Or maybe give people time to live before they decide to participate in "the economy". Not everything is jobs. Actually I would argue that hiring is, or should be soon, obsolete because of a gradual change on mindset that clarifies what jobs really are, schemes. There's no reason to dedicate most of your waking life working on selling products where the end product is just maintaining frivolous life styles. And if having to pay for basic things like a roof and food is the factor here, then there are bigger issues at the root level.
To a certain extent i agree with your statement. But if young people dont’ explore and develop skills early then they will lose later in life. Instead of “living” they should probably explore wether art or tech or construction or whatever is more suitable for them personally. Then once they have a career they cam travel and live as they have the skills to support that life. If you look at instagram then you will see how many live their lives and have no skill then they complain about why they camt pay bills.
There are few guarantees the skills you develop today will mean much to the market by the time you can afford to do any living.
Ten years ago learning to drive a truck meant a long-term stable career, even if it's not the most glamourous. Today, we're discussing the short-term viability of automating that shipping system. Five years ago in Alberta, getting into a trade that was in demand in the oil industry meant a lifetime career with a pretty great salary. Today, the industry is on shaky footing and many will have to retrain.
In software, while it might not be near or certain, there are plenty of discussions about automating most projects since so many of them conform to common patterns and publicly accessible, free code already existing. We don't know any better how large much of the software development industry will be in ten years time. Many of those skills might be as obsolete as some IG "celebrity".
I think OP is at least correct in that you sort of have to weigh these things yourself. Sometimes that life experience in other facets will inform your future more than picking up a skill that is just enough to put you into someone else's employ. It's pretty difficult to know. You can apply any kind of probability measure you want, but the gaps in between any sound reason are just attempting to know the future before it happens.
That is partially correct. Developing the skill to drive a truck at an early age gives you the skills to operate vehicles at a later stage, and that is transferrable knowledge. Not to mention work place interaction skills, and time management. In terms of software, indeed repetitive tasks can be automated, but 100% of development never will be.
How does the labor to build the basic things like a roof happen? How does the labor to grow food and get it to you happen? Those are called jobs, and like it or not somebody has to do them. Society has been getting more efficient at them, but even still some amount of human labor is required!
People have jobs because they need things that can only be got via human labor. This is not a bigger issue at a root level, it is a basic fact that you are trying to deny.
The overwhelming majority of jobs in the modern economy have nothing to do with basic needs. Most of them simply exist to feed the consumerist/financial complex.
The overwhelming majority of people want more than the basics. They don't just want a roof over their head, they want a nice roof - one they can stand up under, maybe with a kitchen, running water, separate rooms for their various games... They don't want to eat just rice and beans, they want more.
You are one of them: if you were not you wouldn't be reading this forum.
All of the things you mentioned can still be categorized as "the basics."
This forum is a particularly bad example to use, considering that it's more-or-less built on technology that is over two decades old (i.e. an online forum.)
What are the basics. Every time you expand the definition - as you just did - it takes more labor time to make it. You can put the line between basics and luxury anyplace you want, but the amount of labor it takes to make basic society possible goes changes with each change.
I agree with you. There's almost never a free meal, nor a reason why there should be. I still think a lot of jobs today are unimportant and exist due to people's lack of options.
I also agree with loh's comment here: "I dream of a future where everyone has all of their basic needs met through technology, giving people the capacity to focus on doing the things they are naturally good at doing, things they enjoy"
It would seem that the current system in place is what's required to get there, but maybe it's just slow to change for good.
If you think hundreds or thousands (or maybe even decades) into the future, it's pretty clear that it should be entirely possible to fully automate everything required for basic human needs. Obviously there will be some human labor required to build it, and probably some discouraging speed bumps along the way, but just because it does not exist in our present time doesn't mean it's impossible.
I dream of a future where everyone has all of their basic needs met through technology, giving people the capacity to focus on doing the things they are naturally good at doing, things they enjoy, all on their on free time with their own free will. If you think about it, technology is nothing more than the rearrangement of resources to create tools which make our lives easier. Progression of technology is just a matter of how much better we get at creating these tools, and we are getting better and better and we will never stop. We will eventually have tools that make it effortless to satisfy all basic human needs. Automation is inevitable.
You are right that people will always have jobs, but the jobs that people have will also always change.
