> For start-up workers, the past few weeks have been sobering. Many had bought into the tech industry’s change-the-world ideals, had few boundaries between their work and personal lives and hoped for big payouts if their start-ups went public.
This saddened me, because it's a refrain that we hear over and over and over. Same exact thing happened during the .com bust (which scares me to believe that was 20 years ago already).
You can work really hard at a startup, put in a ton of energy, but at the end of the day, never forget it's just a business. It's a team, not a family, and in a team sometimes team members get cut. I've also found that the best folks in business tend to have rich, fulfilling lives outside of business as well.
> I’ve also found that the best folks in business tend to have rich, fulfilling lives outside of business as well.
Totally agree, but I’ve been burned multiple times by startups that see any kind of multifaceted lifestyle as “not fully committed” to the team or company, which is ridiculous. I’ve been so disappointed how frequently this happens in tech.
It’s because the owners are trying to squeeze as much value as they can out of you in as short a time as possible. This might be obvious but owners want as much they can show an investor as soon as possible to make their ownership of the company more valuable in the shortest amount of time, and also often trying to make the amount of money they lose to you as small as possible.
I think you probably already know this but for those that need to read this - the chances of you becoming a millionaire at a start up are zero. Better to go buy a lotto ticket. That said, much like owning a home in Southern California there are many good reasons to join a startup- money is not one of them.
There is of course the caveat that of course some people win the lotto but planning your financial life around winning the lotto is idiotic.
Owners of every kind of company want to extract as much value as they can at the lowest possible cost. Even nonprofits want to serve their missions (which are usually distinct from staff welfare) as best they can at a given budget. Greed doesn't seem to have much explanatory power for why startups in particular would be worse.
Owners of every kind of company want to extract as much value as they can at the lowest possible cost
Other than sports, what other industry than VC-backed startups lures in talented-but-naive young people, promises them riches, then chews up and spits most of them out, having burned them out? OK maybe music and fashion as well.
Pretty much any career that has an up or out policy with the promise of riches if you don't get pushed out of which there are plenty. For example, many consulting companies work this way where they will pay you a fraction of your billing rate and have you work a ton of hours in the hope that you will eventually make partner which is where you make the real money.
Good start-up CEOs struggle with this because many of them do care for their employees at a personal level, but they also have an obligation to the owners/investors to be financially successful. And the most findnacially successful CEOs are going to put investors first when they are up against the wall. I assume they rationalize it by saying that if the company is successful that is better in the long run for everyone.
Once you take outside funding, whether the founders “care” about their employees is irrelevant. They don’t guide the company any more. Their investors do.
If they “cared” about their employees and weren’t looking for a large exit, they would be creating a “lifestyle” business and not seek VC funding.
I’m not making a moral judgement either way. Everyone should go into any employment situation with their eyes wide open.
I agree with you but at the same time, a lot of people can't really create a lifestyle business. Yes, if you are a Senior Developer in SV, you can probably save 50k a year and then move to bumfuck Montana and start your lifestyle business, but a lot can't. I know many senior developers in my country that if they save 2000-3000 are probably in the top savers.
I already refused investment as I didn't think my goals aligned fully with the investors, but I am lucky as I don't have to pay rent (family flat) and I did some contracting that allowed me to save some money. Most of my developer friends will be fucked if their companies fire them as atm no-one will really hire them in the next few months for sure.
I’m assuming you aren’t in the US. Well I am in the US and if I lost my job in the current climate, I think I would have a hard time trying to find a job. I’ve never felt that way before - not in 2000 or 2008-2010. So your friends are far from unique. The entire global economy is screwed.
Assuming you’re trying to start a lifestyle software business, your startup costs should be cheap thanks to cloud providers or just using something like VMs.
I am not (Portugal). And I feel for you (and my friends and even myself, everyone is suffering now).
What I meant was, a lifestyle sw business, while low cost to run, means either someone having savings or a small family/friends angel investment/loan. That is why I mentioned some folks take funding because a lifestyle business is beyond their reach as they are working 40+ hours just to break even.
Exactly. I find that people who complain about shareholders or investors are literally just complaining that the business is not a not for profit.
Shareholders and investors are just a proxy for the business. If you want to use them as an excuse for lay offs - go for it - but realize that 99% of the time the decision comes down to "do I save half by firing the other half, or do we all go down with the ship?".
I had a recent stretch of unemployment that was made a bit more difficult than it had to be by the number of potential hirers who were under the impression that developers go home and just do more development. My GitHub repo? Uhh, yeah sure, here are some dotfiles I backed up a couple years ago...
What does "best" mean here? Successful? Affability? A tautology that the people with rich, fulfilling lives outside of work are the best people in business?
> Many had bought into the tech industry’s change-the-world ideals, had few boundaries between their work and personal lives and hoped for big payouts if their start-ups went public.
Surely this must be satire. The tech industry has only capitalist ideals, to ultimately seek rent from society like any other big industry, and big payouts for staff are essentially a lottery ticket.
This saddened me, because it's a refrain that we hear over and over and over. Same exact thing happened during the .com bust (which scares me to believe that was 20 years ago already).
You can work really hard at a startup, put in a ton of energy, but at the end of the day, never forget it's just a business. It's a team, not a family, and in a team sometimes team members get cut. I've also found that the best folks in business tend to have rich, fulfilling lives outside of business as well.