One approach might be to build a business by cleverly leveraging the value of competitively paid software engineers. You can accomplish quite a lot through focused effort. You shouldn't need fifty ICs to develop a profitable product.
Paying professionals doesn't have to come from absurdly oversized VC rounds. Sometimes it comes from steady, profitable, sustainable growth.
> *Note, I am perfectly on board with paying competitive salaries, my point is that given the heavy market distortion because of all the VC money, that "competitive salary" isn't actually an accurate descriptor.
You're right. It isn't. We should ignore the VC funded companies, and talk instead about the big players: FAANGs. That is the new definition of a competitive salary. I suspect you'll find it dwarfs that of many VC-fuelled startups.
You can be creative in the kind of perks you offer (4 hour workweek? More PTO than competitors etc). Note that there is some evidence to show that shorter work week may even result in better productivity.
"Paying salaries competitively" can also be rephrased as: "Raise as much money as you can and keep salaries on an upward trajectory". Optimising for profit is normally a good, healthy thing, but given the cheapness of capital (printing etc) sloshing about, how does one go about and build a profitable and steady company with good talent without getting yanked into this cycle?
All companies want talent, and capital has been freely available for the past 15 years in amounts previously unimaginable. It doesn't seem like there is any way to avoid this treadmill.
*Note, I am perfectly on board with paying competitive salaries, my point is that given the heavy market distortion because of all the VC money, that "competitive salary" isn't actually an accurate descriptor.