The reality of the situation is that it's not about what you do, but about how hard it is to find someone else to do what you do.
If it's easy to find programmers who will work for below-market rates, but hard to find investors who will contribute millions of dollars, then you can expect programmers to have much less negotiating power.
Exactly. In my experience it's hard enough to find investors, try insisting that they have the same liquidation preference as the employees. Good luck with that.
It's easier to find experience programmers who don't really care about liquidation preference than it is to find investors who don't really care about liquidation preference.
It is not. It is just a deal worse than average, not necessarily when it's possible to get a better deal (it's not that the early employees in startups are all rock stars, many just can't get a job in a better place).
Putting skin in the game is:
* paying from your own wallet when there's a cash shortage
* being mentally prepared to have guns pointed at you and your personal assets for violating an obscure regulation No. 389343A, or just attacked by employees, investors, partners for whatever reason they can come up with
* being a face of a commercial entity and putting your reputation at stake. Most people on this planet don't see a difference between a billion dollar corporation and a penniless startup, and assume all companies are powerful and have unlimited funds. Hence, their key people are to be hated and mistrusted.
* and, last but not least, being prepared to be woken up at any given minute to fix an issue of any nature
> paying from your own wallet when there's a cash shortage
What's the difference between donating half your paycheck to the company, and only being given half your paychecks?
> being mentally prepared to have guns pointed at you and your personal assets for violating an obscure regulation No. 389343A, or just attacked by employees, investors, partners for whatever reason they can come up with
VCs don't need to deal with the former. You don't get attacked in the case of the latter, you just get fired.
> being a face of a commercial entity and putting your reputation at stake. Most people on this planet don't see a difference between a billion dollar corporation and a penniless startup, and assume all companies are powerful and have unlimited funds. Hence, their key people are to be hated and mistrusted.
VCs make bad investments and founders make bad decisions all the time. The valley does not hold it against them for long.
> and, last but not least, being prepared to be woken up at any given minute to fix an issue of any nature
Here's where you're wrong - in a startup, engineers are the ones who get woken up at any given minute to fix an issue of any nature. Investors sure aren't.
> What's the difference between donating half your paycheck to the company, and only being given half your paychecks?
You really think there is a set percentage how much one needs to contribute?
Wait, you actually mean that "covering shortages" means "taking smaller salary", don't you?
>> being mentally prepared to have guns pointed at you and your personal assets for violating an obscure regulation No. 389343A, or just attacked by employees, investors, partners for whatever reason they can come up with
> VCs don't need to deal with the former. You don't get attacked in the case of the latter, you just get fired.
I was about to reply with "hahaha" but then thought you really don't understand.
1. Not all startups (in fact, only a small share) are VC-funded. In many cases, the funds come from personal savings. In case I need to break it down to you, loss of personal savings is not necessarily taken kindly. 2. There is exactly 3,493,231 ways things may go south, it is not at all guaranteed it will all be limited to firing. As a matter of fact, when things get serious, it usually isn't. I witnessed it more than once firsthand, from different angles.
>> being a face of a commercial entity and putting your reputation at stake...
> VCs make bad investments and founders make bad decisions all the time. The valley does not hold it against them for long.
A couple of things: 1. America is not the entire world (shocking, I know). 2. Silicon Valley is not the entire America. 3. Bad reputation sticks for a very, VERY long time. Longer if you upset someone powerful.
>> and, last but not least, being prepared to be woken up at any given minute to fix an issue of any nature
> Here's where you're wrong - in a startup, engineers are the ones who get woken up at any given minute to fix an issue of any nature. Investors sure aren't.
I assume you mean "founders", not "investors" (because why would investors be working?).
While startup engineers are overworked (depending on a startup - I personally think it's a bad idea, and never do it to my employees), there is a million unseen things going on outside of development which nobody bothers to tell you.
Do you think these funds arrive on their own without a fight after the invoice is issued? Do you think these investors just act rationally and it works as if you lodge your job application? Do you think the interaction with lawyers, accountants, authorities is limited to 5 minute emails, and they are picked randomly, or shopping around takes half an hour?
Finally, who wakes up the engineers - do the founders do it in their sleep, in your opinion?
