Stability: no (who knows when the next layoffs will be)
Base Pay: maybe (probably higher on average)
Stock: maybe - but a complete crapshoot
Fulfilling work: maybe, but it could be disrupted by politics, maybe some side feature of a side feature, or you might just get laid off anyway
Frankly it’s hard to trust putting your energy into something new after being let go. At least at a small company market performance might be more closely tied to your performance, not random politics or idiotic decisions.
Seems you go to a large company to chill out, save up base pay, but not really give it your all as so much is out of your control.
Tech companies are shutting down their junior pipelines and turning their most senior talent into burned out careerists who don’t care. They’re managing to mediocrity, not growth. Which honestly maybe makes sense in a non 0 interest rate economy. I just wish they’d be honest about it
I have zero trust in the long term outlook of my current firm. My stock vests every 3 months and I sell it immediately. This makes up about half of my total compensation.
If the company shows signs of going down I'll cut my losses and go somewhere else, probably when the stock drops to about 50% of my sign-on value. If the company starts going up then I get a nice little bump.
I joined Meta last year (and then got laid off 6 months later) right after their huge drop and several people (including my manager) were extremely vocal about how it wasn't fair that I got so many shares of stock. They compute the number of shares you get based on a dollar amount and the share price over the last month.
By comparison I feel bad for my brethren at large tech companies that aren't publicly traded. Stripe comes to mind here. My friends there say they've been told "we want to go public, but now just isn't the right time" all the way up until the valuation was cut by a third. Those golden handcuffs must be heavy.
There are plenty of more obvious reasons I was let go:
- I was in the last cohort hired before the hiring freeze.
- I had a terrible fit with my first team (this manager was on that team, but it wasn't with them) and put in for a transfer after about 3 months.
- The VP for that area came down pretty hard on me directly because this represented a permanent loss in headcount and made it clear that they'd be extremely upset if I pushed for it.
- I put in my transfer request anyway (the day that they announced transfers would be frozen), and was actually transferred about 5 minutes before the freeze happened.
- In my new team my new manager gave their two week notice on my first day.
- I enjoyed the work, but the new manager and I never really got along.
- I was one of two people on the team, the other person was in the same time zone as the new manager, and I wasn't.
Frankly I'd have been shocked if I hadn't gotten laid off.
That's funny - every business-related thread on HN contains complaining about companies focusing on the next quarter results, yet even when people are given stock on preferential terms and have information unavailable for retail investors, they'll still behave in a way that incentives company to do that. And then complain during next layoffs probably :-).
On the other side, if OP was satisfied in the current firm (they admit they are not) and could have an impact in the direction of the company (instead of short-term results) maybe he would hold on to the stock for longer.
They have tons of options for work which will align with your views, yet they keep choosing ones that pay the most in short term and will not accept anything more than 9-to-5 work with zero responsibility for the company.
I did the complete opposite and I think it went way better for me, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And their own place in layoffs.
As opposed to working at a startup? Stability is way worse, base pay is lower on average, stock is an even bigger crapshoot, less perks, worse work-life balance. Work might be more fulfilling
Granted, the economy is very different than it was 5 years ago, but my very senior role at a startup paid about $185k w/no bonus, and 0.1% equity. 50+ hour weeks were the norm. We were acquired and I got $0 for the stock, but I did a $300k bonus (paid in 3 tranches over 18 months). I felt like I'd hit the lottery!
A couple years later, I joined a FAANG that paid me $100k just to walk in the door. Total pay, including stock ranged between $750k and $850k. My work week was 40 hours and I had so many fringe benefits and in-office amenities that I could never use them all. The work itself was also completely unfulfilling. I made it a few years before returning to a startup.
