Again - maybe my experience is different, but I was never told in corporate america that I should sacrifice my free time for my company because we were saving the world. I was underpaid (ish) but I was never abused. Startups get away with a lot more because of the stereotype that they are different.
You're generalizing from your anecdotal experience of a handful of specific positions to "all of corporate America" which I think is a false generalization. Exploitative salaries are the norm. This is why unemployement holds firm in the mid single digits, even as the economy grows: to give employers a tool with which to frighten employees into accepting salaries that give the employer high margins on labor.
I've worked with several startup clients over the past year. It is a mixed bag like anywhere in life there are some jerks, some unethical, some selfish, and some overly self important arrogant types.Treating workers, clients, your customers, or anyone badly is not good for business and gets a company nowhere over the long term. Of course, there are companies that can have success in spite of having abusive, unethical leadership, but over the longterm no one wants to work with crappy people for long.
I worked for an abusive, arrogant, child for over two years. I learned much from witnessing his bad behavior and the negative effect it has on anyone that works with him or around him. Despite what a pain it was to deal with this nutcase, in the end I came to pity and feel sorry for him. He is a sad, miserable, petty, mentally ill, child that lashes out at everyone, and essentially spends more time trying to figure out ways to screw his clients and workers out of money than offer anything of value himself. Screwing people and being a jerk is no way to go thru life. These types need mental help.
Turns out this type of behavior hasn't exactly made him a successful business leader. It has simply enabled him to piggyback on others hard-work, shiest his workers, startup clients (and in turn their investors). So in a way he has had a measure of success at screwing people out of money. But over the longterm no one respects him and no one wants to work with him (clients included). By any measure this type is not successful in business or in life, yet crappy greedy mid 40 types behave this way because they no other way and they would rather try to screw a few sheckles out of their clients & colleagues than figure out ways to offer something of value.
Don't let these fools get you down they are a dime a dozen, narcissistic talentless bozo's apparently grow on trees out here in LA. It is a learning lesson to deal with one of these types, as you learn what not to do, how not to act, and how to avoid being sucked into the crappy vortex that is working with these types.
Did anyone else start reading the text at the top, only to scroll down a bit and realize it's a two-column article? This seems like a very strange layout for a web page.
Dunno how bad it can be elsewhere but even third-rate dev shops using ASP.NET can be pretty damn bad. I mean staying in the office until 7pm every night, and getting nasty phone calls on Christmas eve.
I agree these complaints are widespread in corporate America. In fact, I think these issues are worse OUTSIDE of the startup world.
Most of the founders I deal with pay their employees before the founders themselves get a dime of salary. Sure the founders get the bulk of the equity. But they also give their employees equity awards, even though the employees get paid a salary, as well (i.e. they don't take on the same risk).
In comparison, in generic corporate America, the people on top get substantially more guaranteed cash compensation, in addition to any stock awards.
In addition, I've had plenty of startup clients who did all sorts of generous things for their employees that were not required. For example, when getting acquired, I have had clients give special cash bonuses to employees to ensure they get a sufficient "upside" in the transaction (beyond what the employee was entitled to from their stock or options). I just haven't seen that type of behavior in more "mature" corporations.
In corporate America, young people don't get tricked into working severely underpaid for equity that very often doesn't turn into a lot, and sometimes the employees don't even realize they have to BUY the options and when it comes down to it, can't afford them. #Realtalk
In corporate America, it's not great, but it's less of a shill because people aren't pretending to save the world.
I appreciate that perspective and I see your point. Most of the employee questions re: equity that I am privy too are fairly sophisticated. But, of course, many employees never ask questions and, therefore, my experience may give me a skewed perspective on the sophistication of startup employees.
That being said, plenty of larger companies convince their employees (successfully) to "drink the Kool-Aid" and think that their company is saving the world. But, of course, those employees are also being paid a salary (unlike many startup employees, as you note).
> In corporate America, young people don't get tricked into working severely underpaid for equity
No, they just get tricked into working severely underpaid for cash. Unfair compensation is unfair compensation. Fraudulent valuations are fraudulent. It has nothing to do with silicon valley vs corporate America it has to do with fraud and people taking unfair advantage of information differentials.
