USNetizen

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm leery of apps that say "proven security and compliance" and then don't offer any obvious details, or proof, about what that "compliance" is. ISO 27001, SOC2, what?

42 employees, or thereabouts. Biggest driver of revenue was focusing on an industry that buys everything in bulk - services, software, you name it. The federal government. It took two years of laying groundwork to get our first few contracts then took off from there. Biggest mistake we made was twofold - one, hiring too early in the beginning (we used a small amount of debt initially paying salaries for "overhead" people, like marketing, sales, consultants, etc., that simply didn't work out or were far too inexperienced) and, two, giving a substantial amount of equity to someone who was intended to be a cofounder type but was a paid employee, didn't put any money into the business (but took plenty out), and didn't have the mindset of an entrepreneur. Key lesson: choose your partner(s) and employees wisely.

Having done the same thing myself (bootstrapped a services company from $0 to over $8M/year in revenue in 5 years and grown a SaaS product from $0 to ~$800k ARR in 16 months completely bootstrapped), you can go into debt for a short time while bootstrapping, but generally not 3.5+ years unless you are independently wealthy or have a retirement nest egg you've been saving for a few decades you're prepared to liquidate.

At some point your access to capital dries up when banks see your level of risk increase. You might be able to survive moderate losses for a year or two and cover it with personal debt financing, depending on how much money and access to capital you have personally, but 3.5 to 4 years covering losses with personal debt is REALLY pushing it. You're most likely talking several hundred thousand dollars at that point even for a small startup.

And $1M ARR is only enough to support a team of 9 if the average salary being paid is around $50k-$55k/year (or if 2 or more people aren't even drawing a salary). Which makes sense because, in their blog, they describe hiring someone for marketing that was much less "senior" - i.e. cheaper - and not being happy with it. Taxes, fees, registrations, legal/accounting, benefits (if any), insurance, hosting, technical infrastructure, etc. can easily eat up over $300k/yr for a team of 9 - not including direct payroll.

Any organization that reaches a certain size will encounter things like this. The larger an organization gets, the more the productivity level tends to regress towards the mean. So, people with higher productivity will likely feel unfulfilled and people at the lower end will still feel inundated. It is both a mechanism of success and a detriment to such organizations. Successful because it standardizes things, ensuring more consistent quality and productivity overall - the end goal, after all, is to eliminate uncertainty as much as possible in daily operations. Detriment because, pertaining to the the consistency of quality and productivity, it tends to regress at a lower level.

The salaries tend to be higher simply because these large organizations are typically much better capitalized, not necessarily because the people that work there are that much better than everyone else. This is why a lot of high performers tend to strike off on their own at some point in their careers - dissatisfaction with mediocrity. But then their own companies, if successful, grow to a level where, once more, productivity and quality regresses towards the mean and they find themselves in a self-created bureaucracy as the organization matures.

Am I the only one where "dark mode" interfaces really screw with the eyes?

The current environment is nothing like the dot-com boom. The dot-com boom/bust was driven by public markets, whereas now the public markets are the ones who are filtering out the wild valuations now before it gets out of hand and throws the country into a recession like it did last time.

I was genuinely interested in this but saw some issues in the pricing. The "starter" is for "up to 100 users" but then the "Organization Wide" plan is for 500 users and over. What happens in the gap between 101 and 499 users? Also, Office 365 integration is only available for companies with over 500 users, which makes it not really useful for me - I want (need) that integration, but would only have about 60 users. So, for those reasons, I had to pass. Everything else looked great, but there is a huge gap in features and pricing for small to mid-sized companies not yet at the 500 mark.

So....like Disqus but open source then?

Absolutely agree. We as a society have put so much emphasis on earning a college degree that people are attaining worthless ones at too high of a rate and finding themselves buried in debt with no way to pay it off.

It doesn't help that basic financial literacy isn't taught in grade school anymore, either. Too many times, a graduate's first lesson in managing finances and debt comes in the form of a default notice from a lender.

The other problem I see here is that the whole mentality of being able to run away from your problems is, well, problematic. These things will only get worse if you don't address them. What they don't apparently realize is, one day, they're going to want to come back to the U.S. for one reason or another just to find out that their mound of student debt has grown into a mountain of defaults which prevents them from even holding certain jobs, getting credit, finding housing, and basically functioning comfortably in society.

Not true. 23% of all government money goes to small businesses. Over 30% in certain agencies and up to 60% in some. Like I've been saying here, you need to take the time to learn the market because if you don't, you will just believe it is stacked against you when it really isn't and is actually more friendly to smaller companies than certain commercial markets.

That's true in places like India, but not really in the U.S. I own a company that does government contracting and have never "paid someone off" or done anything remotely "corrupt" but we have been wildly successful nonetheless.