To me, working is just the way you participate in society and civilization.
All the fantastic gifts and riches in a modern economy you enjoy were made by Someone. You need to participate in and support the system by also making things for others.
> Not everything is jobs
Of course not. But it's something, and it's important!
> And if having to pay for basic things like a roof and food is the factor here, then there are bigger issues at the root level.
It is the main factor for the vast majority of people. Anectada: I cannot nor could ever afford to 'live before participating in economy' - I needed place to stay, food to eat and some extra money to not feel like a bum. It takes wealth to enjoy life.
Don't understand why you're being downvoted. Surviving and thriving in the world requires lots of material goods. These goods are produced by the economy so of course you have to participate in it in order to live. A world where people don't have to participate in the economy would have no goods.
I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.
I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail.
You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business by then. They're exceptions rather than the rule, certainly, but that's exactly who investors should be looking for.
The only thing investors need to remember is that age isn't an indication of anything very interesting. People will have amazing ideas and the drive to execute them at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80...
But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual.
I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those are generalizations, everyone is different, the failure case could actually be ineptitude and they haven't learned anything.
But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual.
The risk associated with backing a founder who has failed at something is a lot higher than backing a founder who has succeeded in a previous startup. You can't just ignore people's experience and assume that failing at something counts for more than successfully running and exiting a business.
There's loads of evidence that people succeed in their second venture after a successful exit more often than founders succeed in their first startup. Investors are very sensible looking at someone's track record.
If a 20 year old succeeds. They got lucky. There are no special skills needed.
Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hundreds of millions.
Shorter PG: hiring is hard due to market informational inefficiencies, acqui-hiring is the future!
> What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess your value to the user. But there's a way to appeal their judgement. If you want, you can opt to be valued directly by users, by starting your own company.
I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
> Buying larval startups solves that problem for them: the acquirer doesn't pay till the developers have proven themselves. Acquirers are protected on the downside, but still get most of the upside.
The downside of this is of course that the "downside" flows to the not-chosen workers. It's effectively like doing a trial shift, except instead of just a day you have to spend six months on building a business. And during that time, how do you fund your food and rent?
> The math is brutal. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job.
So .. what happens to everyone else?
Sure, I like the message that young people should go out in the world, try things, be imaginative, and try to find an employer that will value their skills. And that it's easier than ever to disintermediate the economy. But it needs to come with a recognition of how that's actually funded on the day to day level, and which people are and aren't going to be able to succeed in that environment.
> I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
No, the point was that at a big company you get paid the average value of the work your and your peers does, while when you work for yourself you get paid the value you yourself does. This means that for strong performers going alone is better, and for weak performers going to a company is better. Nothing exploitative here, just natural consequences of scale and imperfect productivity measures.
Yeah you get paid the average cost of having that work done, not the average value at all. That may well be 10x what you're paid for the work, in some positions.
The surplus value wasn't provided by you though, the people who built the company added it. I know that I wouldn't make enough contributions to warrant my current salary if I worked for most other companies than the one I work for now, so they actually give me more money than the value I bring. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I don't think it makes much sense to assume that all of what's not "surplus value" (the "due" return of capital, I take it?) is already captured by labor, which is what the claim that all the value one creates over one's compensation is "provided by [...] the people who built the company" means, I'm pretty sure. In fact I think things get pretty messy and unhelpful when we start trying to attribute the "proper" due of anyone involved in this. You get what you get, and if your employer's not getting more than that they should probably look at hiring someone else, and if they could pay you less for exactly the same return on your labor they absolutely would, even though the value you're creating is the same, which tells me that no, capital is not somehow responsible for all that extra value, and I don't think it makes much sense to put things in those terms, even—like workers, they just get whatever they can manage to get.
[EDIT] point remains, your wage is the cost of having that work done by labor in the market, unrelated to the value (return on investment, say) it provides, except that same value puts a de facto cap on the wage. If capital can get a 10% return paying $20/hr, they'll do it. If they could find a way to do the exact same thing but pay $10/hr, they would. "Value" remains constant.
> This means that for strong performers going alone is better, and for weak performers going to a company is better.
I'm not sure about this. Performance and value depend on the environment. Some organizations can provide the infrastructure to uplift workers' performance but some people work better in a self-directed situation.
