More likely you will be pidgin-holed into a very narrow area of responsibility with no autonomy or opportunity to grow.

Not if you keep moving.

Yep. In a corporate environment, I've had far more freedom to explore new technologies and work on things outside of my specialism, than I ever did in startups.

When I was in startups, anything other than working in a tried-and-tested fashion using known technologies to solve the business problem was seen as forging more nails for the company's coffin.

In a big organisation, I've had the freedom to fail in pursuit of innovation, without worrying about losing my job and the jobs of all my colleagues.

I've passed on opportunities to move to other places because there's a level of insulation in the corporation I work for, where we're able to experiment and fail with projects that, were I or my team to do in a lean startup environment, would very possibly mean the end of our venture.

There are some really, really cool things happening at a lot of startups, and some of the shining stars are making waves at the moment (e.g. High-quality all-electric cars for the common family, affordable full-home automation, autonomous for-hire fleets at the tap of a screen).

But I also think there's a reason a lot of the real innovation and advancements in information technology have come out of the research laboratories at big corporations, and that's because they have the liquidity to absorb experimentation that goes nowhere without the risk of bankruptcy, and it's certainly an attractive place to go invent some awesome stuff.

Fun doesn't pay bills.

Nobody wants to admit it but we are in a tech bubble.

On the contrary, people love to claim Silicon Valley is in a tech bubble and have been doing so continuously since 2011.

If it isn't a bubble the rest of the world is in an 'anti-bubble', which will hopefully anti-pop any time soon resulting in more money for tech workers :-)

Demand for good developers is extremely high in the US. Which is why salaries are so high.

How can one tell if they are a good developer or not? It's about one-for-one that whenever I read a statement that demand is high I recall a story (even some posted on HN) of someone struggling to find work and vice-versa. Is the demand at a historical high or presently higher than other industries, but still cannot keep up with the supply? Or are only a fraction of those job seekers good?

Combination of the two: Also folks aren't "good" or "bad" but rather able to add value in different circumstances. Some may be able to add more value in a more structured development environment where a mentor helps guide their every step. Others may strive in a green field situation where they can really build the "whole thing" themselves. Both of these modes have their costs in the near and long-term with the latter potentially harder to scale to other developers after the fact, but at the time appearing impressive. The former means continuity in the organization but some individuals will grow less in this model. And of course there are a million other models. Everyone thrives differently.

There have been loud screams of "Bubble!" since at least 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvmNDym6CvQ

I don't think a $1 million seed counts as "well-funded" and certainly isn't somewhere you expect large compensation. Startups pay below-market salary, especially at the seed stage. Maybe you have a big equity grant but that's not money in the bank.

Glassdoor says that a letter carrier earns around $50K/year.

Interns still in college can earn that much in Silicon Valley startup, a decent (not stellar) engineer can easily be in the $120K-$180K range.

I don't see how I'm losing no matter what happens to my employer -- I'm getting paid a much higher salary than when I earned working for a more established, non-startup before I was laid off during a large reorganization and I'm doing much more interesting work than I was at the larger company.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/city-letter-carrier-salar...

It seems like everyone forgot what happen after 2000. I hope you are saving your money.

Implying someone with skills and a proactive attitude woulnd't be able to get a job or freelance?

The world is moving every day towards tech based solutions. If you can find a process to automate/improve and can sell yourself, you shouldn't have a problem.

This doesn't work when 100k other people with the same attributes are laid off in your city.

Yeah, I remember that -- every industry had a downturn and there was no safe haven for employment, so I'd rather have a higher salary at a startup today with no guarantee of long term employment versus a lower paid job at an established company with no guarantee of long term employment. And I'm not going to work at the USPS and earn a fraction of my salary.

Hah, I worked in government as an engineer before I moved to a startup doing something completely different. If you're ok with being a slave and fighting the very people you're working for to get the benefits you need to live a decent life then yeah government work is for you. That mindset that we're in a tech bubble is what I was worried about when I took on a city position but it's just fear. I thought it would happen for two years and nothing came. If you want to be scared, fine but how about you try and make an educated prediction and see if it will come true instead of just hand waving it.

On a broader note, I thought the fact that you make less at a startup was established. Big Co almost always pays more.

https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

Yeah but govt jobs pay a pension. Its the largest fraction of the federal budget. That doesn't happen in Silicon Valley.

This is why you can save money not spend it all in rent to be in a cool part of town.

My dad retired at 55, in the early 80s, with 25 years of service as a mail carrier. It was a secure and respected job, at least at the time. He's received a pension check every single month since then and has full medical coverage for life. I don't think that happens anywhere any more. Maybe the military, but there are certain downsides to that career.

This is hugely important. With rates as low as they are, a 2000$ pension per month, particularly if tied to inflation, can be worth $1m.

Who needs a secure retirement when there's a 0.002% chance that the startup you're working at won't fail, Google will buy it, and you'll end up a millionaire?

Why be a postal carrier with your skills when the average salary seems to be so much less (40-50k) than you could make?