There are NUMEROUS mechanisms for oversight and redress at every level - but the typical commercial-focused company doesn't understand them, so they don't research or learn what they are and just give up thereby developing a very misguided interpretation of the system akin to what you believe it is like.

But the bureaucracy is sometimes for good reason (usually driven by Congressional mandate). What people need to do is learn to work within (and around) the bureaucracy. That's key to the government market. There is a reason for the way it is, and you need to learn to work with it instead of fighting against it.

I'm not sure you're understanding really how the system works, which is exactly what I was pointing out in my statement. I never said "guaranteed" - I said "stable". There is ALWAYS risk of losing the customer and the government can terminate at any time for almost any reason. But if you perform, then you can maintain the same customer for a decade or more.

This is how the system works and it works this way for a reason. There is more accountability in the government market than people realize - moreso than in most commercial transactions even.

The problem isn't that the process is really broken (though it is in many ways) - the problem is that too many companies fail to understand there is a major difference between government and commercial markets. Two totally different mindsets.

Yes, the sales cycles in government are a lot longer (2 years is at the extreme end though, 3 to 6 months is more average but with a lot of caveats) and yes, there are a lot of rules and regulations that don't exist in commercial deals (FAR, DFARS, etc. etc.) - but at the end of the day, you're talking about business-changing scale when you get awarded a decent sized government contract (millions of dollars over a period of 3-5 years on average or longer). You're talking about being able to grow to 100's of employees with just a half dozen or so government customers.

The problem here really is that people need to invest the time and energy into understanding the government market and they can't expect it to be like the commercial one. If you do this, then the payout is very much worth it (and, no, it doesn't require "deep pockets" but it DOES require relationship building, a strong commitment, and a lot of learning).

If you give up in frustration because "it's too convoluted" compared to the commercial market, then, yeah, it will never pay off and it will feel like everything is stacked against you. But if you stick it out you'll find yourself with some incredibly stable and predictable long-term revenue streams.

Then why does he says it's not worth it? You don't get rich being a later employee - I thought that was common knowledge. He's not getting rich, so he thinks working at startups aren't worth it. That's what I get out of this. He didn't take the same risks, so, yeah, he wouldn't get rich - that's my point.

I'm not sure I understand what the real dilemma is here of working for a startup. Being employee #15 is not the same as being in the first 5 hired. You don't take the same risks (or even do the same type of work), so there is obviously less reward when it's time to exit.

If you want to get rich, the best way to do it is to start a company yourself - but it sounds like the author didn't want to go that route after trying it. That's OK though, it's not for everyone. But I think the author needs to understand the risk-reward thing here a little better - you need to take more risks to earn more reward, and being the 15th hire at a company that has most likely already raised money is significantly less risk then being like employee #3. A lot of companies compensate their first handful of employees in equity a lot more than others because they took risks (and pay cuts) plus made contributions to the growth of the company that that employees #10 and after most likely didn't.

It still makes perfect sense to work at, or start, a startup - you just have to have the right appetite for risk and the right mindset for the varying types of work you'll be doing (compared to latter employees who can specialize more). You simply won't get "rich" without taking the risk and accepting that you have to broaden your capabilities beyond core technical skills to grow at a startup and earn your way to a nice exit package.

I tend to agree with the commentators on your post. I went the college route, but technically had a "trade school" experience first via the military - it gave me the befit of trying out a career field before I committed to a degree. I have family members who just went to trade school and comfortably clear 6 figures a year - they never even had a desire for college.

We need to stop stigmatizing trade schools and start realizing that college IS NOT a necessity for everyone, especially with recent debt loads people are taking on for worthless degrees (e.g. a top university near me recently removed all the math courses from an IT/cyber degree because students "were not enrolling in high enough numbers" - that would NEVER happen 20 or so years ago). "An expansive view of human knowledge" is not needed for someone who just wants to work as an electrician - which many people are perfectly happy doing. If they are happy with a trade, why force them into something they will be miserable in?

Even now, as an employer in a technical field, college degrees are virtually meaningless because most institutions utterly fail to equip their students for the workforce. We hire based on a combination of experience, personality, and certifications. Only if your degree is in a designated engineering field do we give it any weight at all but, even then, experience is still paramount.

These two things are not related. There is a lot more than salary and benefits that go into an hourly billing number. There is no way anyone would know for sure what salary they set unless we somehow knew their overhead, G&A, fringe and other indirect allocations.

They bill $X so I should get paid $X is not how the industry operates - there is so much more that needs to be considered here.

Anyone who has owned a company that specializes in services or even worked long-term as a 1099 could confirm this.