Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by acconrad on Monday June 11, 2018 @09:13PM
(#17290019)
Pre-series A. Once Series A comes into play, you can get paid "market" - which is to say, the normal rate outside of FAANG.
Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by munchbunny on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @07:43AM
(#17292373)
"Market" is weird to measure, because you're not really asking what market rate is, you're asking what your baseline is. If you can get a FANG job, the number you care about is effectively the average of what FANG would pay. If you can't, then it's effectively average rate outside of FANG.
Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by humanrebar on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @06:09AM
(#17301749)
AND, arguably, "market rate" in SV is below market rate elsewhere, especially when you factor in cost of living.
Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by s2g on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @03:25PM
(#17297038)
So anyone who is good enough to work for a big company you have no interest in?
Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by webmaven on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @10:02PM
(#17299684)
#2-#9 (roughly) are taking on more financial risk (this corresponds to the startup's market risk).
#50 is probably being hired for very specific skills and experience (to mitigate technical risk) that increases their opportunity cost considerably, and you aren't going to get an engineer with a track record of scaling operations like yours unless they get a decent salary and a shot at a significant upside.
For certain skillsets and track records, when a startup is having severe growing pains, it becomes a sellers' market.
Re:Ask HN: Pros and cons of working at a startup in 2018?
by busterarm on Wednesday June 13, 2018 @12:51AM
(#17300354)
The trick to this is find a company with large upside potential that is either about to IPO or has just recently IPO'd.
The list is small, but there are some obvious choices, even now.
Tangentially, I _really_ lucked out. I had other options that were lead engineer, or engineer #2-4, but this was unequivocally the best choice. The work is more interesting here too.
I ask because I've noticed with some high-dollar acquisitions a lot of times "engineer #50" makes his/her "F-You Money" on the acquisition, but having been "engineer #2" and "#4" and even "#1" (sadly, no big exits) I am skeptical that #50 took on much more risk or contributed more than, say, #200.