Forget SV you could work remote from any inexpensive place in the country, or just park a camper near a national park and live the dream.

Because some people enjoy being postal carriers?

Ask any postal carrier if they would take a job that paid $20K more. I guarantee they will say yes. Stop thinking everyone is happy with their job because they have "a good life." Money still rules this world. Why else do people spend 8-10 hours a day trying to make money?

Stop thinking that making more money is the only thing that would make people happy, or that making enough to live on and be comfortable isn't enough for anyone.

> Money still rules this world

Probably says more about you than it does the people you're talking about.

Do you honestly not know anyone who is "overqualified" for their job but happy? I know quite a few.

Have a friend who went to school for business. Realized once he started working in business he absolutely hated it. Took a huge pay cut to work for a non profit. Much happier.

Another person I know spent many years trying several different careers. Got a bachelor's degree, did work studies, job shadowed, got licences. Didn't like any of them. She is happy in food service where she works now.

Depends what your perspectives are. Money is a means to an end, and accumulating assets and material belongings doesn't lead to true happiness (just more stuff to maintain). I have a friend who has hardly anything and he is free to move around the world and do menial work in different locations, but importantly he is able to move freely and live in different parts of the world for as long as he wants, even if he has little materially.

Don't discount the value of a pension. If they make $50k/yr + 2% inflation adjustments for 20 years, they would retire making $75k/yr. Their pension would pay them roughly half that, plus the value of their TSP (401k).

If you're a 45 year old programmer and feel like you're nearing the end of your valuable career, it might make sense to take the pay cut and make the transition. The pension alone is the equivalent of adding another $1MM to your retirement portfolio (assuming 4% safe withdraw rate).

As a person who is scared by the prospect of programming into my 50s, I could see making this move. A 50% reduction in pay until retirement sounds more appealing to me than a sudden 100% reduction in pay at some indeterminate point in the future.

Is there any chance of a systemic failure that would affect the entire economy caused by Silicon Valley? I am not talking about some shares losing value but with the Credit Crunch, we had thousands of average Joes in above their head in debt which couldn't be refinanced while the value of their home crashed.

I don't know that they've made anything that important. I'm up for feedback from anyone on something irreplaceable and necessary for consumers or businesses everywhere. Those that did are really old, established firms that actually sell product for a profit. Different model. ;)

No not really it would just make the bay area housing bubble burst won't really affect the country

I'm not even convinced it would do that. I'd love to get my hands on employment numbers of VC funded startups that aren't profitable vs those of big established tech giants like Google, FB, Apple, Adobe etc. with strong revenue streams and billions in the bank to weather whatever comes.

My hypothesis is that the former group are a small enough number where they might shake up confidence in the housing market temporarily, but would ultimately not sufficiently dent demand.

Big companies might go on a hiring spree for cheap talent and the housing market continues as it has been.

China money drying up could also be a catalyst or a natural disaster like a major earthquake could be another.

Silicon Valley is not like Wall Street in that way. If quantum computing breaks public key encryption the world is in deep doo-doo though.

It is like Wall Street back in the 00s in that it attracts greedy people as well as people in it for the love of it. I predict the greedy people will ruin this iteration of Silicon Valley, if they haven't already.

It also has a savior complex that is convinced Silicon Valley is "doing God's work". In other words drinking the Kool-Aid. "Do well by doing good" is a bit self-serving to me. It's a big warning sign when an industry constructs a mythology around itself. First, it's used as a psychological reward for employees that allows employers to suppress wages. Second, like any moral framework it makes ends-justifies-the-means rationalization easier.

It's just commerce! Get over it.

Yes. The NASDAQ meltdown in the dotcom crash affected everything. Arguably the economy never recovered, and just papered over it with a housing bubble instead.

$1 million is practically nothing as far as startup funding goes. Especially in the Bay Area. That's basically a year to find product market fit and raise another round.

No offense but you don't sound like you have enough experience to be commenting on our industry as a whole.

$1 million dollars used to be enough to buy the American Dream and have enough left over to send little Timmy to college. How 'bout them apples?

That's a terrible comparison. The impact of $1 million dollars on a family and the impact of $1 million dollars on a seed-stage startup are totally different. Did you really work in the tech industry? It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

Circuithub YC Winter'12 batch baby. I make more money at the post office duder.

Seed rounds have certainly exploded over last few years.

In USA and in the rest of the world, $1 million dollars is a shit ton of money. Full stop. Please, let's go back to reality.

Not when you need to pay people 100k/year. They aren't staffing a 7-11.

In the part of the world OP was probably referring to, development companies are like staffing 7-11

Not to any business that has to pay the salaries of 10+ people.

It's a shit ton of money for one person. For a business, especially a business without revenue, it seems like far less.

Why did this get voted down? A $1M funded startup is very early stage, and statistically not likely to succeed.

How'd you get started at the USPS? I always wonder about being a postal worker, sounds like you enjoy parts of it, whats it like?