Well, I would say information differentials + a huge power imbalance. And I would add to that a huge cultural shift vs. decades ago in terms of what is considered "acceptable" and "moral" as relates to relative compensation of rank-and-file workers vs. executives. (One can debate the extent to which these cultural shifts are also the result of policy shifts.)
> Most of the founders I deal with pay their employees before the founders themselves get a dime of salary. Sure the founders get the bulk of the equity. But they also give their employees equity awards, even though the employees get paid a salary, as well (i.e. they don't take on the same risk).
Employees don't take on the same risk because they typically can't bear the same risk. This is the equivalent of lauding the bravery of a stunt double for jumping off a roof when they've got a big blue safety cushion waiting for them just outside the frame.
Well, yes, that is often true. Many founders do have a family safety net that allows them to take on risks. I don't disagree with that. And I don't think we have the right set of gov't policies in place to incentivize and allow a broader set of potential founders to take such entrepreneurial risks.
But, to be quite honest, I also don't think this sets Silicon Valley apart from corporate America. In the broader world of corporate America, people from higher socioeconomic status have a greater chance of getting ahead because of a whole set of advantages granted to them - better education, connections, etc...And, as a result of getting ahead, obviously they are better compensated than their peers born into lower socioeconomic classes.
14 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadI worked for an abusive, arrogant, child for over two years. I learned much from witnessing his bad behavior and the negative effect it has on anyone that works with him or around him. Despite what a pain it was to deal with this nutcase, in the end I came to pity and feel sorry for him. He is a sad, miserable, petty, mentally ill, child that lashes out at everyone, and essentially spends more time trying to figure out ways to screw his clients and workers out of money than offer anything of value himself. Screwing people and being a jerk is no way to go thru life. These types need mental help.
Turns out this type of behavior hasn't exactly made him a successful business leader. It has simply enabled him to piggyback on others hard-work, shiest his workers, startup clients (and in turn their investors). So in a way he has had a measure of success at screwing people out of money. But over the longterm no one respects him and no one wants to work with him (clients included). By any measure this type is not successful in business or in life, yet crappy greedy mid 40 types behave this way because they no other way and they would rather try to screw a few sheckles out of their clients & colleagues than figure out ways to offer something of value.
Don't let these fools get you down they are a dime a dozen, narcissistic talentless bozo's apparently grow on trees out here in LA. It is a learning lesson to deal with one of these types, as you learn what not to do, how not to act, and how to avoid being sucked into the crappy vortex that is working with these types.
Most of the founders I deal with pay their employees before the founders themselves get a dime of salary. Sure the founders get the bulk of the equity. But they also give their employees equity awards, even though the employees get paid a salary, as well (i.e. they don't take on the same risk).
In comparison, in generic corporate America, the people on top get substantially more guaranteed cash compensation, in addition to any stock awards.
In addition, I've had plenty of startup clients who did all sorts of generous things for their employees that were not required. For example, when getting acquired, I have had clients give special cash bonuses to employees to ensure they get a sufficient "upside" in the transaction (beyond what the employee was entitled to from their stock or options). I just haven't seen that type of behavior in more "mature" corporations.
In corporate America, it's not great, but it's less of a shill because people aren't pretending to save the world.
That being said, plenty of larger companies convince their employees (successfully) to "drink the Kool-Aid" and think that their company is saving the world. But, of course, those employees are also being paid a salary (unlike many startup employees, as you note).
No, they just get tricked into working severely underpaid for cash. Unfair compensation is unfair compensation. Fraudulent valuations are fraudulent. It has nothing to do with silicon valley vs corporate America it has to do with fraud and people taking unfair advantage of information differentials.
Employees don't take on the same risk because they typically can't bear the same risk. This is the equivalent of lauding the bravery of a stunt double for jumping off a roof when they've got a big blue safety cushion waiting for them just outside the frame.
But, to be quite honest, I also don't think this sets Silicon Valley apart from corporate America. In the broader world of corporate America, people from higher socioeconomic status have a greater chance of getting ahead because of a whole set of advantages granted to them - better education, connections, etc...And, as a result of getting ahead, obviously they are better compensated than their peers born into lower socioeconomic classes.