Yeah, at the end of the post I tried to reference this: You probably shouldn't work at a startup for the money per se. The real value is short cycles with users and being able to make decisions and ship.
This is also cautionary for startups. You have to be an actually rewarding place to work, otherwise there is literally no reason to work there.
I agree -- ideally, it shouldn't be about the money. But, everything comes at a cost, and the cost to short cycles with users and more control over your product is quite literally thousands of dollars, endless perks, and a cushion not affordable by most startups. That's the classic early-stage startup dilemma I've experienced -- when left to the decision of good potential hires, I've noticed a disproportionate number not willing to forgo all of that. Big companies are only getting larger and the requirement for startups to outcompete them on everything besides money and perks is higher than ever. At the very least, I think startups should be fully transparent about this instead of waving equity in front of you as though it will be worth anything.
To me it comes off as a bit contradictory to say "you shouldn't work at a startup for the money" when the title of your post and video prominently feature the "$200 million" figure.
Spot on! Clearly author’s intentions were to convince people that being an employee at a startup pays monetarily. Which is now denied by him? I am confused.
This is also cautionary for startups. You have to be an actually rewarding place to work, otherwise there is literally no reason to work there.
reply