Comparing what happened on Wall Street in 2008 to what is happening in Silicon Valley is just not even in the same realm. The scale, for one, is not even close. And do you have any evidence to backup what you're saying other than your own anecdote which is surprisingly lacking in details? You just sound generally disgruntled about a startup experience.

I am really not concerned for all of the startup employees that are making six figure salaries, putting them easily in the top 5% of earners in the world. These people have the freedom to do so much more than what most workers do. They are not victims.

Now, if we want to talk about how the work that Silicon Valley is doing will displace non-tech workers, then yes, that is a discussion that is worth talking about.

Here is somebody who agrees with you. The presentation (boo author) is not earth-shattering but still interesting enough (watch at 1.5 times speed). You don't need to accept everything, just take it as an interesting personal report based on his unique experiences. I think I even found this video here on HN just a few days ago.

I think the video is especially valuable to young people getting started in SV, those older and/or with experience may still find it interesting but gain usable insights.

"Inside the Tech Start-up Bubble | Dan Lyons | RSA Replay"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO836hHCmZA

I saw that talk and thought his points were interesting. His take on the Wall Street thing is that the kind of people who would have gone to Wall Street to try to make it big trading bonds are now heading to SV to try to get rich.

There are bubbles, for sure; tech is probably bubbly more frequently than other areas.

But IMO the salaries and benefits of government and many other non-industry workers form one of the biggest bubbles right now (an average public school teacher with seniority paid 120-200k if our local paper is to be believed and that is not in the most expensive area on the East Coast).

This bubble may overstretch public finances and pop or slowly deflate via retirements, but given the choice of two bubble areas I will choose tech over mail delivery as even after a pop the skills (I think) are easier to apply elsewhere.

> an average public school teacher with seniority paid 120-200k

While teacher pay definitely varies by district in public schools, that range seems absurdly high. I'm unclear precisely what you mean by "with seniority" but often the max comp for teachers is defined as being at the highest salary level with "Master's Plus 30".

The NEA lists average teacher starting pay at $35k, and it doesn't exactly rise dramatically after that. A teacher making six figures in the midwest is almost unheard of. A common max in Ohio is $65–75k.

http://www.nea.org/home/20620.htm

I live in a pretty well off, but not the wealthiest East Coast suburb and out local newspaper occasionally prints a list of folks who have to report their salaries and make over 100k.

My guess there were periods in the past when new teachers started with decent salaries and given guaranteed yearly raises, seniority moved them beyond this.

Im interested now myself (did I make a mistake?) and will look for an online copy or save next version

One thing that can happen with really senior teachers is "double dipping": they retire, start drawing from their retirement fund, then get rehired by the same district at a lower salary (like a starting teacher). That combination might be enough to push into six figures but only for teachers that are at retirement age.

How is it beneficial tax-wise to lose $1 million?

And what happens when the postal service gets opened up to competition /privatized as happened to the Royal mail

I'm interested to know more about this part:

> have more freedom even though I work basically like a slave

When you're responsible for everything, the weight of the world is on your shoulders at all times. When you're a cog in an accepted system, you aren't singled our for your inefficiencies . Perhaps less gratitude for being a baller, but a lot more comfort in knowing you aren't going to be wrongfully terminated because the CEO has a personality disorder.

Could be - hopefully OP will elaborate.

My wife spent years working for our local transit company, starting in the call centre (at a startlingly high wage for a call centre) and moving to other departments (scheduling, etc.)

I really envy her ability to leave work at 5 PM (or whatever her shift's 5 PM is) and not have to think about work until 9 AM the next day. I'm always 'on', always thinking about the next problem or outage or project, and frankly it's exhausting. If she calls in sick, they call in someone else to cover for her. There's no wondering 'will this get done' or 'what if...'. She never books a day off and then ends up having to work that day anyway.

Add to that that she's working a union job and getting a pension. She's got four weeks of vacation now, five or six years in, and it's only going to go up (her mother had months every year by the end). She's guaranteed raises based on how long she works there, and if she's qualified for another position and she's the most senior person then she'll get it (rather than having to kiss the boss's ass, or 'sorry we can't do without you in your current position'). Her pension is based on her 'best five years', so if, down the road, she does five years in operations, in a stressful, difficult, and frustrating job, she can then hop back out and do something simple until she retires.

There are no highs or lows in bus driver scheduling like when a server goes down and you're losing thousands of dollars an hour, but honestly, when a server goes down and we're losing thousands of dollars an hour, that sounds pretty good to me sometimes.

Thank you for sharing! (Not sarcasm)

Just sour grapes.

You don't have any magical insight into the industry. You're just drawing conclusions from one data point.

Here are two more data points for you: I've worked at two startups and so far both startups are solid successes.

Our country is just shy of $20 trillion in debt because investors spend their cash on startups like mine and expect the government to write it off on their taxes when it fails.

> because

While it's reasonable to bring up issues of moral hazard, blaming the national debt on startups has no relationship with reality.

I don't think you understand how tax write offs work. A $1 million loss in investments does not equal a tax bill $1 million less. At most it only means only paying $150k less in taxes (based on 15% capital gains tax). This only off sets other capital gain taxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com