That being said if someone has a .NET/React/NextJS/Node role (can also be 100% TypeScript) and I can work globally (wanna travel the world), I would switch in a heartbeat. European so not so expensive :)
Needs a lead eng with .NET + React
I've worked for two very large (3000ish people) companies and it was great to have a day job that didn't have to become my identity, that understood that work-life balance is a thing, and that didn't pretend that "cool projects" were all that mattered. There isn't really any drama, there's no internal teams chats badmouthing management for a fake political stance (instead, these companies genuinely hire diversely, because those people are talented and perfectly capable of doing that job), and nobody is claiming my employer is the boogeyman. Neither company required me to pretend I wasn't working on blatantly immoral things that clearly make the world worse, and neither company has any intention of letting anyone go, because we didn't play cargo cult follow the leader blitzscaling during the pandemic in order to keep a death grip on the hiring market. This is despite one of those companies literally being in Silicon Valley
I mean, how was this not the only possible outcome for current-day big tech companies? It's not like we haven't seen this exact thing play out before with the likes of IBM, Oracle (was Oracle ever 'cool'), etc.
If by "big tech" you mean FAANG cos (and assuming "startup" means bay area YC tier), then a more accurate analysis is something like:
Stability: Lower likelihood of being laid off than the median startup in any given economic conditions. Way lower likelihood (I'd estimate <1/20th the risk) than early stage (series A/B)
Base pay: Higher than early stage startups, around the same for later stage (series C/D)
Stock: Much lower variance than startups, slightly higher EV
Fulfilling work: YMMV hugely depending on what you find more fulfilling. Making O(100M) users' lives 0.1% better? Big tech. Absolutely making the day of O(10) people? Startups
I think you kind of underestimate the allure of this in a time where prices of goods and services are rising at a rate not seen in decades and the middle class is becoming locked out of decent, affordable housing.
If you want economic security, you either have to build your own business or findothers who want to form a worker-owned co-op that resists the unfettered greed of corporate hegemony.
But it's not a sexy tech company. We build actual physical products that do things-- we're not a Matryoshka doll of web services hiding an advertising service in the middle whose only purpose is to trick users into giving up private information so that dick pill ads can be served more efficiently to them.
Nor are we trying to figure out how to use AI to serve you ads better.
It's slow, boring, work that pays well and is easy (mandatory) to leave behind after you clock out at 5pm every day. PTO flows like water, and the benefits are platinum-plated.
Of course, since we don't sell dick pill ads like Google, Meta, and the others there's no chance that our stock will erupt and leave us all multi-millionaires, so it's not "sexy".
I started out as a tech writer, part time while going to school, in 2007 and am now a Senior Principal Engineer.
Because we work on slow, actually real, physical, projects there is a lot of stability-- schedules are made in five year increments.
That, to me, is a "tech" company.
Internet firms whose only purpose is the sale of ads are just ad companies masquerading as a tech companies and I imagine such an environment might be somewhat volatile.
Plenty of tech-adjacent people like QAs (and tech writers) are self-teaching or going to school for CS. After a year or two they move into junior development jobs at the same company, provided management doesn't pigeonhole them. The rest of this person's 16 year tenure is plenty to climb the ranks from junior to PE.
And just because others got fired, I did not and still earn my good salary.
So is it worth it: yes for me it is.
Also my team is fun and my job is good.
This is arguably a lot more interesting than ISOs or private RSUs, where you might have more upside, but dramatically more downside as well, including many scenarios where the equity is effectively worth zero.
That has more to do with at will employment than big tech.
Definitely. The median for a dev in the US is $110k.
Me on the other hand, took me 6 months to find a new gig. I did find my job on HN Who's Hiring in January though! Ever since I've been working on https://hnresumetojobs.com to make it easier to find jobs from HN. Maybe it'll help you?
Best of luck OP. Keep your head up. You'll find something soon, this is just a transitory period. It's hard not to internalize the negative emotions that come with being laid off, but the reality is it really has nothing to do with your performance at work or worth as a human being.
Happy to chat on Twitter/email, both in bio :)
It should be "off" anyways.
Sorry to hear about your work troubles OP
After 40+ years programming I never expect much stability or loyalty from employers, though it happens. The tech industry revolves around short-term results, growth at all costs, and pumping the share price, which can work out in the employee's favor, but can also lead to over-hiring and layoff cycles, projects staffed and abruptly canceled, "pivots" as dumb ideas get played out.
I've been through a few boom & bust cycles and layoffs during my career. Some companies care about their employees, and some don't. Employers -- especially in tech -- know their people will jump if they get a better offer, so they treat them accordingly, as interchangeable cogs. Many employers don't value loyalty or their people despite their phony values and mission statements, nothing surprising there.
