Opening the door means you get the interview, not that you automatically get the job. It can also mean that you get the benefit of the doubt when your interview doesn't go as well as you had hoped.

For my current job, I was able to use my big company experience and contacts to skip the phone screen at least.

Sample size of one: my company tends to ding candidates from Google if they have any whiff of the kind of status- or compensation-driven thinking displayed in this comment section. Can sometimes indicate limited independent thinking and low concern for others. Definitely can close doors.

What's compensation driven thinking ? There's a difference between only caring about money vs asking for what you deem fair. Startups always abuse the naivete of new grads and low ball them by saying they are working for a grander cause. That is BS too.

Small town personal tax agencies aren't financially competitive with Deloitte either. Doesn't make them abusive if Deloitte tier accountants choose to work for them.

Every industry has small low income employers and big titans with deep pockets. The big take most of the high quality talent by offering high salaries, and the small compete for the scraps with niche offerings.

Only in software does being the former seem to be some moral crime. Like if you're not as good as a place to work at as google you're meant to put "we're fairly shit. B- tier candidates at best please" on your hiring page.

That's true. But by the same token the owners of those agencies don't get up on their high horse about candidates that are "compensation driven". If a top talent interviews with a small town agency and asks if they can do 33% of Deloitte instead of 30%, the agency might say yes and might say no, but they don't say "how dare you even think about money when I am offering you a chance to do god's work on earth by helping to build venmo, but for dogs?!?"

Thank you. That's partly the point I was trying to make.

This isn't a fair assessment.

Startups can't pay BigCo wages because they don't have the money to. They have to leverage other, harder-to-value benefits which BigCo generally can't offer.

Increased responsibility, fewer "rules" on how to execute, more tightly focused mission are a few.

Naturally this differs company to company and there are always bad actors.

The compensation equation works out differently for each individual. Not everyone should work at a startup.

And that is fair. But the parent comment insinuated that anyone asking for money is doing something wrong or is inferior to "someone who truly loves technology". It's a highly personal decision with no right or wrong IMO.

Agreed. "Compensation-driven thinking" may not be the best choice of words. Money is always a touchy subject.

I read parent's comment to be more about highlighting the expectations mismatch that occurs sometimes when candidates aren't willing to make compromises and then blame the startup for being "too stingy".

I've seen this mismatch occur on both sides of the table. Startups have a harder time hiring due to as they need to seek people willing to forgo direct compensation in exchange for these harder-to-value benefits. Startups need to stay self-aware they'll have a harder time hiring since the candidate pool is smaller.

Candidates applying to startups also need to temper their salary expectations. If you want to join a startup, especially pre-Series C, and you're not willing to compromise on direct compensation, then prepare for a harder time. The employer pool is much smaller and you're not likely to get the most out of working at a startup if salary is a top priority.

They could have the money, say they hired less people, but payed the ones they had better for example.

> Sample size of one: my company tends to ding candidates from Google if they have any whiff of the kind of status- or compensation-driven thinking

Does it ding investors for return driven thinking, or does it happily takes checks from people so crass as to care about money?

While I don't know about the status, but compensation is definitely is the correct thinking. Startups need to offer something for less compensation, a lot of times they offer less and even less flexible than a big co.

When you're comparing against Google, outside of Facebook/Netflix pretty much all companies offer less. There are certainly plenty of predatory startups out there that are exploiting labor with unrealistic promises of riches and cap tables that guarantee no such happy outcome for employees. As an employee you have to look out for yourself, but if you set Google as the standard then everyone else is going to look cheap. There are many companies out there who simply don't have the unit economics to compete with FAANG, but may be more attractive for other reasons.

Then they can’t afford google talent. Short of pay they’d have to offer some other compelling narrative (e.g. HBO’s SV “changing the world through algorithms”). In essence it’s a trick to give up their economic advantage.

My main point is that Google doesn't define market comp, they define top-of-market comp. If you are a software engineer expecting to make Google money then you need to make peace with the fact that there are very very few places where you can earn that. It doesn't mean that all other companies are somehow low-balling or cheating their devs just because they don't have Google's money hose of a business.

I think the issue is everyone is saying they want the best - when it’s clear they either don’t or can’t afford it.

The best engineers are not always the highest paid engineers, and the best performers do not have equal performance in all contexts.

What is compensation driven thinking? You mean what execs do when they decide to funnel profits back to shareholders instead of giving raises?

Look, employment is a business contract. Business is about making money.

>if they have any whiff of the kind of status- or compensation-driven thinking displayed in this comment section.

Whenever I hear about an employer that doesn't want employees who want to get paid a fair market value, I just assume the bosses and owners are the greedy ones which exploit their employees emotions in order to under pay them.

Basically what you're talking about here is arrogance.

And typically yeah... that's true. You don't really want arrogant people on your team, unless they're super productive and share their knowledge freely.

It means they get far enough to have those whiteboard riddler interviews.

I'm sure it does open some doors. It closes other doors.

I would be leery of hiring from Google. I would need to be convinced that the candidate strongly rejects Google's culture.

I'm curious what culture at Google you object to?