The guy may be a class A Ahole, but I really like that message. Like, really like it. He's essentially saying "yes, I know the shenanigans you play, and I'm not going there."

Though, I doubt it's a business that will "scale to tens of thousands of employees around the world". That seems like a reach.

It's a recruiting agency. It's not scalable by design.

The content is fine. It's obviously spurred by experience or by an influx of offers.

The presentation is shite. Just have an autoresponder.

It reeks of Netflix' culture deck.

The term "reek" is normally negative in connotation. I have seen (at least on HN) the famous Netflix culture documents praised as straightforward method to assist in defining culture. Not that it "solves" culture in some magical, systemic way (i.e. naive founders saying "Look we have a culture deck, culture done!"), but still have only heard it referenced as a useful communication tool.

So having never seen it spoken of poorly, I am interested in your perspective.

Yes, I did mean to invoke the negative connotation of "reek".

The netflix culture deck isn't a bad ideal, not at all. It may not suit some, but that's ok. I think it has some real problems but I won't go into that here. Anyway, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. If it were the reality, it would be better than the way most companies operate, by a long shot.

But just like with Valve, the theory is different than the practice.

So just as we (HN) hate the person with the fancy car, fancy watch, designer clothes, who are "obviously" just doing this to signal virtue, I loathe the type of org that engineers by blog and cultures by pushy slide deck. It's fine to desire that culture (even if it's impossible), but you look like a buffoon by insisting on being so pushy about it. And that's what Toptal is doing.

I am not a netflix employee, but I know a few former and one current employee.

I worked at a startup company for a year in the Midwest that was in the exact same situation, growing 50% YOY with only a little pocket change for speed funding all owner by the founders.

The founders had the same exact idea, founders own 100%, employees own nothing, and they wanted to tell everyone how awesome they were because of it. Key difference was that apparently our city's chamber of commerce that had a lot of skin in the game trying to brand themselves and did some PR work for the founders before they ran their mouth on how wonderful their company was. The message was, after a few edits:

You were going to be paid well but we will never put you into the golden handcuffs our friends on the coast love. (Google "We don't coast" for context)

He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world.

>He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world.

But not as great as working for a privately owned fast growing company with good options and being paid well, no?

(And if not options, strictly speaking, how about profit sharing?)

Source: I run a bootstrapped software development company and everyone has profit sharing.

Is being paid well not good enough? Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash. If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem?

>Is being paid well not good enough?

I would say no. Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the company, why should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond what is planned for the year?

>Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash.

Some do. In my experience, it's been about 50/50. Startups obviously tend to lean more toward equity and lower cash, while larger companies pay well and ofter options or RSUs.

I pay market and do profit sharing.

>If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem?

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. If you make a good salary, would you turn down even more money?

> Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the company, why should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond what is planned for the year?

That's a pretty peculiar viewpoint. If you went to a restaurant, ordered and paid for a burger, received your order with a bite taken out of it, and the cook said "Well, I worked really hard to make the hamburger that you ordered and it turned out extra well. That means I deserve a bite." when you complained, would you find that reasonable?

(It's not even entirely hypothetical: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746600105/1-in-4-food-deliver... )

Your analogy falls apart. Re-read what I wrote: "share in the additional profits above and beyond". Let's say we expect to make $1MM for the year. We need to keep a reserve to pay people when we are between contracts, rent, taxes, SAAS, etc. I then work out I can pay 5 people $100K each (this is an example, not actual). If we then make $1.2MM per year (for any number of reasons) how is it peculiar that the employees should share in the extra $200K? That's nothing like your analogy.

As far as financial accounting obligations go, shareholders should certainly share in the extra $200K. Profits are part of owner’s equity.

So the simple question is, if an employee does not own any part of the company, are they entitled to a share of the extra profits?

If the employees want to be entitled to a share of the extra profits then one obvious solution is that they need to become shareholders. Normally a share of owner’s equity is given in exchange for money. Instead of buying those shares with money, that’s what startup employees are doing when they take a lower cash pay in exchange for shares in a company that is unable to pay them full price.

I see your argument, but we’re describing a situation where a full-priced if not handsomely paid employee takes zero risk with a steady “what they want in cold hard cash” salary and then when the company does extra well they are entitled to a share of the upside.

I can recognize that giving employees a share of profits may very well be what businesses need to do in 2019 to recruit and retain the best talent. But their salary is what was agreed upon for the work to be done. So let’s call it for what it is — it’s something nice to do. It may even be a talent-recruiting and talent-retention tool that gives your business a competitive edge. But it’s not a financial obligation.

> We don't coast

https://www.omahachamber.org/wedontcoast/why/

A lot of defensive answers to obvious questions. The slogan may be completely positive in its inception, but I'd wager it's catching on for deeply negative sentiments.

Similar to Midwestern right-wingers referring to people from California as "Foreigners".

So there's plenty of history behind the four... five? catchphrases they've been trying to use (and I think they gave up on catchphrasing for now). But for a time they wanted to stop the brain-drain coming from the uppity hipster areas going to SF and friends so they used we don't coast to keep the brains here and the white collar economy strong. Then the all craft beer came and we stayed here so the slogan became history. It wasn't about white dog whistling afaik

okay, Omaha, define "paid well" and "paid well without golden handcuffs".

and for the coastal record, "cost of living" means nothing to me when federal thresholds like achieving accredited investor status don't factor that in at all. I'll figure out how to stash away enough dollars getting paid a lot of dollars in a high cost of living area.

Exactly! We have a nation state budget for branding and marketing but nothing on business growth and we still can't write a statement about no employee ownership without coming across super condescending.

Hey, I see your Cost Of Living jab and raise you $500/mo rent on 6 figures. I bet your farmers markets don't even have free corn. Checkmate, athiests.

You're a good sport.

I was mainly trying to predict and counteract a cost of living rebuttal.

I need to make $200,000+ per year for 2+ years, OR have $1 million in assets not including my house, just to be able to attempt joining the capital class in a private equity homerun. Otherwise I'm stuck with shitty common stock options (except where you live), public markets and bitcoin. Cost of living reduction means nothing to this reality. Only coastal companies are going to pay coastal employees this much without hemming and hawing and making you jump through a bunch of hoops to prove you are so exceptional.

Places aren't going to prevent the brain drain from anyone that understands that. All they do is get selective evolution of people who are stuck due to chronic problem (financial, health, likely both over time) of their own or their loved ones.

> $500/mo rent on 6 figures

thats pretty good, I try not to think about it

It's pretty cool that's there's any company at all able to make such bold assertions.

There are actually plenty, most of them have the same rules, they just don't say it that way. In other words, they are tactful.

I'd say any of the bootstrapped software companies hold those philosophies (they don't need the investment, so they can set the terms).

I don't agree with him, but it's refreshing. I'd take inartful honesty over bullshit artistry any day of the week.

This is almost certainly not written the way it is because he is an asshole (though I have no idea, he might be), but rather because investors seeking to make an investment can be a massive waste of time. They'll say they are open to your terms, but then try to negotiate once you're down the path. A self-funding, growing company has no need for investors, and that situation is not where venture capitalists typically find themselves - usually the companies need cash and VCs have power. It is more typical for PE firms, but usually only when founders want to cash out (or at least begin cashing out) - obviously he's not there yet.

I've seen other companies who have clearly wasted a bunch of time with investors before and have to be super clear about their situation to prevent more wasted time, e.g.: http://buildinglink.com/marketing/public/investors