Senior people with 10+ years still have options, the contraction will mostly hurt more junior people. But even seniors will have to reset their expectations: the adult day care/resort spa workplaces will disappear and people who want to get a job will have to look outside of the tech-oriented Silicon Valley sphere. I always fell back on enterprise logistics during tech industry busts -- boring compared to a hot startup, but reliable and profitable.
Generalizing heavily, I think layoff risks looks something like this (from most risky to least risky):
1. Startups in an immediate or medium-term funding crunch. Standards to raise money are much higher now than they were in the recent past, so a lot of companies will likely go bust if they don't trim expenses aggressively. This includes a lot of companies that look relatively legitimate, have users, have nice websites, successful raised multiple times in the past, etc. If you ask them, they will never tell you they are having trouble raising, so you have to do your own research to form an opinion of their funding status.
2. BigCos under pressure from shareholders to grow profitability due to rising interest rates and competition for investor dollars. They have plenty of money to keep people employed, but investors are demanding a pound of flesh. This is why you see share prices surge after layoffs are announced.
3. web3/crypto zombie companies that aren't in dire financial straights yet, but may be pressured to return capital to investors given recent events in the space. You probably don't want to work here anyway.
4. Well-funded startups that raised recently and are actively growing. Any runway issues they have are far enough out that you don't need to worry much today.
So my advice is: Pick a startup that raised recently and is building something that looks like it could be a real business with appropriate margins. No web3 crypto scams, no uber-style businesses that can't grow without heavily subsidizing the cost of their service, etc.
I would have agreed with you 6 months ago but this describes both companies I was laid off from this year. Both closed 100+ million dollar rounds last May and June. Both valued at 1 billion+. Both bragged about their multi year runway days or weeks before layoffs began. Both had plans to grow significantly this year. My take is that the investors told them to do layoffs so they did. Which makes me want to work for a bootstrapped company that is growing slowly and will not take investor money
The team I worked for struggled to accomplish the most basic software tasks. They didn't even use source control. Everybody just zipped project files and emailed them to each other.
I wish government jobs paid better.
I think it is important to keep a reserve in cash because layoffs are just a part of reality at this point.
Personally, If you're living below your means, I would try to target 6 months to 1 year. Then again, the past 3 years have made me paranoid as hell. Your mileage may vary.
FWIW - I sleep a LOT better knowing I've got a year worth of expenses sitting in a high yield savings account. If I lost my job tomorrow? I'd say fuck it and take at least 4-6 weeks off before bothering to look for a job.
Yep! But if you're looking for a company that has a better chance at surviving (or thriving) through a downturn, picking a company that actually makes money is generally a better take. See Hashicorp's recent layoffs and recent earnings statements as an example.
I think my resume might be having many red flags, but it's difficult to find out what exactly.
I wish I could get some help on reviewing my resume
if you’re not getting interviews in two years, i’m happy to help advise on best practices.
Also check the blog for lots of my advice for free.
Not currently in the market, but if I were paying/tipping for a service like this, it'd be important to me that human eyeballs+hands were involved.
I've always worked in the services industry, and starting to see the same patterns before the agency lay-offs begin in the most established firms.
I think any organisation whose either dependant on public sector — or conversely, trying to scale with an operating loss, is in for a shock by year's end.
There's no way I'm signing a 1 year lease in the current economic environment.
In my case, the lesson that I took was that I shouldn't have taken the 2nd job. The job had some red flags, but I was uncomfortable saying no.
Thus, to apply back to your case: Remember, interviewing for a job is a 2-way street. Screen your employer carefully, and don't be afraid to say no. If you're in a situation where you can't say no, (IE, collecting unemployment,) try to make them say no to you.
2: They all worked together for almost a decade, since college.
3: They never hired anyone more experienced than them.
4: My technical screening was with a consultant. In a decade they hadn't figured out how to screen.
5: Their stack was mostly "also ran" technology. (IE, they didn't know when to cut their losses and change over.)
6: Their "tech lead" didn't have the title of CTO.
When I showed up, this was what I figured out:
1: The manager kept up appearances of consensus driven decisions. (Which was why interviews were never 1-1.)
