| ▲ | mystraline 3 days ago |
| > There was discussion about how they thought candidates asking about compensation to be something of a negative signal because they wanted people who weren’t in it for the money, basically. I've heard this from multiple hiring managers and C levels. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. Do you know why I show up and work? Because I am paid for it, and in this country, medical is also gatekept by employment. If I wasn't paid, I wouldn't work for them. But somehow, I'm supposed to not care about money at the same time caring about money. |
|
| ▲ | rtpg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Back when my salary was shitty I cared about the money a lot. I still like the money and the number going up. But now that it’s above a certain multiple of what I consider a “comfortable” life, I’m not worrying as much. Would for change your job for an extra 500k a year? Surely right? An extra 50k? An extra 5k? An extra 500 dollars a year? Theres some mental calculus that includes everything. Some people will just take “offer with most money” every time. Hell of a lot of people don’t. I do think that C suite folks might not have the right vision of what “normal/comfortable” is for employees though. So they might offer a low number thinking it’s actually a “comfortable to live with at this stage of life” number and then get confused why they can’t recruit good talent and think people are obsessed with money. First offer has gotta be within the ballpark of the right number if you don’t want your interviewee to immediately come back to you with a much higher number! |
| |
| ▲ | bobsomers 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I still like the money and the number going up. But now that it’s above a certain multiple of what I consider a “comfortable” life, I’m not worrying as much. I agree, but that number for most people is not the $207k/yr Oxide is paying. For most people that number is likely north of $500k, if not single digit millions. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I used to think (like 10 years ago) that $100k a year was all the money in the world and I'd be able to own a nice house and drive a nice car in Cali. Now my household income is double that, and I'm not a homeowner (I admit I do rent a nice house in a Norcal suburb) and because of remote work I'm not too concerned about the car I drive (but my wife does drive a Tesla), and after emergency fund savings, retirement, bills, and helping family out, my wife and I are still somehow still paycheck to paycheck. I'm not sharing this to complain, merely to just express that yeah, $207k in California can be comfortable, but it's not to the "worry not about money." $200k salary for a single person living in the Midwest? That person can probably retire early in a few years. | | |
| ▲ | rtpg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah my point is that it’s comfortable enough. If you are growing your emergency fund then you aren’t really living paycheck to paycheck right? You’re putting money off to the side. Tho perhaps you’re not putting aside much for, like, travel. Plenty of smaller startups not hitting that level, especially when they’re lean. And I think up until this raise Oxide was lean! (To be honest given this finding raise I could see a salary increase for oxide across the board, to help with that) | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's true, but I still consider 3-6mos emergency fund to be a basic necessity, since living in the startup world you never know when you may need to use it. A while back I interviewed for a startup that was asking me to work from 6am to 8pm for about 75% of what I make right now working regular 9-5 at a different startup. It was super early stage so that level of commitment was understandable but I can't imagine very many engineers with families willing to take that much of a paycut. But that's the name of the game, right? When you're early stage you can't afford to pay much but you need your product done yesterday. Thats probably why most startups fail. Cheap quality talent is hard to come by, at least stateside. Offshore developers can be cheap and amazing (someone living in India making $100k USD would probably be considered royalty) but if you don't have someone from that part of the world to vet the devs it could end up being more expensive in the long run. |
| |
| ▲ | Kirby64 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Now my household income is double that, and I'm not a homeowner (I admit I do rent a nice house in a Norcal suburb) and because of remote work I'm not too concerned about the car I drive (but my wife does drive a Tesla), and after emergency fund savings, retirement, bills, and helping family out, my wife and I are still somehow still paycheck to paycheck. “Paycheck to paycheck” isn’t really accurate if you can contribute to retirement, emergency fund savings, and give additional money to your family. Far from it. You could pull back on any or all of those contributions and have extra slack. Also, presumably you’ll eventually have enough emergency fund and that slack will be available soon. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's fair. I think what I'm trying to get at is that the typical suggested middle class American budget is exactly that — save a bit for emergency fund, save a bit for buying a house / home repairs, save a bit for an annual vacation. Maybe not giving money to family, but charity in general. Considering that a middle class family in CA would not be able to do all of these. I don't think I'm commenting on the salary itself; rather, the cost of maintaining status quo is rapidly outpacing middle class. A teacher on a middle class salary would be able to do all of these on a single income just a few decades ago. I shouldn't need to earn triple the median income to do that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rtpg 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > For most people that number is likely north of $500k, if not single digit millions I think if your kind of comfortable is needing to clear 500k or million in comp a year then you aren’t not in scrappy startup mode! This is fine but money out the door is money that then needs to get raised in early rounds I dunno, I do think oxide for basically everyone who joins is asking for them to get pay cuts but I would really hope that people would still at least putting some stuff into savings. And like … even if the equity is variable if people are getting even a bit of equity, that might end up as something in the end. Saying this I think with the recent raise the comp could be made higher just to make the buffer even better. There’s definitely an opportunity cost | |
| ▲ | mbreese 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That heavily depends on where you live and your life situation (young kids? older kids? No kids?). |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | dpritchett 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s a bit of a class thing, isn’t it? Independently wealthy folks can stay in the game longer without needing to extract a lot of cash compensation in the company’s early years. |
| |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is true in the abstract, but we're talking about a salary of $207,264 in this case. You don't need to be independently wealthy to make it on our salary. | | |
| ▲ | benreesman 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's still a class thing. With the CoL in most SWE-heavy metros and the outright war on engineer pricing power over the last few years? Just about any engineer who isnt independently wealthy is: - recovering from layoffs and a period of unemployment at a high-COL cost structure - facing layoffs with the above salients - facing an imperative to insulate their fucking house with cash for their turn in the above crosshairs Competence and a willingness to work hard stopped equalling access to basic necessities in November of 2022 - February of 2023, depending on how you count, and inflation has savaged a notional 200k. "200k is plenty to live on" is rich, well-connected guy talk in 2025. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > With the CoL in most SWE-heavy metros They’re a remote company. They’re not targeting HCOL metros. > and inflation has savaged a notional 200k. > "200k is plenty to live on" is rich, well-connected guy talk in 2025. Claiming that $200k is not enough to live on is rich-guy talk. The majority of the country lives on well below $200K. I agree that a single person living in a HCOL metro like SF Bay Area would not find this compensation attractive, but that person also has nearly infinite other jobs to choose from nearby. Jobs like this (remote work for interesting startup) do not need to pay HCOL comp. | | |
| ▲ | benreesman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Nothing about a remote gig in one job affects the imperstives I highlighted about past layoffs or future uncertainty: pricing relocation into or out of e.g. SFBA at zero is another conversational gambit popular with the out-of-touch. You don't teleport. It's bad generally, this is a terrible time to be a working person in general. How SWEs stack up against profession X? Depends on profession X. SWEs are in a job market where a bunch of folks who have been repeatedly prosecuted for wage fixing (most successfully/recently in 2012) are taking another swing at it in a much more lawless regime. That's as precarious as it gets when this cabal monopolizes the front row at the Inaugeration. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > pricing relocation into or out of e.g. SFBA at zero is another conversational gambit popular with the out-of-touch. You don't teleport. I think this is missing the point. The target audience for remote jobs that pay $200K does not overlap with the target audience of people interested in working in SFBA at FAANG-level compensation. If someone is interested in relocating to SFBA, they should do that and get a job there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "200k is plenty to live on" is rich, well-connected guy talk in 2025. The median US income in 2023 was $39,982 for an individual, and $78,538 for a household. | | |
| ▲ | benreesman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My issue isn't with Oxide's comp steucture which I neither understand nor care about. My issue is with made-for-life, self-appointed elder statesmen on HN saying anything at all about other people's finances and imperatives from the comfort of a study in whatever isyllic community they're pontificating from. Just, be grateful, and say nothing. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > My issue isn't with Oxide's comp steucture which I neither understand nor care about. This is a sub-thread about it, so that's what we're talking about though. > Just, be grateful, and say nothing. That's not how message boards work. If you say that it's ridiculous to live on such a salary, I'm going to point out how out of touch that is. | | |
| ▲ | benreesman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not what I said, you know that's not what I said. I said people who talk like that on HN are doing so from an unrelated personal experience. This sub-thread is about the habits of speech that make a certain breed of armchair public policy economist jump out like a lump on plate glass. Get Patek in here and we could start a convention. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > you know that's not what I said. Okay, just so you know, I did not understand that you were speaking in generalities whatsoever. | | |