> I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
At the very least, if the employer strictly loses money on all employees, the business shouldn't be sustainable (if it depends on employees, and they're not just a frivolous "inefficiency" economically speaking).
There is also this idea that a company, or a firm is a miniature socialism and the compensation structure is flattened in relation to the real value produced. Funny that this type of thinking kind of forces us to use some notion of value not directly tied to market, since the labor you do when working for yourself (and presumably, taking money for that directly from the market) is not the same labor you would do for an employer. The latter also provides you with a host of things (accounting, infrastructure...) that you would have to organize yourself if you weren't working for them. This doesn't even account for more financial stability and fixed work hours that you should get under enforced labor laws. So there is definitely value you get from an employer apart from the monetary compensation, if we are to compare that with the theoretical scenario of own business.
>> The math is brutal. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job.
> So .. what happens to everyone else?
You end up with a society where 90% are destitute and 10% are rich?
Hiring is alive and well, and thinks Paul Graham is obsolete...
"Investing in people" wasn't even a new idea in 2005. It's totally obvious once you get over post-enlightment drivel like individuality and innate rights, and focus on what's real: people are matter, matter can be owned, ownership can be fractional, (...Ayn Rand died for our sins...)
Poll: In your opinion was is far easier to gain traction and scale in the early 2000's compared to now?
Feels that way to me. For example, I had a basic website on a billion dollar industry and we were page rank 1 for years for that industry keyword with zero extra effort.
> In your opinion was is far easier to gain traction and scale in the early 2000's compared to now?
Looks like it was but a lot of goodwill has been burned since. PG writes "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And more to the point, nobody knows you're 22. All users care about is whether your site or software gives them what they want. They don't care if the person behind it is a high school kid." But today every sane person would ask "Why should I depend on your service? Where is the guarantee that you won't go out of business or get acquired in six months with your service sunsetted?"
That last point makes me very wary of using a startups services these days. Too many startups fail and out of the ones that don’t, a huge amount get shutdown after acquisition. Too risky.
I’ve also experienced a number of cases in my own work where pretty great services were passed over for exactly those reasons. As somebody who has founded startups in the past, this makes me sad because it means my next attempt will be much tougher (and it’s already hard), but on the other hand, I’ve also learned that I don’t really want to run a venture backed startup anymore and would rather run a smaller lifestyle business that’s in it for the long term. I suppose it comes down to how that’s communicated to the potential customers.
It’s counterintuitive but to counter this fear as a startup make it really simple for your customers to get their data out of your service. And advertise that fact heavily.
> They don't care if the person behind it is a high school kid." But today every sane person would ask "Why should I depend on your service? Where is the guarantee that you won't go out of business or get acquired in six months with your service sunsetted?"
Sadly, I feel too users have a bias towards trusting services provided by the FAANGS of the world, which are now more vertically integrated, than startups.
I think the article downplays the role of people with Aspergers or who are otherwise on the spectrum. These often very high functioning people can act in a way that a collection of people never could, particularly when one considers focus.
I would say hiring is dead for a different reason: permanent employment is becoming a meaningless deal in many places. Especially in the US, you can be out on the street in 15 minutes with little or no protection against that. It's a very one sided deal where you shovel shit in exchange for a lower income. So, people treat their employers as customers and have less reservations about firing their customer. The average tenure at several of the big SFO monopolists (lets just call that out) has allegedly (I lack a good source) dropped below a year. That's what happens in a scarce market.
When starting a startup, employment is also meaningless because if you are in grow fast/fail fast mode, long term employment is not a thing. Your company could end up being acquired, killed, or simply be fizzling out.
A lot of companies are now relying on recruiters and agencies to supply them with what is non essential staff where the person disappearing is less of an issue. This kind of recruiting works great for no-tech startups (any kind of saas or marketplace type company). Lots of buzzwords, but mostly hiring full stack. That kind of company. All they need is generic skills. Hiring is still a problem for actual tech startups that need access to the best and brightest in their fields. You're not going to find those people through some shitty recruiter or head hunter. They are not likely to be actively looking at all, ever. You need to court them and sell them the notion of working for you. Acquihires are a thing for bigger companies but they often backfire when people simply sit out their 2-3 years while they are considering their next startup.