2: They generally hired inexperienced people so they could control them and not have their decisions challenged.
3: They were dangerously fixed in their ways. It was like they were using Betamax, Commodore, 8-track, ect after those technologies failed, and didn't understand why it was dangerous to bet their company on it.
4: There were glaring, unprofessional, security problems.
5: The "tech lead" really flubbed a lot due to inexperience, but it wasn't obvious due to everyone else inexperience. The "tech lead" needed serious mentoring; but was too used to calling the shots.
It has been very strange. I’ve never had a hard time finding work in my 12 years in tech. I’d only ever taken a while to find it due to being selective. I took time off to take care of my youngest son once, took 6 months or so to redirect learning towards embedded software and robotics “just because”, and always got right back to the whole full stack thing when I was ready.
I’ve applied to perhaps 30 positions and heard virtually nothing back. Had some great interviews that went cold. I have a feeling my resume is awful and I simply never needed to know that.
I’m optimistic though. I’ve always found myself in key roles on teams and provided critical work and guidance, so I know I’m not just some fortunate auxiliary person who happened to make it this far by luck or coincidence alone. With enough perseverance and humility I know I’ll find something.
I know all of you who are looking are having a rough time. All I can say is that things will always get harder, but they’ll get better too. After this, some time down the road, there’ll be something else to deal with too. You’ll figure that out just the same as you’ll figure this out. I suppose what matters isn’t what happens or why, but how you respond and move through it.
One silver lining is that I’ve been having a ton of fun learning more about things I’ve been curious about and generally furthering my career during downtime in ways I normally don’t get to. It might not seem meaningful or important at the moment, but it always pays off eventually. Plus learning is just fun, and fun is worthwhile. Especially when times are tough!
Good luck, everyone.
Silver lining: it's been really informative to see the ways in which I'm failing interviews. It's painful, but I have enough info for taking corrective measures.
Just remember sometimes it's not that you're doing anything wrong. Sometimes it just takes time for an opportunity to open up.
- For two of the positions, I wanted to get more into LLVM (internals) development, but didn't have enough prior experience to get the position.
- For one position, I had to give a presentation on some aspects of an LLVM back end. I think my presentation was just too clunky. I used too much of my prep time getting up to speed, leaving not enough time for putting together a reasonable presentation. Or I just didn't know enough about LLVM back ends (at the time) for the position; hard to know.
- For one position (Waymo), I did badly on a live programming exercise. I hate them, but it seems clear that I need to spend some Saturdays practicing LeetCode-type problems. At least if I want to work for an Alphabet company.
I can’t imagine going back to work for others. I haven’t settled on a plan, but it’s either overseas or self employed, in or out of tech. If I didn’t have a kid I liked spending most of my free time with I’d probably disappear with my modest satchel of gold coins to a remote corner of the world.
I used to joke I wanted to do something interesting, innovative, or creative. My POV has changed dramatically.
I’ve worked with teams to address those problems in the past, especially in a remote context. It’s really hard, but it’s certainly possible to make it work. In many cases we managed to turn around “bad hires” and get people fairly productive with the right strategies, but it took a lot of work.
I wonder if it could be that with so many layoffs, people are applying to and accepting offers for jobs they don’t actually want out of desperation. Perhaps they’re perfectly capable of the work, but they aren’t engaged because they aren’t where they feel like they should be. No intrinsic motivation, thinking about other jobs (maybe even still searching for other jobs), burned out on being unhappy, etc. That’ll turn down performance for most people.
It’s hard to say! Having a bad time hiring is legitimately tough to deal with. For you, for the other employees, for the people who end up being fired… It can be turned around, though.
It’s based on published papers about its algorithm + personal experience.
When large firms like Meta and Google go on giant hiring sprees like we saw in 2020, it indirectly pushes up compensation offers from a lot of other software companies who also had to try to match these deals if they wanted to hire anyone good at all - everyone ends up competing with the large company offers. With those taps turned off, I've certainly noticed offers cooling too.
Both closed 100+ million dollar rounds last May and June. Both valued at 1 billion+. Both bragged about their multi year runway days or weeks before layoffs began. Both had plans to grow significantly this year. My take is that the investors told them to do layoffs so they did.