| ▲ | benreesman 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough, this is a topic with a high and asymmetrical charge quotient and misunderstandings are a fact of life in such. I also regret any degree to which I've singled you out for a generally regrettable trend among the long-time community members: it's very easy to see the world through the lens of one's own experience and I've been as guilty as anyone of doing just that on plenty of occasions. We should all strive for empathy and understanding, that goes double for people like you and me (and Thomas) who have been around forever. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rtpg 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 200k a year. In US dollars. American dollars. Now you have families, debt, etc. There are things. Minimum expectations for family etc. But come on! It’s not poverty wages! “I am willing to take a pay cut for a thing that I’m passionate about” is such a normal thing that everyone serious I know in this industry says. Or like… even just ethical choices to leave money on the table (there’s a reason online casinos pay their software engineers so much!). Not everyone makes the choice (and I get people saying no) and but in a sense I gotta imagine it’s part of the calculus for making it work. “We won’t have to pay people half a mil in total comp like meta has to, because the mission is more straightforward”. I feel like an O&F ep mentioning someone from intel expecting _triple_ the comp. 600k! And like… people saying it’s not enough and talking about equity. You’re not paying rent with equity! Signed: a guy who was at a small startup and who would have been very happy with the inflation/CoL equivalent of 200k instead of what I had those early leaner years At one point “joining the scrappy startup” does involve some scrappiness. Otherwise you’re just working in a division of Google that hasn’t been integrated into the borg yet. | | |
| ▲ | nemothekid 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Focusing on the raw dollar amount is a red-herring that always comes up in these conversations. 200k is plenty! is a sleight of hand. If I am building something with 10s of millions of value and you give me 200k and expect me to shut up cause it's plenty, you are deceiving me, full stop. The "we all get paid the same" is a dishonest by omission. They don't all get paid the same, and while the peanut gallery may think so, I sure as hell don't think the IRS thinks the same way. I personally don't really care what they pay their engineers, but to pretend to have this egalitarian approach to compensation and then hide the equity numbers is dishonest. | | |
| ▲ | Too 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In other threads, the voice of HN tells us to consider equity in a startup as worthless and only ever count on base salary. Here we instead hear that equity is as important as the air we breathe. Yes, 200k is not life changing but at least it’s not pretending to be, like many other inflated equity schemes that never vest. It’s just an honest decent salary, better than what you can find in many places of the world. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | epicureanideal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I completely agree. Note that according to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ 200k in 2025 is equivalent to about 160k in 2020 when the pandemic began, and 160k would've been on the low end for an experienced software engineer at a Series A or B startup at that time, in the SF Bay Area. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. It’s also important to know that they support remote work, so these salaries really are not bad at all. For someone in a non-tech city who doesn’t want to move this would be a great startup job. My only reservation is that I’ve interviewed with or worked for multiple companies that made some claim about paying everyone the same and there was always some loophole: The company might have a fixed base pay but then use very different equity grants. One company claimed to give everyone the same base comp and equity but then it was discovered that some people were getting huge annual “guaranteed bonuses” that were effectively base compensation. It has left me tired of seeing companies push the idea of everyone being paid the same while not being open about the entire compensation structure. EDIT: To be 100% clear, I don’t know what Oxide’s entire comp structure looks like. The examples above were for past companies I worked for. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | We have salary and equity, no bonuses. Salary is identical, equity is not. I certainly agree with you that that kind of shenanigans can be annoying; I had a former employer who hired people with "oh it's a bonus but you always get 100% of it" and then, we did not get 100% of it. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Salary is identical, equity is not. Thank you. This is the question I was hoping to see an answer for. | | |
| ▲ | brettgriffin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | More important than just getting answer, do you understand _why_ every employee isn't granted the same amount equity? | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn’t it obvious? This is where they vary compensation for the same reasons everyone else varies compensation. If they gave everyone the same equity compensation presumably they’d put that front and center like they do for the base salary. The claims about paying everyone the same are a red herring because it’s only about base salary. | |
| ▲ | everfrustrated 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because if you want to poach talent then you'll likely need to induce them to leave their existing employer and will need to match their existing equity grants that might soon vest.