I suspect this is not true for tech jobs. It can take 6 months for engineers to become productive members of teams, especially ones with large software codebases.
On top of that, almost all cliffs are set at a year for compensation packages, so I doubt people would ditch before getting that.
This is one of those cases where taking the mean distorts your view of the market, because there are some outliers who switch jobs like they change pants who drive up the numbers for everyone. A median look at how often people switch would probably be more illustrative.
> permanent employment is becoming a meaningless deal in many places. Especially in the US, you can be out on the street in 15 minutes with little or no protection against that.
What are those “many places”, other than the US? I don’t know anywhere in Europe where that’s the case.
You seem to be complaining that 1) you can be let go at any time and 2) there's a shortage of talent, so people can switch jobs easily. Both can certainly be true, but it seems somewhat contradictory to complain about both at the same time.
I'm not complaining about a lack of talent (what gave you that impression?) but merely expect market rates for what I do. When I'm freelancing, I get a lot more than when I do the same job in the context of a normal job. So, I don't think I will go back to a salaried job; at least not at the rates most companies are advertising their more senior roles (I'm in Europe). The value proposition is simply wrong. I get fake job protection that is worth nothing the second my employer decides they want to get rid of me in exchange for less money and a corporate structure that is perpetually dragging its heels when it comes to raises, promotions, etc. The only way up is sideways, which is why the average tenure is decreasing for salaried people. There's no value in lingering in a salaried job. The only people that do that are mostly those you shouldn't be hiring. Companies that lose talent should be kicking themselves for being to stingy every time that happens.
The difference is quite stark. A senior freelance rate in the Berlin area (where I am) is around 100 euros an hour (properly senior, none of this "I dropped out of college 4 years ago and I'm a full stack ninja that can spell the word computer correctly"). That adds up to about 180K euros a year if you can work a full year (challenging; but not impossible if you are good). I'm actually considering raising my rates at this point. Unlike SFO, you can live like a king for that kind of money in Berlin (think premium real estate in the best neighborhoods, nice restaurants, etc.).
All the jobs targeted at me on Linked sort of peak out at 80-100K. There's a clear mismatch there between demand and supply that is not reflected in salaries. It's a non starter once you charge 100 an hour. Also, you have to wonder what kind of person would settle for that when they can charge nearly double as a freelancer and just take a couple of sabbaticals in between projects without downsides. From what I've seen, a lot of companies continue to ignore Brooke's law and just have a lot of B's hiring C's to compensate for the fact that they can't get A's for a C's salary.
When I'm hiring (which I am currently in the Minsk area), I'm likewise biased to people that are either just starting out and talented or really senior already. If you have the budget, a couple of really good people can outperform a much larger team. Ultimately, you need a mix of both and you get what you pay for. My expectation is to work with people for 2-3 years max before they move on. Currently the company I work for is a US inc but our tech team is in the EU and consists of freelancers. This is becoming more common as paying Bay area salaries for people that in any case act like they are freelancers is a very bad value proposition. For the same reason, a lot of Berlin based startups have teams across Eastern Europe. It's good value for money if you have a tight budget and can't afford the local talent. The price you pay is increased management overhead and dealing with a lot of travel and remote collaboration friction.
52 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadTen years ago learning to drive a truck meant a long-term stable career, even if it's not the most glamourous. Today, we're discussing the short-term viability of automating that shipping system. Five years ago in Alberta, getting into a trade that was in demand in the oil industry meant a lifetime career with a pretty great salary. Today, the industry is on shaky footing and many will have to retrain.
In software, while it might not be near or certain, there are plenty of discussions about automating most projects since so many of them conform to common patterns and publicly accessible, free code already existing. We don't know any better how large much of the software development industry will be in ten years time. Many of those skills might be as obsolete as some IG "celebrity".
I think OP is at least correct in that you sort of have to weigh these things yourself. Sometimes that life experience in other facets will inform your future more than picking up a skill that is just enough to put you into someone else's employ. It's pretty difficult to know. You can apply any kind of probability measure you want, but the gaps in between any sound reason are just attempting to know the future before it happens.
People have jobs because they need things that can only be got via human labor. This is not a bigger issue at a root level, it is a basic fact that you are trying to deny.
You are one of them: if you were not you wouldn't be reading this forum.
