Every company has the same hiring criteria

What does it mean "to take max-cash in compensation", and why does that signal a lack of character?

The author is a startup founder. I assume he means that the person wanted to maximize the cash portion of his comp and reduce the stock portion.

The author meant this signaled a lack of character because... I dunno. It means the person wasn't as committed as the author? Of course, the author doesn't mention, even to himself, that the employee doesn't get the same upside from stock as a founder.

	▲	watwut 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The author meant this signaled a lack of character because... I dunno. It means the person wasn't as committed as the author? It is simple. Salary has to be paid, now. The stocks is likely end up being nothing as most startups fail. So, the author is strongly motivated to pay in stock options and not pay in money. But, admitting so would make him sound bad. Therefore, it is about your character. If you want to actually be paid, you have bad character.
	▲	laurent_du 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's weird, from my perspective, allowing your employer to give you less than what you are worth would denote a lack of character.

▲

elbear 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In other words, there's no incentive to become really good at what you do, if you're looking for a job. Employers won't appreciate it.

It's only worth it if you start your own thing, or if you specialise on something where you are judged based on measurable results.

▲

figassis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This CEO, even if he were an engineer, would probably not hire himself even though he thinks he’s the ideal specimen. He’s likely a max cash, 30u30 sort of person. But he’s not wrong if you optimize for max speed and minimum cost of hiring.

You should always aim to be the best at what you do. It does not mean that will become your card to every role. You need to complement that with drive (being able to deliver, no matter what), intelligence (being able to navigate any situation, political, personal, etc) and character (integrity with strong opinions, loosely held as well as exceptional ability to communicate and sell yourself). These are really useful because employers are thinking about how they can apply your skills to grow their business. They want to feel that they need you. They can hire a bunch of coders, but you need to be a mover, have gravity and fit into their budget (no max cash lol). This is what they want. But you should be aware of this, and position your cards so this also works out for you. Create leverage for yourself so you can negotiate better terms gradually, on future roles. As you progress you’ll gradually have the confidence to also turn down crap equity offers, ask for better terms, participation in liquidity events, etc.

Finally, comparing SWE roles with other engineering roles is a mistake. Currently there is a lot of money in these roles, and you have the opportunity to create a lot of impact very quickly. This is a role that effectively becomes more business oriented as you grow (if you choose to). So your thinking needs to evolve as well. Everything is a negotiation.

No one will play the game for your benefit. That’s your responsibility.

▲

daymanstep 2 days ago | parent [-]

"The idea of strong opinions, loosely held is that you can make bombastic statements, and everyone should implicitly assume that you’ll happily change your mind in a heartbeat if new data suggests you are wrong. It is supposed to lead to a collegial, competitive environment in which ideas get a vigorous defense, the best of them survive, and no-one gets their feelings hurt in the process. What really happens? The loudest, most bombastic engineer states their case with certainty, and that shuts down discussion. Other people either assume the loudmouth knows best, or don’t want to stick out their neck and risk criticism and shame. This is especially true if the loudmouth is senior, or there is any other power differential." - Michael

	▲	figassis 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I usually can't build something I don't understand. So no matter how loudly you explain it to me, if it does not make sense, senior or not, I will either ask you to explain it better, or we will have to reach an understanding that you just want me to do it your way based on info I do not yet have and you can't readily provide it to me. There are many situations where one iota of missing context changes everything, and knowing this, I don't push someone that I know often has much more info than I do. I try to find a way to make their request work, while pointing out my concerns. if you're my peer or junior, I push harder, and there have been instances where juniors have changed my mind. It actually feels really good.
	▲	xeonmc 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In other words, techbro mentality.

▲

justinclift 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Reed Hastings calls it “Big-Hearted Champions who pick up the trash”

That's super funny to me, as at my current workplace I empty the garbage bins around the place when they get full. And a bunch of other stuff along those lines, to the point where people have started referring to me as the unofficial office manager.

▲

bobbiechen 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every software/tech company, maybe? Specialist skills seem to matter more in "hard" engineering (physical world) roles , where it is slower and more expensive to iterate and scale. Sure, you can learn them on the job, but it will cost a lot more time than hiring someone who already knows.

▲

AIorNot 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thousands upon thousands of good, deeply skilled engineers are laid off and Looking desperately for jobs in this country—and somehow experience is spun as a liability by the YC bro nerd in this article.

Ambition matters, but experience delivers that judgment, grit, and context

God how I hate tech bro culture sometimes