Comment by 7Figures2Commas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 7Figures2Commas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

7Figures2Commas

> Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us.

Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation.

The reality is that compensation varies, and the differences can be quite pronounced in the technology industry. A startup with minimal revenue and $1 million in funding probably isn't going to be able to compete with Facebook or Google on salary and benefits. Expecting it to is like trying to get blood from a stone.

There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize your compensation at the cost of everything else, but if that's your approach, you need to live with the fact that you will almost always have better opportunities somewhere else. Constantly lamenting the fact that your current employer can't pay you as much as another employer can is no way to live life.

Incidentally, in my experience, a lot of people who allow their job satisfaction to be based entirely on a perception of relative compensation are never happy no matter how much they make. They constantly find ways to convince themselves that they could and should be making more.

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things.

Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are still stingy on the salaries but will go on and on about equity even when they've raised several rounds at ever-higher valuations. But, fortunately, there are also others that are starting to be willing to pay more cash at earlier stages. I'm far from convinced that this is a bad thing.

Totally agree on CEO compensation and not valuing the employee - often even the founders get screwed in those deals. This is the problem. The "dream of equity" doesn't pay out so many times that people shouldn't assume it's part of compensation.

I recall losing some relatively good engineers at various startups due to very small, in the end, not bank-breaking levels of compensation, we just couldn't compete with larger companies, when I really would have loved to hire them and maybe just hire less people.

Meanwhile, people who work at companies like Cisco in the area are able to command about 30-40% more in salary sometimes and have better hours.

If you find the right big company, your work can be quite as good as a small one, and you may have better hardware/software resources.

For me, I think the answer is mid-size to large startups right now, but small ones can be good. Can be. But they can go either way really quick.

I recall a similar thread somewhere about sales compensation, which gets super crazy at times, but sometimes getting an engineer who is going to work tons of hours $100k (who is going to make the product you sell or raise money for) at some companies can be really hard. It's not right.

They lose big to save a dime in the most important areas and blow it elsewhere.

What's the point of griping about compensation at startups? If you don't like the job offer, don't take it. Work at a big company instead.

If you have a more remunerative job offer from a big grey company and you still take the startup job they're pricing their offer correctly. Hell, they might be offering too much.

I think you misunderstood. I haven't taken the offers. Were I to feel underpaid at a startup, I'd talk to my boss and/or some recruiters, not to HN.

(Nor do you have to got to a huge corporation to find the larger offers.)

It's just something to keep in mind when you see "why can't I hire enough good engineers?" posts... not the only reason, by any means, but certainly a reason.

Nah, I meant the second person plural.

We should have stayed with thou/ye instead of you/you. It was more clear.

> At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups...

While there absolutely are startups offering unreasonably low wages, there are also a good number of startups where relatively young engineers with just a few years of professional experience are being paid well into the six figures annually.

A lot of the complaints about "poor compensation" are misguided and based on unrealistic salary comparisons. Just because Company A has salaries 50% higher than Company B doesn't necessarily mean that Company B is offering "poor compensation."

> Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are still stingy on the salaries but will go on and on about equity even when they've raised several rounds at ever-higher valuations.

So you'd prefer to go to work for a company that isn't increasing its valuation?

If you think that a company's valuation is far too rich, by all means discount the equity you're offered. But also consider that your ability to predict a company's future value might not be very good. How many people claimed companies like Facebook and Twitter were already overvalued years before they went public? I'll readily admit that I'm guilty of this.

> But, fortunately, there are also others that are starting to be willing to pay more cash at earlier stages. I'm far from convinced that this is a bad thing.

That's great, but be mindful of how this affects runway. Such startups, if they don't hit the milestones required to get to the next round of funding, may not be able to continue paying you for very long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com