Obviously that number is different for different people. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tialaramex 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bonuses are bullshit. When the first startup I worked for was acquired they asked everybody to basically agree they won't quit for a period of time - transition. Fair enough. However for the ordinary staff (like me) this agreement had no actual carrot, they're offering a so-called "Bonus scheme", but it's clearly designed so that they decide what it pays, whereas execs are getting an up-front specific financial inducement to stay. So I explain to colleagues that if you might want to quit you should not sign, the "bonus" is worthless but you're locked in by signing - however I did get some pushback from people who could not see this or haven't done this before. Sure enough when that bonus was due to pay out, I got a heads up from a friend (who was being compensated because he was like CTO or something) that it was worthless, because of course they get to pick the numbers so they're going to pick zero. I don't care, because I was on a different scheme and anyway I work for salary, if you want to pay me to do something, you can pay me, don't fuck about with nonsense about a "bonus", but some people ended up stuck for a year or two believing they're getting a bonus to wait. | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's bullshit to talk about salary equality as though that mattered when equity is the real upside, and you know it. The claim to strive for a "generational company" is just "we're a family here" in other terms. Congrats on the raise. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think there are tremendous benefits to having a flat salary structure, regardless of upside. My other friends in tech are envious of the lack of having to waste time doing perf, for example. > Congrats on the raise. Thank you. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | From your perspective of course it has benefits. From mine? Getting stack ranked wasn't even in my top 10 as concerns went, but I'm really good at my job, and I keep quality notes that make it easy to recap a quarter or half. (But like I said, I'm good at my job.) I don't really see what that has to do with focusing your rhetoric on 10% of startup comp as though it were 100% - especially now that your tax discount on cash comp has been restored! - but you're welcome, of course. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I keep quality notes that make it easy to recap a quarter or half. (But like I said, I'm good at my job.) The point is not that my friends don't do a good job, the point is that this is work that does not actually further the organization's goals directly, but is necessary in order to keep their job. They'd rather be doing the actual work they are hired to do. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, come on. Administrative overhead is a reality of business everywhere and at every level; the idea that to manage an organization somehow necessarily impairs it is absurd. So is purporting falsely to eliminate that overhead on behalf of others, when basic professional competence instead involves for oneself learning to minimize it - to dispose of it, not by panicking or catastrophizing or sweeping it under a rug, but instead in a fashion such as that I described ie efficiently. To claim otherwise is infantilizing nonsense. It's fundamentally dishonest, though I grant you probably have never before so directly been told as much. | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I moved from Meta, infamous for its performance reviews, to Oxide. The culture difference is night and day. The level of self-interested behavior seen at Meta just doesn't exist here. By the way, I received every rating from Greatly Exceeds (including an additional equity grant) down to Meets Most, and the rating I got overall had very little correlation with either effort or impact. I got Meets Most for some of the most valuable and industry-impactful work I've done in my career, and Greatly Exceeds for something that got replaced in a year. | | |
| ▲ | nemothekid 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >I moved from Meta, infamous for its performance reviews, to Oxide. The culture difference is night and day. The level of self-interested behavior seen at Meta just doesn't exist here. The culture difference between Meta and any startup will be night and day. People who are self interested min-maxxers don't join startups. Not dealing with "corporate politics" has to be in the top 5 reasons anyone leaves FAANG to join a startup. That has nothing to do with Oxide's comp structure. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > People who are self interested min-maxxers don't join startups. Not dealing with "corporate politics" has to be in the top 5 reasons... Oh, sure! Now tell me another one. The idea that startups don't have politics is - well, I'll say it is extremely comedic, and we'll leave it at that. Think about it for a minute. I'm not questioning the existence of the pipeline here described, and no one is questioning the existence of many pressing reasons for anyone at the FAANG "top of funnel" to want to flow along that pipeline about as quickly as is achievable. But those "reasons" have effects on the people who experience them, because humans have emotions and psychologies and other such inconvenient externalities, and for like cause those effects are not instantly and perfectly ameliorated in every case by a simple change of environment. Can you not straightforwardly see how this might produce some extremely adverse results, in a social and sociological sense? And how overt, documented, attributable, and discoverable personnel processes, far from some unreasonable burden, might serve a broadly beneficial role in such circumstances? | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is a reasonable argument. But look, I have my views based on my experiences and things I've heard from colleagues and friends, and you have yours. |