This forum is a particularly bad example to use, considering that it's more-or-less built on technology that is over two decades old (i.e. an online forum.)
I also agree with loh's comment here: "I dream of a future where everyone has all of their basic needs met through technology, giving people the capacity to focus on doing the things they are naturally good at doing, things they enjoy"
It would seem that the current system in place is what's required to get there, but maybe it's just slow to change for good.
I dream of a future where everyone has all of their basic needs met through technology, giving people the capacity to focus on doing the things they are naturally good at doing, things they enjoy, all on their on free time with their own free will. If you think about it, technology is nothing more than the rearrangement of resources to create tools which make our lives easier. Progression of technology is just a matter of how much better we get at creating these tools, and we are getting better and better and we will never stop. We will eventually have tools that make it effortless to satisfy all basic human needs. Automation is inevitable.
You are right that people will always have jobs, but the jobs that people have will also always change.
All the fantastic gifts and riches in a modern economy you enjoy were made by Someone. You need to participate in and support the system by also making things for others.
> Not everything is jobs
Of course not. But it's something, and it's important!
It is the main factor for the vast majority of people. Anectada: I cannot nor could ever afford to 'live before participating in economy' - I needed place to stay, food to eat and some extra money to not feel like a bum. It takes wealth to enjoy life.
Exactly one of these 3 is true.
You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business by then. They're exceptions rather than the rule, certainly, but that's exactly who investors should be looking for.
The only thing investors need to remember is that age isn't an indication of anything very interesting. People will have amazing ideas and the drive to execute them at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80...
I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those are generalizations, everyone is different, the failure case could actually be ineptitude and they haven't learned anything.
Lots of founders are extremely aware of their shortcomings and the luck involved - leading appropriately as a result.
The risk associated with backing a founder who has failed at something is a lot higher than backing a founder who has succeeded in a previous startup. You can't just ignore people's experience and assume that failing at something counts for more than successfully running and exiting a business.
There's loads of evidence that people succeed in their second venture after a successful exit more often than founders succeed in their first startup. Investors are very sensible looking at someone's track record.
Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hundreds of millions.
> What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess your value to the user. But there's a way to appeal their judgement. If you want, you can opt to be valued directly by users, by starting your own company.
I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid.
> Buying larval startups solves that problem for them: the acquirer doesn't pay till the developers have proven themselves. Acquirers are protected on the downside, but still get most of the upside.
The downside of this is of course that the "downside" flows to the not-chosen workers. It's effectively like doing a trial shift, except instead of just a day you have to spend six months on building a business. And during that time, how do you fund your food and rent?
> The math is brutal. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job.
So .. what happens to everyone else?
Sure, I like the message that young people should go out in the world, try things, be imaginative, and try to find an employer that will value their skills. And that it's easier than ever to disintermediate the economy. But it needs to come with a recognition of how that's actually funded on the day to day level, and which people are and aren't going to be able to succeed in that environment.
No, the point was that at a big company you get paid the average value of the work your and your peers does, while when you work for yourself you get paid the value you yourself does. This means that for strong performers going alone is better, and for weak performers going to a company is better. Nothing exploitative here, just natural consequences of scale and imperfect productivity measures.
[EDIT] point remains, your wage is the cost of having that work done by labor in the market, unrelated to the value (return on investment, say) it provides, except that same value puts a de facto cap on the wage. If capital can get a 10% return paying $20/hr, they'll do it. If they could find a way to do the exact same thing but pay $10/hr, they would. "Value" remains constant.
I'm not sure about this. Performance and value depend on the environment. Some organizations can provide the infrastructure to uplift workers' performance but some people work better in a self-directed situation.
At the very least, if the employer strictly loses money on all employees, the business shouldn't be sustainable (if it depends on employees, and they're not just a frivolous "inefficiency" economically speaking).
There is also this idea that a company, or a firm is a miniature socialism and the compensation structure is flattened in relation to the real value produced. Funny that this type of thinking kind of forces us to use some notion of value not directly tied to market, since the labor you do when working for yourself (and presumably, taking money for that directly from the market) is not the same labor you would do for an employer. The latter also provides you with a host of things (accounting, infrastructure...) that you would have to organize yourself if you weren't working for them. This doesn't even account for more financial stability and fixed work hours that you should get under enforced labor laws. So there is definitely value you get from an employer apart from the monetary compensation, if we are to compare that with the theoretical scenario of own business.
