The author seems to be a good writer but it getting old hearing people wax poetic about their opinions on the valley - anyone got facts to support anything?
My last company had a technical cofounder who by all means was highly sought after and managed a team of 15-20 other developers in their primary dev consulting company meaning not only did they rock technically but also had biz acumen.
That individual worked FOR FREE for 3 years 25 hrs/week before collecting any money.
Don't ever think you have to pay a developer some market salary (or any salary) upfront. If the idea + company + team is legit, they will jump at the chance to be involved.
> Don't ever think you have to pay a developer some market salary (or any salary) upfront
"A developer" should definitely be paid market rates, otherwise they are a founder and should be rewarded accordingly with equity. I think this mindset of "getting work for free" is very damaging to the person holding the short end of the stick.
Someone who already has a well paid job, is willing to do a startup on the side, and actually be effective at it is extremely rare. What you'll usually find is someone at the beginning of their career that doesn't really understand what they are getting into.
"otherwise they are a founder and should be rewarded accordingly with equity."
Of course - as they were. My point was on cash money comp. Never said they worked for free hence their title of technical cofounder which implies equity.
"...and actually be effective at it is extremely rare. What you'll usually find is someone at the beginning of their career that doesn't really understand what they are getting into."
The onus is on the founding team to be sufficiently compelling to attract such a rare breed and if they execute correctly there is no short end to the stick to be had.
This is rich with availability bias. Just because you have had this experience doesn't mean that's possible for other people to do routinely. It sounds like a long tail event and using it as an example seems to be baseless. Congrats on being able to get him going, but I certainly wouldn't rely on that happening.
Availability bias is a behavioral psychology term.
> The availability bias is the human tendency to think that examples of things that come readily to mind are more representative than is actually the case.
Ahh, my apologies, and thank you for the correction on gender.
The only instance in which I would work for free for three years would be if the business was started by a household name for HN regulars and they had a very good track record of successful ventures. Anything less is ridiculous.
It's the right idea but the wrong tool. Debt is actually the enemy of the founder/entrepreneur IMO...but building equity in yourself through moonlighting, side hustle, etc - is a better pathway. This is known as hard work = 60-80 hrs/week combined type of stuff.
Debt will creep up and crush you eventually, do not go into debt to "fund" your startup.
For some founders & entrepreneurs, it forces them to work smarter - not necessarily harder - and that's the goal, to figure out what isn't working right and change it to reduce/eliminate the anxiety caused by an under-performing startup.
"You're going to end up with a bunch of rich white dudes as founders (because very, very obviously the other way that people can afford to take smaller checks is if they have a lot of money in the bank)."
There are many founders of various social identities who are not rich yet have managed to succeed with bootstrapping or small seed/accelerator investments because they are capable.
To assert that some people are inherently advantaged or disadvantaged as founders and/or entrepreneurs based on such factors as race and gender is the definition of prejudice.
Interesting thoughts Carol, thanks for sharing. It's important to have this sort of conversation with yourself when considering the foundations of starting a company. The fact that you've expressed it in such a way that others can tap into may be valuable for those like you at or approaching this crossroads. Fascinating thought process!
Not enough entrepreneurs/founders are able to have such a pragmatic and mature dialogue up front about the pros and cons. It's imperative that they do for the sake of their time and emotional well being - at the least. Kudos to you for going through it and making a decision which suits your needs.
You've said: "Setting goals like working at a certain company, promotions (up to positions like CTO) and building a specific type of thing aren't less ambitious than building a successful startup." ... and I would ask you to elaborate on that, like is there anything more "ambitious" than building successful startup or how do you perceive the scale of ambition in the context of say business/professional pursuits?
PS - I didn't know that hey.com was considered a "huge, groundbreaking" product...certainly captured some hearts and minds of the early adopter meets anti apple/establishment crowd but is it (yet) recognized outside of that bubble?
"...I guess my point is, I think all I cared about was the geography and temperature profile, and the lifestyle the place would bring me. The actual company I'd work for came after these."
This approach/reasoning is too often overlooked. Smart and capable people get to pick and choose where they want to live.
"most people want to do more than just get by" maybe so, maybe not?
There's a massive gap between wanting something and doing what it takes to get it. If you were to ask people vs. watch what they do, you'll see the truth; it's never about what people say but instead what they do.
And I'd welcome any supporting research demonstrating that, based off their actions, "most people want to do more than just get by" as stated. My anecdotal observation is that most of (working age) society actually does just enough to get by for today, this week, or maybe the month...