| |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, sure. That's Meta, the model for much of the industry, where that isn't the likewise and just as deservedly infamous Amazon. So when you say Oxide is better, I'm sure I can believe you that it is, but can you see why that still might not convince? It's like if I say I'd rather be beaten than stabbed. Obviously this is the sensible choice to make among the selection given, but still the question might reasonably be asked: can there really be no third option? |
| |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The issue is, you're speaking from the position of the organization itself. Yes, staff work is just as important as line work. The issue with perf isn't that it's staff work, it's that people who are ostensibly hired to do line work are forced to do staff work just to keep their jobs. And sure, you can argue "tough, that's just life," but it's not hard to see why people resent it. They want to be writing code, not putting together promo packets. Anyway this is mostly just one example, it's just one that comes up often when I speak with my peers about how Oxide works vs other companies. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I see why people resent it; I'm saying they're foolish to do so. Why should I not seek involvement in staff work that determines so much of my future? Why should I not make myself responsible for the conduct of the business within the scope of my role, rather than just the parts which I happen to like and enjoy? And since you can't seriously mean me to believe performance is not evaluated at Oxide, I really can't see how I'm meant to take any of what you're saying at face value. Instead it seems something much akin to "don't worry your clever little head about the boring ol' money stuff, darlin'! Don't you trust me to take good care of you?" | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > I see why people resent it; I'm saying they're foolish to do so. Okay, sure. I am also not a "I only want to put my head down and code" person either. > And since you can't seriously mean me to believe performance is not evaluated at Oxide, Not formally, no. Because there are no levels, no corresponding salary bands, there's no need to have a formal process, with all of the justification work that has to go in from the employee, and all of the reading and evaluating all of that stuff from management. It is true that if you don't do your job, you'll be let go. However, that's a conversation that would happen between you and Bryan/Steve, not an annual or quarterly process with all of the paperwork and such that those formal processes demand. Instead, we simply do our jobs, and get paid our salary. It sounds like it isn't an environment for you, and that's okay. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Instead, we simply do our jobs, and get paid our salary. And some of "us" have an ownership stake, and some of "us" do not. But "we" like to talk about how everyone's working on a level playing field, anyway. You're quite right. It isn't an environment for me. | | |
| ▲ | steveklabnik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Small nit, everyone has an ownership stake, it's that some are larger than others. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The clarification is welcome, inasmuch at least as it's good to know there are no missing grants. It doesn't really surprise to hear some are larger than others, which is invariably the case, usually by one or two orders of magnitude. I assume you're satisfied with yours. I wouldn't wish to be taken as saying no employee is ever more valuable to the business than another. That would also be absurd. What I don't understand is why all the circumlocution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | growse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but I'm really good at my job How good you think you are at your job is pretty meaningless if some manager above you wants to weaponise the company's perf policy against you. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm good enough at my job to see that when it's happening. That's one reason why I didn't say 'I think.' Another is because I know the way to bet is that, with this weapon forbidden, others will be found to replace it. Why go into any of that without even the promise of hazard pay? I'd rather just do honest work. | | |
| ▲ | bcantrill 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This "job" that you speak of, that you are so good at. Are you... at it now? | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > This "job" that you speak of, that you are so good at. Are you... at it now? Hello, Bryan! No, I'm on my own dime, no one else's. But it's decent of you to show such concern over my situation, in these uncertain times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | trhway 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >It’s a bit of a class thing, isn’t it? reminded - the "amateur" (vs. paid "professional") requirement in Olympic and other sports, i.e. participation for the sake of only pure sport spirit, back then came from the aristocracy who could invest a lot of time in those sports without having to take care of making a living. And when wealthy execs and founders tell what they want people who is interested in the mission/vision/whatever other than money - well, it is the same class thing. The ones who need money naturally can't have the required purity of vision as it is clouded by that lowly need for money. | |
| ▲ | givemeethekeys 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As long as the equity grant is the same as the founders, I as an independently wealthy person am happy to join the team that gives everyone the same salary. Because, you know, you better have the same amount of skin in the game as I do. |
|
|