> So .. what happens to everyone else?
You end up with a society where 90% are destitute and 10% are rich?
"Investing in people" wasn't even a new idea in 2005. It's totally obvious once you get over post-enlightment drivel like individuality and innate rights, and focus on what's real: people are matter, matter can be owned, ownership can be fractional, (...Ayn Rand died for our sins...)
Poll: In your opinion was is far easier to gain traction and scale in the early 2000's compared to now?
Feels that way to me. For example, I had a basic website on a billion dollar industry and we were page rank 1 for years for that industry keyword with zero extra effort.
Looks like it was but a lot of goodwill has been burned since. PG writes "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And more to the point, nobody knows you're 22. All users care about is whether your site or software gives them what they want. They don't care if the person behind it is a high school kid." But today every sane person would ask "Why should I depend on your service? Where is the guarantee that you won't go out of business or get acquired in six months with your service sunsetted?"
I’ve also experienced a number of cases in my own work where pretty great services were passed over for exactly those reasons. As somebody who has founded startups in the past, this makes me sad because it means my next attempt will be much tougher (and it’s already hard), but on the other hand, I’ve also learned that I don’t really want to run a venture backed startup anymore and would rather run a smaller lifestyle business that’s in it for the long term. I suppose it comes down to how that’s communicated to the potential customers.
Or store passwords in plaintext then lose them.
When starting a startup, employment is also meaningless because if you are in grow fast/fail fast mode, long term employment is not a thing. Your company could end up being acquired, killed, or simply be fizzling out.
A lot of companies are now relying on recruiters and agencies to supply them with what is non essential staff where the person disappearing is less of an issue. This kind of recruiting works great for no-tech startups (any kind of saas or marketplace type company). Lots of buzzwords, but mostly hiring full stack. That kind of company. All they need is generic skills. Hiring is still a problem for actual tech startups that need access to the best and brightest in their fields. You're not going to find those people through some shitty recruiter or head hunter. They are not likely to be actively looking at all, ever. You need to court them and sell them the notion of working for you. Acquihires are a thing for bigger companies but they often backfire when people simply sit out their 2-3 years while they are considering their next startup.
I suspect this is not true for tech jobs. It can take 6 months for engineers to become productive members of teams, especially ones with large software codebases.
On top of that, almost all cliffs are set at a year for compensation packages, so I doubt people would ditch before getting that.
What are those “many places”, other than the US? I don’t know anywhere in Europe where that’s the case.
The difference is quite stark. A senior freelance rate in the Berlin area (where I am) is around 100 euros an hour (properly senior, none of this "I dropped out of college 4 years ago and I'm a full stack ninja that can spell the word computer correctly"). That adds up to about 180K euros a year if you can work a full year (challenging; but not impossible if you are good). I'm actually considering raising my rates at this point. Unlike SFO, you can live like a king for that kind of money in Berlin (think premium real estate in the best neighborhoods, nice restaurants, etc.).
All the jobs targeted at me on Linked sort of peak out at 80-100K. There's a clear mismatch there between demand and supply that is not reflected in salaries. It's a non starter once you charge 100 an hour. Also, you have to wonder what kind of person would settle for that when they can charge nearly double as a freelancer and just take a couple of sabbaticals in between projects without downsides. From what I've seen, a lot of companies continue to ignore Brooke's law and just have a lot of B's hiring C's to compensate for the fact that they can't get A's for a C's salary.
When I'm hiring (which I am currently in the Minsk area), I'm likewise biased to people that are either just starting out and talented or really senior already. If you have the budget, a couple of really good people can outperform a much larger team. Ultimately, you need a mix of both and you get what you pay for. My expectation is to work with people for 2-3 years max before they move on. Currently the company I work for is a US inc but our tech team is in the EU and consists of freelancers. This is becoming more common as paying Bay area salaries for people that in any case act like they are freelancers is a very bad value proposition. For the same reason, a lot of Berlin based startups have teams across Eastern Europe. It's good value for money if you have a tight budget and can't afford the local talent. The price you pay is increased management overhead and dealing with a lot of travel and remote collaboration friction.