that's not what he's saying. He's saying higher overall income, and it comes with lower risk than startups.

But that's also expected, isn't it? Startups are like playing the lottery, those that win will suddenly have much, much, much more than your average person that puts their money into savings instead. But a big part of those playing the lottery will never win, and on average those who just invest their money will be better off than those who play the lottery.

> Startups are like playing the lottery

Sure, what has changed over the last 10 or so years is that winning the startup lottery pays close to nothing incremental over working at a large company since most of the equity is now held by founders and late stage investors and most of the stock growth happens before a company goes public.

I think you're 100% right, but it feels to me like the odds have just shifted over time. Early on it was more like the stock market, then it was like a roulette table, and now it's like gas station scratch tickets.

I'm not saying you can't get rich off of gas station scratch tickets, but it's not the best option.

he's saying that the monopoly aspect earns more much's of money for more much's of people, and therefore it's much much more than the startup aspect is much more.

i.e. you can join a startup that is already successful (the winner has been picked, Amazon, Google, Uber, ...) and safely with less variance expect to gain more expected value than you'll on average get from trying to pick the next winner. If you say "but startups are win win" then I'll say "but he's saying monopolists are win win win"

Microsoft was already an OS monopoly by 1990, but after that is when it really started to make real money, and for a lot more people than had worked there in the 80's. Because monopolizing a niche industry is nothing compared to growing the monopoly to mainstream acceptance.

you don't have to agree with his assessment; I'm just trying to clarify that he is saying something, not just selecting a point on a gaussian.

When I hear tech giant, I think FAANG, but I'm not sure this is representative of the options most programmers have. It certainly isnt representative of the compensation at most large companies.

In addition, I think rank-and-file FAANG salaries, when discussed here, tend to get grossly exaggerated. I know lots of people working at these companies and none of them have a boat. Lots of them have roommates in cramped apartments in SF like other tech company employees. Are there some highly paid employees at top tech companies? Sure. Do most employees at these companies have vacation homes and private jets? Nope.