I fell for this trick once when I was younger, but never again.
As it turns out, when companies are bleeding talent and struggling to hire they suddenly find ways to pay well above market rate. You can have a fancy title, too!
We had a competitor do something similar at a prior company. I would tell candidates that we can't match their compensation numbers but to come back if things don't work out at the other company. I'd often get a message about 3-4 months later asking if the job was still available
It's hard to tell the difference between "stop the bleeding" title/pay inflation and "aggressively competing for talent" inflation.
Meta is ~$2M/employee. Probably more like $1M once contractors are accounted for? But for a good person, even if the rest of the company has random issues, they can carve out a win.
Fast was like $1K/employee
Consider what that's like for some hypothetical B2B startup BlitzScaler Inc. They're betting on 3x+ growth year-over-year for next 2+ years, 2-3 year sales payback periods, etc, and is probably closer to Fast levels of revenue per employee than Meta's. But hitting $500K is hard, $2M is hard again in different ways, then again to $10M, and again to $20M+ (and increasing range depending if many sales people inflating it). That matters because many aren't there, even unicorns (!). That means, like Uber, they're burning increasing piles of money, except unlike Uber, the revenue is unlikely to be keeping pace. Fundraising buys team, and an artificial sense of fit+growth (kool-aid-drinking team + forced sales that tap out + churn.)
A cockroach team is closer to Amazon style: reinvest ~100% in growth, but don't gamble your employee's stock options.
What could be a legitimate reason for giving silly titles? If it were a startup, it would be a huge red flag for an auditor.
> Sure, come as a Senior! That's not enough? Principal it is!
Do you mean staff (E6, the level above Senior)? Also, no one is getting E6 offers 2 years out of college.
IME, F are the only ones to whip out their laptop at a house party or bar at 10PM on a Friday night because they felt an insatiable to work on some feature request; GMA may do the same when on-call, but I've never seen it otherwise.
I'm personally going the other route: Class of 2019, secured a decently sized FAANG bag (barely worked the whole time while doing it), and now I'm transitioning to a position with even fewer hours of commitment required but also lower salary. Going to focus on things I've come to find more important than money and code.
On my way out of the first startup I worked for, there was an offer to double my pay! Nope!
Don't know if that's the origin, but hey it could be. Without the story, calling someone "cockroach" has unclear sentiments.
In contrast, popular models prone to failure and largely fueled by market phenomena like low inflation rates include ad-based social media ("we'll turn on revenue in 5 years, no, really!"), blitzscaling ("we'll eventually figure it out!"), sales-driven growth ("our federal team will make our $ back in 3-5 years, no really!"), acquihires ("with enough AI talent we'll just sell our staff!").
I like venture capital, such as for deep tech and true growth, but the reality is most tech VC funding is more about financial engineering that assumes most of the portfolio fails. They push for commercial scaling too early and wipe out, which is fine for the rich VC who just needs 1-3 bets to win. Fine for them, but sucks for most founders & employees unless they job hop every 2 years. If we take VC $ again, it'd be on our terms and with a clear payback/growth return.
A great way to kill an otherwise great idea & company is putting VC $ in, which puts a company on overdrive and financially implodes before it has a chance to figure things out. They're addicted and likely can't stop relying on VC without layoffs (or less likely, succeeding), at which point many of the A players leave as well and hard to recover. Instead, if a cockroach raises > $2M (so commercialization phase), that should generate enough sales revenue that they can keep organically growing in 18-24mo later even if a follow-on round doesn't happen. You'll hear such cockroach founders saying they don't even touch the money for months. Numbers-wise, most Series A companies fizzle out, which is because of this unicorn-or-bust structure.. and especially whenever the market is not on a bull tear. With a bit more time, they probably could have figured it out... but they blew it.
Some articles: - Paul Graham's article on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html . - https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-build-a-cockroach-startup-ins... - https://medium.com/the-mission/be-a-cockroach-not-a-unicorn-...
is this a reference to http://paulgraham.com/guidetoinvestors.html#:~:text=nuclear%...
I think I know what you mean by this, but I'm not sure. Could you elaborate on what this means? Thanks in advance. :)
Money is fungible
The real thing here is they're not that surprising. A lot of companies with their kind of funding use enterprise sales to force say $5-10M ARR, but there's only so much VC money can force for a leaky funnel, broken product, and overall incorrect market + fit. I didn't appreciate this until maybe a year or two ago. Valuation multiples in 50-100X range are super common (and even wackier numbers in seed/a). Think make believe stories like "well with another 12-18mo of growth this really just a bit over a 30X on some future forward revenue multiple...". The cash almost always leads to overspending, and it's highly unlikely the next 2-3 raises won't blow up and everyone goes home. I'm actually super impressed by the Docker team because they've been one of those rare cases of crawling out of that trap, even if with a lot less of the team.
We get job candidates with high competing offers for companies I know to be rotten inside, yet there's only so much I can say. "Our new hires are getting paid from customer revenue and with equity that doesn't have $50M-$500M of investor thumbs on the scales already cutting you out in 95% of the likely scenarios" generally doesn't punch through the kool aid.