| ▲ | diggan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If I wasn't paid, I wouldn't work for them. That's great, but useful to know not everyone thinks the same. When I transitioned to software development (from basically random "whatever pays my rent" jobs), besides my first software job, they were all because I liked the particular product in some way or another, and what the compensation was is basically the least interesting thing for me. Of course, some level of base payment is needed, because I still needed to pay rent, but if I was choosing between two jobs where one was utterly boring but paid 3 times more than a fascinating job, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. And no, I'm just an individual contributor who wants to like what I work with, not an executive, manager or similar. |
| |
| ▲ | mystraline 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The hypothetical situation you set up is interesting, in that past a base amount of money to survive and thrive, that you would choose the more intellectually stimulating position. And I do get that. For me, if the hours were equal, I would choose the higher paying one. And then, I would create and make outside of work. And since I have that much higher wage, it could be a jump start on my own business. And, enough money can buy independenance in that you can get this flexibility of doing as you choose. | | |
| ▲ | diggan 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > For me, if the hours were equal, I would choose the higher paying one. And then, I would create and make outside of work. And since I have that much higher wage, it could be a jump start on my own business. Yeah, I guess I've been lucky to be able to chose daily jobs in the past that basically gives me what you would create outside of work, except I got a fixed payment each month for doing something I really enjoyed. So I never had the need to do that stuff outside of work to derive enjoyment of most of my time, which I guess is my top priority and been most of my life. | |
| ▲ | duped 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's reasonable, but signalling this to a startup during hiring is going to be a negative. There are three kinds of capital they get to play with, cash, equity, and culture. Cash is the least pliable of the three to them, equity the least liquid, but culture is actually something they can control. If you have a team full of people who are just there for the paycheck, the only thing that will keep them there is increasing the paycheck. Which startups can't do in a crunch. | | |
| ▲ | baq 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Culture is smoke and mirrors. When investors say frog, founders jump and guess who gets the cultural shaft then. Better to be thinking in transactional terms from the get go especially in early startups, where majority of total comp is an illiquid call option. | | |
| ▲ | duped 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I mean it's not smoke and mirrors, when I'm picking between jobs I'm strongly considering the people I'm spending 35-40% of my waking hours interacting with. If I cared solely about maximizing personal returns I wouldn't work for startups. |
| |
| ▲ | mystraline 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | evantbyrne 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > but if I was choosing between two jobs where one was utterly boring but paid 3 times more than a fascinating job, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. I chose my current job against competing offers because it was a good thing for the world, but I would not have taken significantly reduced pay for it. Let me tell you why: nobody that insists on paying you below market rates is going to treat you right. Some of the worst professional interactions I've ever dealt with involved high ranking individuals at nonprofits. These were orgs may have had genuinely good missions, but also paid rank and file employees quite poorly. On the other side, the 3x above market rate job is just a fantasy. I could believe it if you were talking about a 20% bonus. | |
| ▲ | matwood 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hear you, and I've never solely chased money either. But, we unfortunately live in world driven by money, and if I'm going to pour myself into work I want to be compensated appropriately. I also have a huge issue with feeling like I'm getting taken advantage of. So, what I have done is try to find jobs where those things align somewhat. |
|
|
| ▲ | mlyle 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think we live in a better world when the primary motivator for how we spend half of most of our working day isn't doing what's necessary to get strips of paper for survival. That is, the work itself should be interesting and fulfilling. Yes, we need money, but when the work relationship approaches being purely transactional the whole thing is demeaning for everyone and less effective. Boy, it takes a lot of luck and skill and privilege to be able to shop for (or offer) work like this, and money is still important. |
|
| ▲ | Keyframe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If I wasn't paid, I wouldn't work for them. While this is true for most of the cases, it's not the case always. There are definitely jobs I'd work for less than I make at the job now and there are jobs which are considered "dream jobs", but ultimately there needs to be a solid base to make you and your family feel comfortable if you're spending at least 1/3 of your day on. |
|
| ▲ | inerte 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They know it's a lie but still need to say it. I used to have a manager that gave me this line. He left this company to join another one, had multiple offers, and told me he accepted the highest one because "it's all about the money". They know, we know, everybody knows, but that's not the playbook. |
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |