Ask HN: How do I choose between a job offer from Google and a promising startup? - <AUTHOR> I believe in what the startup does but they are at very early stages and the salary they offer is 1/3 of what Google offers but I get about 6% options over 4 years. <comment><USER2> I was faced with a similar choice two years ago and went with Google. I really didn't enjoy my time there; turns out big companies really aren't my cup of tea. I also learned much less than I would have somewhere else because Google's stack is quite proprietary and I simply wasn't motivated in that environment. I quit after only 8 months.

So it may surprise you that I'd recommend taking the Google offer! In my mind, there's no way to lose choosing Google. If it turns out that you love Google, awesome – you can have a great and well-compensated career there. And if it turns out you don't enjoy that kind of shop (like me), your career possibilities will be far wider after a tour of duty at Google than they are right now, including within startups. Google as a resume item will continue paying dividends for as long as it maintains its reputation for engineering excellence.

This advice is based on my personal experience – it's almost certain that I wouldn't be in my current role if I hadn't had Google on my resume when I applied. And my current responsibilities, experience and income far exceed what I could have expected on the alternative trajectory at an early-stage startup, unless its growth happened to have exploded while I was there.

<comment><USER3> Did you have to return any signing bonuses, relocation, etc in full?

<comment><USER2> I had to return a prorated portion of my signing bonus and relocation expenses. The larger financial hit was that none of my RSUs had vested, so I walked away from those entirely (my understanding is that Google has since changed their policy and RSUs now begin vesting immediately).

To be clear, I don't recommend that anyone join Google with the intention of leaving in less than a year. Even though I wasn't particularly enjoying myself, I was planning on staying for ~18 months to pay back Google's investment in my training. In the end though I changed my mind and left earlier because an opportunity came up that was simply too good to refuse.

<comment><USER4> This is correct. You'll still repost prorated signing and relo, but some of your stock will have vested.

<comment><USER3> Surprised there is no one-year cliff now.

Also did you have to return the pre-tax amounts or the post-tax amounts?

<comment><USER4> I stayed beyond one year, so idk. But I'd expect pre-tax.

Obviously you wouldn't pay tax on the amount you return, so it's not really an important distinction.

<comment><USER3> Typically, the company withholds the tax for you though. I've heard stories of companies demanding the pre-tax amounts even though THEY "paid" your tax already by withholding it.

<comment><USER4> That makes sense to me. The company can't unpay your taxes for you, you need to do that (and there are many options to do that, which vary from underpaying your next estimated taxes[1] to just waiting for a larger than normal refund).

And if I recall, if your income increases a significant amount, you aren't penalized for underpaying estimated taxes, so there's ways to "protect" yourself (and also to not overpay).

But making your taxes correct is your responsibility, not your employers. Why would your company reimburse you for taxes that you don't owe?

[1]: For example, when I was interning, the "trick" was to set yourself as having some large number of dependents in the payroll tool. The tools assumed a year long employment, but as a fixed-term employee, you would owe significantly fewer taxes than the estimation. Careful massaging of the number of dependents was a knob you could turn to make your estimated taxes more in line with your actual taxes. This was, according to people I asked, legal as long as it wasn't being done fraudulently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. 6% of zero is zero.

2\. 4 years is a lot of time to spend at a company for a high probability of making 6% of zero.

3\. If you're an employee at a startup, you're in the wrong job. You're much better off being a founder.

4\. Equity is a way to be paid less and to be fired in the first year if you haven't vested anything.

5\. Who are you going to sell your equity shares to? It's not necessarily a free market in the startup world.

6\. Big companies aren't just the only type of company to be soulless. Wait till you see a small company try to screw it's employees out of equity.

<comment><USER6> This is a surprisingly jaded response that flies in the face of my experiences at multiple startups.

I concur with assuming equity will be 0. Dilution is real and almost all startups fold. Counting on equity is unwise and dangerous.

As for the rest of your commentary, I'd say startups are great because you get a better ability to shape your experience. I've now been employee: 21, 7, and 1 at respective startups. While I've seen poor management, I've not seen evil management.

As for opportunities, they are what you make them to be. There is always room for leadership at small startups, for instance. If that is a path the OP cares about, it is an intruiging option.

All that said, at 3x the salary google is hard to say no to even over a 1-2 year span.

<comment><USER5> I made a long post, whined a bunch and deleted it. But I do agree with you sentiment about equity.

I do believe if VC's really believed that they were making the world a better place, they would insist that employees shared in the wealth that was being created.

On one hand, the Valley is an amazing economic engine, on the other, it's an amazing place of inequality where people making $70k can't afford to live there. If that's the future, the Valley needs to do better, rather than insisting that people need to live in houses smaller than shipping containers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Disclaimer: I'm a founder of an early stage startup, so I'm biased.

You need to figure out what your goals are. We can't answer for you because we don't know what you want.

If your goal is just money (which is fine, don't be afraid to say this), then definitely go to google. In 10 years you'll be earning 500k per year, and have put away a ton of cash too. Financially, if the startup is successful you_might_ make $10m, but that's unlikely. At google you can guarantee you make $1m.

There are some good reasons to choose a startup:

1) you want the work environment of the startup. Less politics, less optimizing for career advancement, much closer to the customer and the decisions.

2) You want to learn. At a startup, you'll get to do everything. I'm assuming you're an engineer, so you'll get to do backend, frontend, ML, scaling, infra, etc. But you also get to do things like customer support, sales, marketing, etc, which are very valuable skills to learn and understand.

3) You want to do a startup yourself. Seeing how a startup works, and learning the hard lessons of how it doesn't, makes a huge difference if you ever want to start one later.

There are also other good reasons to go to google: you'll get to operate at a scale that a startup wont (that's a plus and a minus), you'll automatically have tons of customers for whatever you build, etc, etc.

Decide on your goals and what to optimize for, and only then can people help you choose.

<comment><USER8> Disclaimer: I'm an ex-FANG, ex-founder, now-again-FANG, so I'm also biased.

I'm somewhat bothered by your comment about money:

> If your goal is just money (which is fine, don't be afraid to say this), > then definitely go to google.

I find this disingenuous, as money is also a big reason why people do startups, both the employees and the founders. The founders could have chosen to implement their idea inside Google or wherever (with an army of marketing, virtually unlimited funding as long as the idea is working out, and all forms of support to bolster the team and the product), but the founder passed on that in order to reap the huge rewards that come with owning a successful company. Or, in order to have "personal" control (inasmuch as you can have that when you still have investors, a Board, and an indifferent target audience).

Sure, there are _some_ founders whose vision genuinely doesn't fit inside any FANG... but those are the exception. For most visions, the best possible way to realize them is inside BigCo.

Also, the promise of a Google-sized payday is hinted at to employees ("Join us... we think this is a Google-sized opportunity" is a common thing founders say). Even your own statement ("you _might_ make $10m, but that's unlikely") embodies the dream and the _challenge_ presented to a prospective employee who's ready for a big risk, to put their guarantees and expected-outcomes on the line for that sweet $10m.

The prospective employee probably doesn't realize that the founders who are pitching them on .01% still hold 60% between the two of them, and a different class of shares. The prospective doesn't realize that there is only an infinitesimally, vanishingly small likelihood they'll make even close to what they'll make at the big company.

But even when the employees make very little, the founders still have a good path to making bank, in the case of even a minor acquisition or an acquihire.

<comment><USER9> Startup Non-founders statistically /rarely/ have their options worth much of anything in the end. Startups also generally pay less than FANG companies to boot (typically until they are no longer startups).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Having done both startup/agency work and working as a "cog in a big machine", hands down a "cog in a big machine" is far better for someone early in their career, looking to build good engineering habits.

1) Most startup code is hot garbage.

2) High caliber engineering practices rub off on you. - Surrounding yourself with talent and writing software is the best way to be good at what you do. Being in a small startup, that is almost certainly not going to happen. The numbers just don't allow for it.

3) Don't underestimate the draw of a major player like Google on your resume. - Before working for one of these companies, my LinkedIn mailbox would get maybe one or two messages a year from recruiters. Now my problem is making sure to politely decline all of the messages I get in a timely fashion.

4) A hefty sign-on bonus, HEALTH INSURANCE, and in most cases bonuses or stock offerings normally come as part of the deal with a Google offer. - Do you want a house, car, education, children, retirement? If you answer yes to any of these, a company like Google will give you a great financial foundation to work from so that once you've established yourself you can take more calculated risks with a much better safety net.

<comment><USER11> Maybe the market's kind of hot, I've been getting recruited on LinkedIn almost since I started (non-BigTech) employment two years ago. We had a contractor fresh out of bootcamp who got recruiting messages too and left after seven months. I never considered responding because I considered it spam, but it looks like there are some good canned responses you can send: [https://www.themuse.com/advice/5-email-templates-to- respond-...](https://www.themuse.com/advice/5-email-templates-to-respond-to- recruiters-no-matter-where-you-are-in-your-search).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Advice from someone who had a similar choice and went the startup route: choose the Google option. It will not only open doors for you for all your future jobs, but you can invest the money now and create a nice start for yourself.

There will never be any shortage of interesting startups to work for in the future.

<comment><USER13> > It will not only open doors for you for all your future jobs

Is this true though? I guess it might help with the first contact, but I've heard from x-googlers that they still had to prepare and pass all those whiteboard CS-riddle based interviews again, for next endeavors.

<comment><USER14> Sample size of one: my company tends to ding candidates from Google if they have any whiff of the kind of status- or compensation-driven thinking displayed in this comment section. Can sometimes indicate limited independent thinking and low concern for others. Definitely can close doors.

<comment><USER15> What's compensation driven thinking ? There's a difference between only caring about money vs asking for what you deem fair. Startups always abuse the naivete of new grads and low ball them by saying they are working for a grander cause. That is BS too.

<comment><USER16> This isn't a fair assessment.

Startups can't pay BigCo wages because they don't have the money to. They have to leverage other, harder-to-value benefits which BigCo generally can't offer.

Increased responsibility, fewer "rules" on how to execute, more tightly focused mission are a few.

Naturally this differs company to company and there are always bad actors.

The compensation equation works out differently for each individual. Not everyone should work at a startup.

<comment><USER15> And that is fair. But the parent comment insinuated that anyone asking for money is doing something wrong or is inferior to "someone who truly loves technology". It's a highly personal decision with no right or wrong IMO.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. "Compensation-driven thinking" may not be the best choice of words. Money is always a touchy subject.

I read parent's comment to be more about highlighting the expectations mismatch that occurs sometimes when candidates aren't willing to make compromises and then blame the startup for being "too stingy".

I've seen this mismatch occur on both sides of the table. Startups have a harder time hiring due to as they need to seek people willing to forgo direct compensation in exchange for these harder-to-value benefits. Startups need to stay self-aware they'll have a harder time hiring since the candidate pool is smaller.

Candidates applying to startups also need to temper their salary expectations. If you want to join a startup, especially pre-Series C, and you're not willing to compromise on direct compensation, then prepare for a harder time. The employer pool is much smaller and you're not likely to get the most out of working at a startup if salary is a top priority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Choose Google.

If the startup can only offer you 1/3 the pay, we can infer that their equity isn't worth very much, or investors would have given them more money.

So you believe in the startup. That's great. It's great to believe in writing good software. It's wrong that someone would want to exploit that for their own gain. It very strongly sounds like what you're being offered is a pittance. Don't sell your dreams for that little, because someone that will offer you so little for your dreams isn't worth working for.

</comment><comment><USER18> Google. In a few years you'll have a million in the bank and then you can afford to roll the dice on any startup that catches your interest, if you still want to.

<comment><USER19> Does Google really pay that well?

<comment><USER20> Yes. Base pay for a very junior hire is $140k - $160k and equity ranges from $250k to $400k or more (vesting over four years, so $62.5k to $100k per year). After annual bonus and raises, for a single person who lives reasonably and has no debt it's about 4-6 years from zero to $1M in the bank.

<comment><USER4> That's a bit inflated. That's l4 comp, whereas very junior would be l3 comp, which is a bit less (120-140 base and much less equity).

It gets confusing because of stock lettering and such.

<comment><USER21> Not to mention the bonus multipliers and RSU grants depend a lot on your level. I recall there was a steep difference between L5 and L6. I assume there is a similar one between L3 and L4..

<comment><USER4> Bonus multiplier is the same up to l5, it starts growing rather quickly after that, but yeah target rsu grants change significantly from level to level (iirc they approximately double from 3 to 4 and also from 4 to 5).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you are interested in the problem domain of the startup, do the startup. If you aren't interested in it, it's not your life passion, don't do it. You will learn more at the startup about the tech game in general, but that knowledge will only be worth something if it is part of a longer term strategy as no one startup is an assured success. Also, there is risk in joining a startup. I'm not talking about the financial risk, I'm talking about the risk of you joining some startup that has no good mentors to learn from, and, while you will certainly have more "change control" than at a large company, what point is that if you are constantly making the wrong changes? Unless you're a person that likes to (and can) learn on their own the hard way. Prepare yourself for the possibility that you may be the only one you can "fall back on".

Google, on the other hand, will provide a different kind of education. You'll generally learn the same amount of information but it will be more specialized and the pace will generally be slower (which can be a good thing). There will be less pressure on "getting something done and working" and more pressure on "doing the right thing". These two characteristics are often directly opposed which is why a lot of people who like startups say they hated Google and vice versa. The negative in that being if you spend several years specializing in a very bespoke part of Google, you won't be any more prepared to either join a startup or start your own -- the only way to get startup experience is to work for one. In fact, although people may respect that you've worked at Google, in my experience ex-Googlers aren't an assured success as startup employees and are no better as founders than someone coming from any of the other large companies. It can be a shell-shock coming from Google where there is a lot of support to join a startup where there is no support and you must loosen your standards and understand where you can and cannot cut corners. Also those people who make excellent early stage startup employees often don't survive the transition to behemoth tech company.

</comment><comment><USER23> Speaking from experience, this is a very hard choice. I've been there too. I've drunk the Kool-Aid and decided that startups are the place for young ambitious people to be. 5 years later, working for a second startup now I regret the choice I've made.

Difference in my case was that the startup actually paid well too. In the long run though it was not worth it.

The first startup I was working failed within a year even though from the outside it looked like it was going for the stars. The second one, kind of stagnated.. reached a ramen profitability but is far from hockey-stick growth everyone would like to see. I'm looking to change jobs now but noone cares if you're doing the best job in a company noone ever heard of. In the meantime my friends working for Big Corps make careers, and while they are being given responsibilities much slower their personal growth seems more.. robust. Well known names really open you many doors.

If you manage to find a successful startup, that will become a unicorn, great for you, this is probably one of the best things that can happen to a person. But it's bloody hard to know beforehand. For me going forward it's either my own startup or working for a well-known name that people will recognize.

</comment><comment><USER24> Those options are totally worthless for new startups, don't care about them. In 4 years chances says they will be still worthless. Specially if the startup didn't go over a funding round yet.

Consider only the job, what would make you happy. Would it be super cool, super distruptive, super inovative? The perspective of the future is worth the risk? Then choose the startup.

But if you are on this for the money, or if you care about risk, choose Google.

<comment><USER25> Plus early stage stock always gets diluted in further rounds of capital raising ... that 6% will turn into 1% or less and some later hires inevitably will end up with a lot more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unless you're coming on as part of the management team --- really, even then, I guess --- 6% seems like a bit of a bad sign. That's _a lot_. Like, that's the kind of grant you get when nobody is sure how things will turn out, not when something is locked in.

</comment><comment><USER27> To me it sounds like Google...

Take what Google offers as a baseline. Convert the difference per year to stock at a _realistic_ valuation (as in, if you were a VC what would you give). Compare it, factoring in the strike price (so at a strike price of 0 you will be offered 6%/4 per year..)

Perhaps throw in a 20% rebate for "more fun job", but then again remember that the "VC valuation" of the stock is what VCs with a lot more capability for risk than you, so perhaps you want a 20% risk penalty (or more!)

"But the startup cannot afford to pay market". No, but they should compensate through sufficient ownership. Otherwise you will just be working hard to try to make someone else rich.

You don't say what stage it is, current valuation etc which is very important here.

</comment><comment><USER28> Google.

My brother left a good job for a promising start up last year. Without getting into detail he wound up quitting a few weeks before they closed up shop. It started out great but quickly fizzled out due to the lack lack of a cohesive goal. It's a high risk that he took and lost. Now he's looking for work again. He regrets the decision.

YMMV but Google is a guarantee and a great resume stuffer.

</comment><comment><USER29> First job? Go work for Google. Make a lot of friends, figure out who is compatible with your work style and who isn't and remember them for future recruiting calls :-)

If you're more senior I suggest picking the job where you will learn the most. My personal experience is that wider experience is better than deeper experience in a fast changing world.

<comment><USER30> This. Also companies like Google and Microsoft love welcoming back employees who were good and gad switched over to other companies. So, if you had a good reputation in google, and want to take a few years to work on a startup, you will likely have a fallback option if things don't work out

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Read some articles about the way people get diluted in successful startups. That should change the expectation value calculation. Also, you will have a larger network at Google.

</comment><comment><USER32> I agree with most people's advice about going to Google. My additional reason for advising you to go to Google is that you seem to be on the fence. The startup option is a great option if you're very passionate about it.

While I didn't have a Google offer, I had a Lockheed offer and that was always a company I really liked growing up (also former Marine). It was a difficult choice for me as well, but I chose Lockheed and I have zero regrets. I learned a lot about large organizations and got to work with a huge team of very smart people. Many of which who very directly mentored me. I worked there for two years + 3 years previously for internships.

When the startup bug became irresistible, I knew it was time and went and co- founded DataRank with some friends. The Lockheed experience helped me in the sense that it "validated" me, much like Google on your resume will certainly validate you.

In regards to money: When I finally went the startup root I made 1/4 my salary and had zero benefits for the first 1.5 years. If you're passionate enough about it you won't really care about that 1/3 salary (for a while at least). Then I bumped my salary to 1/3 my previous salary! It wasn't until after 2 years when my salary returned to 80% my previous salary. Eventually a surpassed my previous salary, then double and tripled it, and now I optimize more for doing what I love.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is a really tough decision and there are lots of things to weigh.

1\. The equity sounds all good and well, but you need to know the intentions of the founder — would they every consider selling or doing an IPO. If not, your shares will have zero value.

2\. What space is the startup in? Do they have a technology where they are both building a moat and growing at a rate where they will be around in 5-10 years?

3\. Can you live on 1/3 of what Google is offering you?

If you believe your startup is the next Dropbox, Airbnb, Uber, SpaceX or Pinterest I would say join that. The thing about these mega-companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon) is that they aren't going anywhere and if you made it through the interview already, I'm sure you can do it again. These mega-companies are filled with brilliant people so you will definitely learn a lot about running projects at scale. They are also filled with bureaucracy (unless you're on a skunk works team with no budget) which sucks if you're the type of person that likes to move quickly.

In my opinion, a great startup beats any mega-company any day of the week.

</comment><comment><USER34> Assuming you are very early in your career, take the google money now and invest. When you know what you're doing with respect to the market and have more connections and a bit of a financial base, then do a startup.

</comment><comment><USER35> I was in a similar situation, I had offers from both companies and chose the startup, but ultimately ended up at Google.

I was up with the startup for 6 months, it was not a good fit for me and I lost faith in the company quickly. A recruiter reached out to me from Google while I was there to follow up. I did not need to re-interview and they brought me in since I was still in the system as an accepted candidate (I think this stands for one year). so I got to experience the best of both worlds. I'm still at google 2 years later, I can echo the sentiments of it opening up many more doors

</comment><comment><USER36> Go work at Google for 2-3 years, save some money then start your own startup if you feel like it.

Being an early employee at a startup is usually not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER37> Depends on what you'll be working on at Google, IMHO. Coding to sell more ads? Hell no. Coding to siphon more data on users from adjacency businesses to eventually sell more ads? Also hell no. That's like 85% of Google's business, so...

<comment><USER38> I don't know the access to resources, sheer scale, research, and good pay would make it pretty enticing for me. But really it comes down to what you are looking for long term. Do you want to optimize, finances, lifestyle, work in a particular space, learn more and eventually start your own thing? A job at Google probably scores well along most of these dimensions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> So here are your choices:

1) Work for Google

2) Work for startup for 1/3 the compensation, at least 50% more working hours, and options that have a 95% chance of being worth zero dollars at some point in the future.

It seems like the obvious choice would be Google but it also depends on what life stage you're at. If young and just starting out, there's no easier time to take a risk. If you've got a family to support, maybe the sure bet is a better way to go. Plus, if you're gonna take a risk later in life, you should take that risk on yourself not on someone else (i.e. start your own company).

<comment><USER40> >Work for startup for 1/3 the compensation, at least 50% more working hours, and options that have a 95% chance of being worth zero dollars at some point in the future.

Google has good work/life balance?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> IMO it depends on the person. I know some people who would thrive in the startup environment but would be annoyed in big corp. And vice versa. Matching your work style to the company style will matter more for your work enjoyment than a bit more $.

I worked in both and met both kinds of people in both kinds of environment. There are many factors at play, but I think the most significant is your uncertainty tolerance and excitement appetite:

\- Startups are more chaotic but more exciting.

\- Corps will be more boring but will pay better and offer less uncertainty.

</comment><comment><USER42> Do you want safe, reliable money at the cost of your conscience? Do you want to be one tiny cog in the machine that tracks and annihilates humanity? Choose Google.

Do you want adventure, high risk of failure, and being able to live with yourself, even if it means struggling sometimes? Choose the startup.

<comment><USER43> > being able to live with yourself

a bit too dramatic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Go for the startup when you are young(<30) Startup is your best crash course into the industry. It can force you learn lot of things in a short amount of time. Sure, it will be stressful, startup may fail but you got time at your hand and you can move on with your gained experience. If you got into google at this point, your chances of getting into google in the future is on the higher side(+experience from your startup).

</comment><comment><USER45> > but I get about 6% options over 4 years

on what conditions can you turn that into something you can spend?

there is usually a good reason people offer magic beans instead of cold hard cash... an 99% of the time it is because they are less valuable, and possibly valueless (even if the company does well the requirements to cash in will often be prohibitive)

</comment><comment><USER46> Good intentions are great, but if the startup fails, 6% of nothing is zero. That's not including the difficult financial position you could find yourself in if something goes wrong while working for the startup.

Take the money, training, and network. You'll be well positioned to join or found any number of interesting startups.

Go with Google.

</comment><comment><USER47> Trust your instincts, ignore everyone else, and don't overthink it.

The startup could fail and lead to some other amazing opportunity or you going back to Google with a better job. The startup could succeed and be career defining. The startup could fail and be a waste of time. Google job could be career defining. Google could end up destroying your passion for your job, but make it extremely hard to leave, so you'll be trapped doing work that doesn't mean much for some of the best years of your life.

There's no way of knowing, and no right or wrong decisions when the goal is undefined.

</comment><comment><USER48> I run a start-up so I'm biased. I also used to work in academia, and went straight from that to a start-up because I loathe the idea of working for a big engineering firm (I'm an electrical/electronic/photonic engineer). So keep that in mind when reading.

Some comments here point out that only large organisations have the infrastructure required to really pull off certain fields, e.g. ML. Agreed, but surely this is field/interest dependent. I think most fields can be supported well by a start-up environment.

Consider the productivity. Some of the best engineering and commercial achievements were done on a tight budget - see the history of ARM, Microsoft, etc. I can vouch for how demanding, educating, and satisfying it is to work in a closely knit engineering team towards a common goal, with everyone around you pulling their weight and having their talents 100% utilised. There is no room for slackers in a small organisation - you will not have any useless colleagues, no wasted time, no pointless tasks. Your skills will expand in every direction - and not just in technical fields (although you will probably need to dabble in a range of these).

Consider the share options. 6% is a lot. Have they raised any money? Find out. Imagine they've raised £0.5m for 20% (a small angel round). That values your 6% at £150,000 today. If they raise a Series A of £2m for another 20% in a few years' time, your shares will be simultaneously diluted by the newly-issued shares but also stepped up in value. Now your options are worth £0.48m. By the time you exercise your options, you'll probably be a millionaire. This isn't trivial, and it's a typical conservative trajectory. Of course, you need to consider the 6% offer as an investor would - do you think the business is going to succeed? If not, go to Google. If you think it will, why turn down that transient opportunity?

Consider the transferability of the skills you will develop. If you work for a large org you will focus on one field, probably. You may become renowned for that. If you want to work in a start-up later, you need to find the one that suits, and they better be able to afford your specialist skills. If you work for a start-up now, you will develop broad skills and a huge amount of experience solving multiple challenges. Your engineering confidence will be immense and this will be recognised by employers. A very capable generalist who can be trusted to learn whatever is needed to solve tomorrow's challenge is every engineering employer's dream.

Do you want to be an anonymous cog in a corporate machine, or do you want to be a genuinely valued member of a team that is producing something new and valuable, that is creating its own culture, its own processes, its own market?

</comment><comment><USER49> I just want to drop this article about the benefits and detriments of working at a startup:

[https://www.atrium.co/blog/work-at-a- startup/](https://www.atrium.co/blog/work-at-a-startup/)

I would also add that working at a startup gets harder and harder the bigger your monthly expenses are, so the earlier you can try that the better (source: I am in my 40s and recently left a startup that I believe in because of financial and family reasons).

</comment><comment><USER50> Check out [http://levels.fyi](http://levels.fyi) and see if you'd be happy with the progression of leveling up / compensation at Google. At a startup, while the risk is higher, the prospect of receiving compounded gains on value that you've created early on is hard to overlook. And the linear loss you are taking for both is basically just the time you spend there. Are you comfortable doing that right now?

</comment><comment><USER51> You could always try the startup for 1 year and see how it goes. This way you get past your cliff, and you will have a much better idea of whether or not it has a chance of becoming something. If its flopping around like a fish then you can always go to a big co. Yes it would have cost you some $$$ short term, but you would have probably learned a lot more simply by having to wear more hats. Plus its a lot of fun to build something new from the ground up.

</comment><comment><USER52> Yeah, come to Google. PS: I work there, and it's a good place :)

In all seriousness, promising startups are few and far between. If you find one (aligned with your interests), by all means jump on it :)

How do you know if a startup is super promising?

i) Check out their source of funding. If super reputable VCs => Good signal.

ii) Check out their attrition. If it's a revolving door, don't go there.

iii) Check out the employees. Best startups tend to have highly credentialed employees (e.g. formerly very successful startup founders).

iv) Is the startup on a continuous growth trajectory? Best startups are on one without much setback. Again, multiple setbacks => Don't go there.

v) I wouldn't bet on the specific idea or the problem being solved. Who would've guessed Facebook, Uber, Airbnb would be massive hits purely based on the idea? Betting on momentum (e.g. user growth) and/or the team is somewhat easier to measure and understand.

vi) Where do you see yourself (and the startup) in 2, 3, 5 years if you join? Will you gain skills and reputation highly relevant to your next steps? How big is the addressable market (and potential market value) of the startup?

It's best to make a list of factors you care about (money, location etc). Rank each option by each factor. Add things up in the end.

These are the rules that I personally follow. Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER53> [https://www.atrium.co/blog/work-at-a- startup/](https://www.atrium.co/blog/work-at-a-startup/)

</comment><comment><USER54> The "right" startup - one that is bootstrapped, has a successful product idea, a good founder, competent employees, and equity - is almost always a better choice than the big firm. That's because you'll get to wear all hats, learn on the fly, learn to do everything and anything to make the product successful, and with luck get a big chunk of change in a few years.

That said, companies like this are few and far between. Especially now, apparently with most startup companies opting in early for venture capital or angel investor funding, which dilutes both your opportunity for equity and say in the company. And honestly, there are a lot of dumb ideas out there. Also, if you're relatively new to the industry, you probably don't have the ability to recognize the right startup opportunity.

In most cases, it's better to start off at a big company and learn the ropes, and when you think you've done that, take your time watching for the startup opportunity, and then make that move. In the long run, though, no one really is going to look out for you. With these two steps under your belt, you'll have the background to be your own founder one day.

</comment><comment><USER55> Statistically there's a good chance you'll end up owning 6% of $0.

</comment><comment><USER56> It depends on whether you are driven by money or by a need to have fun or to be more in control. If money is your main driver then Google any day. If you want to be in control then the start-up is good but only if you are a very early hire.

If you want to have fun it depends on how the fit is between what you will do at both places, then pick then one that seems most suitable.

</comment><comment><USER55> Plug the difference in pay (less taxes) into an investment calculator. Give it a nice return - after all, you need to beat what you'd make earning the same and investing it yourself. Look at where you'd be when you vest, and calculate the exit needed to essentially make that return. First of all, what's the likelihood of that exit happening? Secondly, would you take the risk if you can't at least beat a moderately performing mutual fund? (Not even getting into idea that with Google, that same wealth could be invested in different ways, rather than all tied up in one company)

The number I came up with: 25% for return (doubles historical return of S&P 500; most decent funds are in 15% territory over last 10 years), worth about $750,000 in four years. So you'd need about a $13M exit at that point. (Obviously whether your pay returns to market, or you continue to be paid the startup rate, affects this, as does an exit before you are fully vested)

</comment><comment><USER57> I would only choose the startup, if they're working on something that you're personally super passionate about and if Google isn't doing work in that area.

Additionally the startup would have to be run by people whose abilities to run the business in all of its aspects I trust 100%.

If the pay is 1/3, financially the only logical option is Google.

</comment><comment><USER58> Try Google for a couple of years. Move around and work on different teams. Leave and join a startup of your choosing. The Google brand is like going to Stanford or something. You'll have many more options and better connections. Maybe you'll also have enough cash to start your own thing.

</comment><comment><USER59> Nobody can answer that question for you.

It's hard to even say for sure without knowing what the startup is working on, but I would _probably_ choose the startup because I think Google's tracking is creepy and unethical, I don't like big corporations, and the extra money isn't important to me.

</comment><comment><USER60> So after 4 years in Google's case you'd have 800K extra (most likely more depending on how you invest) plus Google on your resume. The 6% will get diluted into ? If you are so confident in your ability to pick winners you are better than top 1% of VCs.

<comment><USER61> Whoa that's insane. Mind sharing how you can get to 800k in 4 years. I just hit my first year at Google. I'm likely getting my second Strongly Exceeds in perf but no idea what my stock refresh will be. Assuming you'd have to do some smart investing to get that high so quickly.

Edit: Think I misunderstood. My regular salary will be about that much total in 4 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> IMHO, disregarding compensation, Identify and learn everything possible about who will be your boss/manager/mentor.

This will significantly impact on your ability to succeed and on your happiness.

(Most of) People don't leave companies, they leave their bosses/managers.

</comment><comment><USER63> I did the startup thing. The ROI was crap compared to working at Google.

If you want to do the startup thing go ahead. You will have more stress and less money at the end of it compared to Google but Google will still be there to hire you at the end.

</comment><comment><USER64> When you say the startup in promising, do it have any momentum or traction at all? Are they making money, scaling like crazy, anything like that? Any upward tick in momentum can turn into a big pile of money super fast. And if you like the people with whom you interviewed, you could have a lot of fun working with them in close quarters. You'll (maybe? I don't really know) never have an experience like growing a startup at Google, and working at a big company can be the opposite of exciting. Google's probably a great employer. So you wanna be fat & happy or sit on a rocket & aim for space?

</comment><comment><USER65> And you ask? Pick Google and you're set for the rest of your life as "Googler" and as "Ex Googler", if you decide to start your own startup, it's easier than ever and VCs will throw money at you.

Source: ex googler

<comment> shady-lady I think 'ex google' has lost most of it's weight. Even if it was just used by any of the > __30,000__ engineers, it would be diluted.

Adding to that mix is non-technical people trumpeting ex-google/insert some other massive company on their profiles/pitches; it just doesn't mean that much.

Oh, you handled frontline customer service/ad sales/some other mundane role for Google? So what?

Getting in to Google was once a sign of something. I don't see it as a high signal filter anymore.

<comment><USER66> I don't think the world has reached your POV. Maybe it will. But hiring managers can weed through the crap. And for now hiring exgooglers is like the old saying that nobody gets fired for buying IBM. It's a strong signal of capability because presumably google wouldn't have employed you long if you weren't hitting their objectives regardless of your role.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Here's my personal experience:

In 2012 I graduated from college and was deciding pretty much exactly this. I interviewed at Google and got an offer, and had to decide between that and the startup life. I ended up going with Google. My immediate thought process centered around money because I had substantial debts from university, so while I wouldn't have admitted it at the time, startups were kind of out of the question.

In the end, I'm glad I made the choice I did. Here are some observations about Google in particular, but I expect they extend to some degree to other organizations:

* Google places a _lot_ of focus on development. The job ladder explicitly stresses growth, which places expectations on engineers to grow their abilities throughout their early careers. Equally important, it places pressure on managers to grow those same engineers: directors treat teams full of people whose performance evaluations aren't rising and who aren't getting promoted as a major red flag when evaluating the team's manager. I was consistently pushed to do more and bigger projects, and my work and abilities have flourished as a result.

* There's more than one way to "do things right" in engineering, but in my opinion Google's particular style nails it. Code reviews are mandatory. Rigorous testing is compulsory. Regular refactoring is held in high regard. Production environments are sacrosanct. SLAs and SLOs are explicitly made clear. SREs rule over the engineers, not vice versa. Detailed design documents are (at least in my org) mandatory. Postmortems are also mandatory. You literally can't even go to the bathroom without seeing a pro-tip about how to improve your project. Working in this environment for years teaches you to produce high quality work at a fast pace.

* As a result of all this, recruiters _looove_ Google engineers. During the few times over the years when I considered letting myself get poached, I was being offered either extremely high-paying senior engineer positions at established companies, or high-ranking technical leadership roles at younger companies. Six years of developing my technical and leadership skills have paid off, and I'm convinced I'm more valuable now than I would have been if I had gone to a startup.

* This is my personal view on early-stage startups, and you don't mention your experience level, so it might not apply to you, but: keep out of reach out children. When you're staring down the barrel of a three month runway, you don't have time to learn, from scratch, how to solve technical problems _and_ somehow foster an engineering culture that's going to pay dividends down the line as the company grows. Better to learn your trade in a safe and stable environment and then apply it to building a new organization once you're confident in it.

Finally, an anecdote about money. Graduating from an Ivy, I naturally had many trust funder friends who weren't aware of how broke I was and asked, to my face, "why would someone as sharp as you go to such a boring company." They went off and joined startups, took piles of equity in exchange for smaller salaries, and went off confident in their fortunes. Then, one by one, over the course of the next five years or so, they all requested referrals to join Google when they companies failed. I happy obliged, but I don't think a single one made it through the interview process. Meanwhile all this time I've been sitting pretty on a nontrivial-but-not-life-changing pile of cash, taking on ever more interesting projects, with a resume that companies salivate over.

As always, take my experience with a grain of salt, but that's just my view on things.

<comment><USER68> Do you think other large tech companies are like this? If so, which ones?

<comment><USER67> I don't have firsthand experience but my understanding is that Facebook shares a similar culture. No idea about others though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> If you have to ask the question, go with Google. If it's a decent engineering position, it's like having Harvard or Oxford/Cambridge on your résumé and will open doors in future.

</comment><comment><USER70> Is this one of your first jobs? If it's early in your career I always recommend taking the big company option. You learn a lot of positive business practices and the culture of large companies early on that will be very helpful in your future, should you decide to start a company going up against or selling to similar companies, you will also bring some of the discipline needed to build a small biz into a large one. My career used the reverse model and it took me a long time to realize the skills I was missing.

</comment><comment><USER71> Choose Google. I made the other choice and I ended up regretting it.

</comment><comment><USER72> This is pretty easy. Take the Google job and stay there 3-4 years and sock away $200k a year in savings. Then leave and go do a startup, there will still be plenty to choose from.

</comment><comment><USER73> If you're young, choose the startup. Say things work out: great! Say things don't work out: you'll have had an interesting experience, and can then go work for Google.

1\. If Google has offered you a position now, they absolutely will offer you a position later. You wouldn't be burning any bridges, especially if you choose a startup over them. 2\. It'll be a lot easier going from a startup to Google, than from the comforts (and money) of Google to a startup.

<comment><USER27> Lack of self-control really is a bad reason to choose one over the other.

Just make a contract with yourself to save 2/3 of salary each month.

More savings and more experience puts you in a lot better position to do a startup later at _your_ terms, as a co-founder or similar.

Early employee in startup is really the worst of all worlds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Google. Your expected value for options should usually be $0.

<comment><USER75> The median is certainly 0.

<comment><USER76> The median is what really matters when making almost any kind of decisions; else you forever chase after improbable outliers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> [http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/](http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/)

</comment><comment><USER78> Do you only want to compare the money? Or are you also considering the ethical implications? Statistically, I would guess that working for the startup might have a higher chance to be the more ethical option, but since you don't say what the startup actually does, I can't know. Also, the one to decide the ethics should be you, not me.

</comment><comment><USER79> You frame the question very narrowly.

Where are you in your career? How big is your network?

Life is a "marathon rather than a sprint." Consider both the immediate pay-off and your long term ambition.

If you are in your twenties and aspire to build a great company in the future the answer is different than if you are in your thirties and have a family to support!

</comment><comment><USER80> There will never be a shortage of companies looking to hire you on the cheap. I'd try Google for a couple years.

</comment><comment><USER81> I think the two things are what do you want to do and where are you in your career?

Being at Google is the safe easy money and will most likely work out better than your startup from an odds perspective. However, you'll be a cog in a very large company whereas the startup you'll probably be able to have a huge impact in (presumably if you're getting 6% in options, that's like first/second engineer there or you're an exec).

If this is your first job one thing to consider is that having worked at Google definitely is a good spot on your resume, recruiters like it, you'll get reached out to by lots of other recruiters, it'll be super easy to find another job which can honestly be more challenging if you just have no name failed startups on your resume.

There is probably also more potential for title advancement at the new startup also vs. google.

In my mind Google is a lot of sure money and you get to have a small impact on something with potentially huge impact to the world/people/whatever

Small startups are a very small chance of some amount of money on the levels of (car, house, fuck you) and you get to have a large impact on something that may or may not have any discernible external impact.

</comment><comment><USER82> You didn't say what you'd be working on at Google, what the startup does, or what your motivations are.

</comment><comment><USER83> Where are you in your career, what is your personal financial situation, what is your family situation (wife? kids?), what stage is the startup (revenue?), etc, etc. Need a lot more details. Fwiw, 6% is an unusually high equity package unless they just started the company.

</comment><comment><USER84> Well established company vs future unknown startup, if you are confident with the future of the startup then choose the latter, else choose the former. 6% could be nothing if the startup fails. So it's an easy choice comparing to choose between Google and Apple.

</comment><comment><USER85> Google, without question.

You'll be gold-plating your resume. Also, knowing several people who have worked at Google for years now, it's the only tech company I've heard of that seems to take an active interest in a software engineers actual _career_ and growth.

</comment><comment><USER86> If you care about the compensation, go with Google.

If you feel like the startup is doing something unbelievable and you want to be onboard, go with them.

Google will still be around in a few years, and if you got an offer from them now you are likely to be able to get one again in the future.

</comment><comment><USER87> Google will take you in the future, the startup won't.

You're (presumably) young. Take risks, you have little downside.

You'll work yourself into the ground at the startup, but you'll learn more in a year than you will being code monkey #20005 at Google.

<comment><USER27> The startup won't?? Another startup will...

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I'd say take the Google option, live like you took the startup offer and bank the rest of the money. Then you'll have runway to do whatever the you please for a while, and the Google name/network backing you up.

</comment><comment><USER89> How likely is that you can join a company like Google and how likely is that you can join a startup? Statistically, you should join Google as it's a one off experience that probably no other companies can offer you.

</comment><comment><USER90> I've done both and now work for Google. You should read dan luu's coverage of this:

[https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/](https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/)

</comment><comment><USER91> Follow your excitement and feelings.

I'd take offer with more cash in the pockets vs. promise of bright future for current sacrifice.

%% of startup shares is what they want you to believe in. What you haven't been told is that your shares can and will be diluted via new investors coming in who will buy more "preferred" shares without telling you. Preferred shares will allow new investors to get paid X times of their original investment before you see any penny at a potential exit (in case it will ever happen).

In startup world it evolves in a frequent and predictable disappointing outcomes for "unaware" engineers and holders of regular, non-preferred "options".

Take cash, save it and invest it in your own, future startup.

</comment><comment><USER92> One real advantage of working for the startup: they probably won't ask you to spy on Chinese dissidents, and you won't be profiting off of spying on Chinese dissidents.

</comment><comment><USER93> answer would depend on your current background and what this startup does. From your wording it seems you are weighing it in terms of money. In that case it is hands down google as it is already paying more, is considerably less risky and will give you brand recognition for future employment. I think you should weigh your options in terms of you future goals rather than money. I would rephrase the question as Which step will help me realize my goals faster and go with it.

</comment><comment><USER94> Do the startup if their technologists are good -- you will learn at 10x the rate. That compounds and will put you years ahead of those that pick the Google option.

</comment><comment><USER95> If you can live on the 1/3 that google is offering, take the google job, save the difference between the two jobs and become really good at Google.

</comment><comment><USER96> You probably want to say more about your situation. How much experience do you have, what kinds of things are important to you? Are you already wealthy?

</comment><comment><USER97> I've been in a similar situation with more upside – I suggest pulling up a retirement calculator and seeing where you are financially compared to where you want to be.

If you're interested in hearing more about the difference in cultures, and how that will feel after some time, feel free to reply with a place I can contact you privately.

</comment><comment><USER98> How did you get through the Google interviews? Genuine question. How did you prepare?

</comment><comment><USER99> If ethics is not something to consider in your decision, I would say go for Google. Work life balance will be better, and the money although probably less are not a gamble. Plus having Google in your CV means you will probably be able to join any startup you want if you change your mind down the line.

</comment><comment><USER100> Go with Google. Better street cred, better contacts, better salary, better everything. Best of all, it gives you the option to work normal hours and plan your life.

Besides, working for startups is much better experience when you have a strong financial backbone. And promising startups aren't going anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER101> I would only start considering if the salary was 2/3 instead of 1/3.

</comment><comment><USER102> Consider the ethics of working for a company that makes its money extracting data from users to sell advertisements. (Sure, it does other stuff, too.) If your promising startup does the same, maybe it is a wash.

</comment><comment><USER103> Take Google and see if u can do advisory work for the startup on side for equity.

I am bias as worked at Google but left for startup world and would never go back. The Google name can open pretty much any doors

<comment><USER104> This would be a violation of Google's anti-moonlighting clause, so only take this advice if you're willing to lose your job at Google over it.

<comment><USER105> Which is unenforceable because it is a violation of the California labor code section 96 k. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=96).

<comment><USER3> It doesn't have to be enforced if they fire you "without cause" (because of the moonlighting)

<comment><USER105> Which is exactly when the labor board would come along and sue them for it very publicly, yes

<comment><USER3> Under what grounds? The burden of proof is on the employee and the employer can just stonewall and deny everything with zero recourse.

They could claim it was your performance, your motivation, conflict with the team or anything else really if they were ever pressed to give a reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Economically Google, professionally a startup. Google seems to be evolved from a tech company to a bureaucratic one, so definitively not attractive except for salary reasons.

</comment><comment><USER107> Are you happy with the moral downside of working for a company that sells its users' privacy for profit? A company that values automation more than customer service?

<comment><USER108> That's a good question. However, its easier said than done. Say whatever you want about Google and the likes and hate them, but for a dev, it's still one of the best places to learn, grow and get paid well. At that point most peoples moral compass tilts. I know so many people who said they would never work at Microsoft, Facebook, Google. However when they got an offer they accepted it. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> i would search over the innumerable other times this has been covered in HN and many blogs

</comment><comment><USER109> you are certainly misreading the offer. there is _no way_ you are getting 6%

</comment><comment><USER110> You listen to your conscience.

</comment><comment><USER111> I chose a startup over a better Big Company offer (although no where near the difference in pay), and deeply regret it. Understandably the grass is always greener on the other side, etc., however here are a few things to consider:

1\. Really stupid things can happen, even with established startups. We lost our 401k and may possibly lose our healthcare (although that is looking more promising) when our HR/Ops manager went on extended leave and their replacement is still struggling with the basics. This isn't due to a lack of funds, but rather the new person being disorganized and ignoring emails from Zenefits. When I joined we were a well oiled machine, but we were dependent on one person, and things fell apart quite quickly after they took leave.

2\. People are still people. No matter how much say you have, your startup will make a bad hire, most likely many. This happens at all companies, but startups particularly struggle with finding decent candidates at early to mid stages. The difference is, that with a startup having a bad employee can make work significantly worse without any proper recourse. Even if you hire great people, you may find that the startup you joined is culturally different 6 months to a year later. Things change fast, and for many things go from great to awful within the span of 3 months.

3\. When it comes to bad hires and politics, the most common complaint at large companies is that the only people who get promoted are those that are friends with the manager, etc. That is an issue no doubt, but at startups everyone is expected to be friends, and the role between boss and friend is even more blurred. We have a legitimately bad employee (caught her twice rebasing her PRs after reviews, so changes could not be tracked between commits, in which she responded to review comments by adding carriage returns so github showed that the code changed and therefore hid the comments), but there is no proper path to reporting this, and bringing up these issues are extremely taboo on my team, especially because she is now close friends with our boss (they meetup during vacations). Sure, this happens at large companies, but I cannot move teams or even refer to a standard to we can stop this from happening. Honestly, it hurts the most because the whole point of a startup is that you care about the product and team, so when this happens it just becomes a low paid job since you lose the culture of trust.

There is a lot of good that comes with startups, but I will be honest, unless you are starting your own, or are young and are looking to be best friends/party with your coworkers and make your job a lifestyle, it usually is not worth it.

 _edit_ I wanted to add one more point: The startup I was at previously gave me 1% of shares. Things were not working out well, and our CEO sold for an acquisition hire in which he made ~$1.5 million, and I would have made ~$36k after vesting for 3 more years. Literally, with the acquisition hire signing bonus and new salary, I would have made less than I do now from just switching jobs than if I stayed.

</comment><comment><USER112> Google (and any MegaCorp) will siphon out any love you have for your profession. Go startup.

<comment><USER75> Mediocre startup compensation combined with the bay area cost of living and the added work/life imbalance can arguably do the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> It depends on your age, what sector the startup is in, the prospects of the startup and your relationship with the founders.

1\. Is it a real startup doing real/cutting edge technology work ( aka cybersecurity, data, etc )? Will you be working on cutting edge development work?

2\. Are you young with little to no responsibility ( aka no wife, kids, etc )

3\. Do you believe the startup has a shot?

4\. Do you respect and get along with the founders. And do they respect and get along with you.

If all the above is yes, then you may not earn as much initially, but you will most definitely learn a lot more than at google and you may be able to retire in your 20s rather than 50s if everything works out. If not, then you will be able to leverage the skill you picked up to get another job easily. Caveat being you do real development work in a real software startup.

If you are a single digit employee at a startup with a good relationship with the founders, not only will learn a lot technically and technologically, you will also learn about angel investing, VC funding, etc. You might even get to tag along to see what the hubbub is all about.

If it is a real startup, then the risks are higher but the upside is also higher. With google, you will get stability and name recognition, but you are still ultimately a corporate grunt and have to deal with burnout. Keep in mind google has extremely high turnover rates ( I believe the median tenure for a google employee is only 1 year ).

</comment><comment><USER114> Definitely Google. There will always be "promising startups" and once you have Google on your resume you will either be starting that startup or getting a bigger chunk of it.

</comment><comment><USER75> Anyone know how much Google would realistically offer someone with 4 years of presumably irrelevant rails and sql experience?(As in, NOT in ('c++','java','javascript','python')

I'm predicting not much - and I bet they believe a significant part of the "compensation" will be the "privilege" or working at google.

</comment><comment><USER115> Don't be greedy. Google is a gold-plated brand name that will offer tens if not hundreds of individuals smarter than you.

6% options is about average for a co-founder-level tech lead at a very small company.

You have to be realistic about your expectations for equity. It is more likely the company gets acquired than goes IPO. If the company gets acquired for $100M, then you may bring home around $4M post tax.

What is the company's competitive advantage? Usually, especially in AI/ML, it is the people already working there. Who is working there that will be smarter and more experienced than you that you can learn from?

Or will you be the chief cook and bottle washer?

<comment><USER27> "6% options is about average for a co-founder-level tech lead at a very small company."

Even if true, the fact that there are a lot of gullible young tech leads driving this average down is no good reason that the poster should be equally gullible.

Do the startup thing when it can be _your_ thing. "First employee" is really the worst of all worlds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> There could be a third option: Find some contract work [1], become a digital nomad [2] for a while, find a great city with a very low cost-of-living and stay there for a few months (or years), work on some of your own product ideas and try the "indie hacker" thing [3].

Worst case: You spend a few years working ~5 hours per week (or a few months per year), and spend the rest of your time just enjoying life and doing whatever you want. You can work on your own ideas and have full creative freedom, even if most of your ideas don't work out.

[1] [https://www.moonlightwork.com](https://www.moonlightwork.com), [https://www.toptal.com](https://www.toptal.com)

[2] [https://nomadlist.com](https://nomadlist.com)

[3] [https://www.indiehackers.com](https://www.indiehackers.com)

</comment><comment><USER117> That is a personal question. Nobody can choose for you. Nobody. Not your parents, or your partner,or people on hacker news, it is you.

As an adult you start making decisions that will affect the rest of your life. Children have their decisions taken for them.

If you take the decision of going with the startup it will be one of the worst experiences in your life. If will be daunting, it will be taking risks every single day. At the same time, you will be making a contribution. Even if you fail you will learn things you will never learn in Google. If you success you will be free with freedom few things will ever give you.

If you go with Google you will be safe, isolated of the mundane problems most people have and you will be able to focus immensely on very interesting problems sharing your time with some of the smartest people on earth. On the other hand your creative and independent muscle will almost disappear, atrophied by not using it, as the big organization takes the load from your shoulders. Over time, it will make your shoulders less strong.

The decision is yours to make. Write down on a paper what your values and priorities are in your life and how each decision will affect them.

</comment><comment><USER118> Going to work somewhere because of the overall expected benefits after many years it will have to you financially, how it will look on your resume, or the "reputation" it will give you are all absolutely terrible reasons to do so, if for no other reason that these aspects are horribly difficult to predict and generally speaking are predicated upon tomorrow being like today, which in tech is often the opposite of the truth. Not only that, but these aren't the things that are likely to get you up in the morning. Going to a job you hate because it will look good on your resume after a few years sounds like a special kind of hell.

Will you be able to work on problems interesting to you or you think are important, with people you like and enjoy working with? Nobody can answer the question for you but Google and a startup are going to offer wildly different answers to that question. That's the aspect I would focus on. Everyone in this thread who is telling you they can predict the net effect on your finances or your reputation or future career options after a few years give themselves too much credit.

And hell, in my own experience going through a failed startup has actually had an equally positive impact on my life as another I co-founded which was more successful. Don't let people fool you into thinking that walking away from a failed startup where you learned and grew as a person is somehow a worse outcome than spending your years in a job that is more "secure" but with a narrower breadth of skill development or ownership over your work.</comment>


JWT: 1Things to Watch in 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/jwtintelligence/2f-100-things-to-watch-in-2011-6306251

<comment><USER2> I particularly like the selection bias in the prologue, where they recap their "success" in predicting things in 2010. Of course, if you predict enough things will become trends, then surely some of them will.

Perhaps JWT might like to offer some percentage figures of how many of their trend predictions came to pass?

<comment><USER3> Additionally, some of this points are so broad it should be really easy for them to declare "success" in the next year: "Auto apps", "Biomimcry" (anything inspired by nature?)

or which are quite obvious by now: "Buy one, give one away" (didn't OLPC use this model in .. 2006? 2007? Prediction?); Children's E-Books (ebooks are becoming more and more ubiquitos all the time - so yes, there will be children's ebooks) .. and so on.

Still, some of the slides are interesting reads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't wait for NFC to become standard on smartphones. Think of how many apps are going to get better because of it. There's the obvious winners like Bump and Square, but I can't wait to be able to open locked doors, send files, share links, swap photos, etc...</comment>


Sci-fi author and Crysis 2 writer Peter Watts beaten, arrested at US border - <AUTHOR> http://hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Sci-fi-author-and-Crysis-2-writer-Peter-Watts-beaten-arrested-at-US-Border <comment><USER4> The bottom-line problem seems to be that law-abiding people don't have much experience with being treated like criminals.

In a high-pressure situation they sometimes fall back on their quaint expectations of rights and basic human respect. I would wager that someone who had spent serious time in prison would do much better in these situations.

The guy probably had a long day. I bet he just wanted nothing more than to get home and go to sleep. He obviously didn't understand what all the fuss was about, and he ended up stepping on someone's hair trigger. It seems terribly unlikely he did something that you or I would consider physically threatening. After being pepper-sprayed and man-handled, and likely not in the soundest state of mind, maybe he even flailed a bit -- guaranteeing an assault charge (and possible conviction).

Perhaps that's how it went down. It'll probably turn out that the border guards "followed procedure." But that's exactly the problem that makes the story frightening to us:

The path from "long day + non-violent temporary failure of judgement" to "being physically assaulted and facing a life-altering felony charge" seems terribly short.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I like that. Pepper spray in the eyes + flailing in pain = assault on a federal officer.

<comment><USER6> Did you hear the one where the police dog was literally chewing on the arm of a guy, and when the guy tried to escape from the dog he was charged and convicted with assaulting a police officer. The dog being the police officer.

<comment><USER7> Firstly, please site at least a news article on the case.

Also under the law, a police dog is an officer, an army dog is a soldier, a search and rescue dog is typically a fireman. Also, depending on the US state, and if it's in any other western country, animals have rights and injuring a dog is a criminal act, and when it's owned by a cop you can be sure as hell you'll be charged with animal abuse. If you're lucky, you won't be charged with both and won't be sued civilly by the officer in question for damaging property.

IMHO when a German Shepherd latches onto your arm and is attempting to force you to the ground, you do as it says. Also when there's a half-dozen cops (usually 1 for the dog team, and 2-4 cops called in for suspected drug possessions) shouting "Stay down, stay down! DO NOT FIGHT THE DOG!" then you do what they say.

Fighting the dog only does 1 of 2 things. 1st it angers the dog, which will mean it clamps down harder and will likely mean it breaks the skin (which it is trained not to do), which means any attempt to remove your arm can literally shred the muscle from your bone. 2nd if you're lucky and get free with your arm intact, running turns that highly trained dog into nothing more than a wolf, it will no longer bite your arm or try to pin you down, when it gets you it's likely to be going for the throat to kill you.

<comment><USER8> You appear to be asserting that it's unlikely this has ever happened because no reasonable, thoughtful person being attacked by a dog would, upon careful consideration, panic and struggle instinctively to get away from the dog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article sets off my bullshit detector, and let me explain why.

First, it's throwing red meat to the dogs. The internet and tech community is extremely sci-fi and video game friendly. This was one of us, and bad things happened to him.

Second, it's not a news article. There's no presumption of being two sides to the story. One side is given, by a friend, and a call to action given out. Were the officers interviewed? Was the video-tape released (And you know they have video tape)? Nothing of the barest minimum was done to provide some sort of context. The purpose of this piece is clear: it's a call to action, an editorial, an opinion piece. Don't confuse it with a news article.

Third, there's lots of loaded language in here -- "was subject to a beating and arrest", and "the gang of border guards", "and losing it may cost him his entire life" etc.

Look -- I'm not taking sides. Border guards screw up and are badly-trained sometimes. That's why we have video on all border crossings. On the other hand, people crossing the border have been known not to be able to handle submitting to requests from people in authority for various reasons. There is a very good case for using physical force on occasion. I simply don't know what happened.

What do I do when someone starts singing sweet songs of injustice that sounds wonderful to my libertarian senses? That's when I start asking questions.

I would like to know more about this, and from a non-aligned source, before being able to form any kind of opinion at all.

<comment><USER10> I completely and fully believe the story. I've crossed the Canadian - <USER2> border many times by car and I've personally witnessed more than one occasion of absolutely unwarranted aggression on the part of the border guards.

Seriously, you have to make the trip a couple of times per month for a year or two to get any idea of how many rotten apples there are in that basket.

American and Canadian visitors are always completely surprised when we tour the region here, and we go from the Netherlands to France, Belgium and Germany without ever seeing a borderguard in person, let alone having to interact with one.

It's really just costumed theater, you could _easily_ do without it and it would not somehow threaten the American way of life.

American borders being what they are I stopped going there completely after one especially nasty incident in Miami that caused me to miss a connecting flight.

Until sanity returns to the American borders I'm sure they can do without my business.

<comment><USER9> I used to travel internationally quite a bit, so I've crossed the border many times too. What can I say? It's usually not a pleasant experience no matter which border you are crossing. And it seems to just be getting worse, especially in the U.S.

It's also obvious that people who know Peter think of him as having a docile character. So if I had to guess I'd guess that Peter was indeed wronged.

But I don't have to guess. There should be plenty of evidence for reasonable people to make up their minds. I'll just wait until I hear more information.

Or put another way -- is this a story because of what exactly happened? Or is it a story because it feeds into larger narratives that we already agree on and it comes from somebody well-known on the web? Joe Schmoe gets tasered, perhaps unfairly, and nobody cares. Person-of-note X gets tasered, perhaps fairly, and everybody is up in arms. Why? Because it's easy for us to be. It's a familiar theme with lots of characters doing things we would expect them to do.

That type of story -- one that fits so well into established narratives and stereotype and one that is presented without context -- just makes me feel like I'm being manipulated, even if everything happened just the way it was told and a true injustice was done.

I just don't know. But I do know that if there was serious misconduct on the part of the border agents then heads deserve to roll on this -- just like any other case involving anybody else.

<comment><USER11> You may be right. It might even be a publicity stunt for Peter's new book (which I'd buy in a heartbeat)...

But in any case, your critique doesn't mean that the event isn't useful for helping people who haven't decided how they feel about the various post-911 excesses formulate a more nuanced opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know Peter.

He's _not_ the guy most likely to blow up and punch someone.

About the only point of information that might serve to remotely spin this in the border guards' favour is that Peter is just shy of seven feet tall: if you're of average height, he looms.

I gather the assault indictment stated that he was trying to enter the United States when the incident took place. As he was in fact _leaving_ one wonders what other lies the border patrol are telling?

</comment><comment><USER13> We've heard one side of the story -- from someone who tells stories for a living. He may have been arrested, and he may have been beaten, but I'd wait to hear more about why.

<comment><USER14> Having just been given the third degree by both U.S. and Canadian border patrol last weekend, I can attest that it can be a really infuriating process. To be blunt, they can (and generally are) huge assholes, really getting in your face and making you feel like a criminal even when you have nothing to hide. I presume the goal of this is to psych out the people who actually are up to no good, but the end result is that you end up feeling pissed off and unwelcome.

That said, I definitely agree that there is another side to this story. For one thing, everything that happens at a border crossing is videotaped from about 14 different camera angles, so there's no way they're going charge him with assault unless he actually took a swing. The fact that the situation even got to that point--multiple guards, pepper spray, verbal commands--means he did something pretty egregious. The crossing guards are dicks but they are professional dicks, at least in my experience. Do as you're told and you'll eventually get through. Ignore repeated commands and project the same surliness back at them and you're just asking for trouble.

<comment><USER15> > project the same surliness back at them and you're just asking for trouble.

That's commonsense, but its truth still pisses me off. There is zero reason border guards deserve deference, and projecting surliness to people behaving surly is my natural right.

<comment><USER14> _There is zero reason border guards deserve deference_

No? Such universal, stratospheric levels of assholedom don't arise organically --border guards behave the way they do because they are trained to. Probably because the alternative, cheerfully waving everyone through, is unacceptable from a national security standpoint.

I know you can justify pretty much anything these days by waving the security flag, but I think in this instance it's fair. They deserve deference because somebody has got to secure our borders in this day and age, and like it or not, this is probably the best way to go about doing it. I'm willing to live with my feelings getting hurt if it means people aren't able to drive bombs over the border.

<comment><USER11> I think you are 100% wrong. Do we really want to live in a society where being hurried or annoyed at the border guard will result in searches, detention, or worse?

Pretty soon simply giving the guard an annoyed look can land you behind bars for a few hours. This is the opposite of the rule of law, it is giving way too much power to the whim of the guy with a gun.

<comment><USER14> No, but it isn't as simple as that nowadays. My only point is that, when there are people out there who are trying to blow you up, dealing with a certain amount of bullshit from law enforcement is an acceptable tradeoff for putting a stop to that. It's not optimal, but neither is dying in a terrorist attack. Neither extreme--fascism or doing nothing--appeals to me as much as the middle ground. YMMV.

<comment><USER16> If enough people think like you do, the terrorists won.

They are not out to blow you up. They want to destroy your way of life - <USER3> freedoms and the notion that government serves the people. The want the opposite.

And they are winning. Blowing people up is not the objective: it's the tool.

<comment><USER17> _If enough people think like you do, the terrorists won_

Al Qaeda spent $20,000 or so on September 11. The US spent $1 trillion and counting. They "won" the minute we opened our checkbook; turning the country into a police state was just dancing in the end zone.

<comment><USER11> Excellent point. By definition, "terrorism" is a method that the US cannot really defend against without creating a police state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I recommend that everyone donate a few dollars via PayPal to Peter's legal defense fund:

firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER18> I'd like to donate to the border guards. I figure there's a 50/50 chance there's a lot more to this story than Cory Doctorow's (his friend) has told, but nobody else will blindly take their side.

<comment><USER19> You already do donate to the border guard; it's your tax money paying his/her salary.

More importantly, I don't think blindly taking the government's side on any issue is a good thing. I'd much rather have everyone default to believing the private citizen and be wrong some of the time. Blind faith in the citizenry probably at worst has a net zero effect. Blind faith in the government is most certainly negative.

That being said, I'm completely open to the possibility that the border guards followed procedure. I definitely need more information to form an opinion.

<comment><USER20> If following procedure means beating someone senseless and trying to get them to waive their legal rights, then procedure is fucked. Yes, I am taking Watts' story at face value, and I could be wrong in that, but given my experiences, it seems much more likely that border crossing guards acted out of line than the alternative.

<comment><USER11> I have had incidents with the Canadian guards at the Windsor border... Not as extreme as Watts' case, but I did nothing more than take a call on my cell phone for 5 seconds (to tell the person I'd call back later), and then say "This is bullshit" when the car was turned away from Canada b/c of the phone usage.

This was before 9/11 and I am an utterly harmless, good natured person who is about the most obviously non-criminal one could possibly imagine. It is absurd any border guard anywhere would feel the need to ramp up the testosterone in response to me.

<comment><USER21> The best explanation is this:

Law enforcement of any kind (police up to military) are trained to be 'in control' of their situation. When you start asking questions (or getting out of your car or whatever) you are being proactive for yourself. You're trying to take control of a situation so that you understand what's going on and that you don't have to accept everything at face value. But this contradicts all of their training that they need to control the situation. Even though you might be unarmed and they are armed (meaning that no matter how verbal you might get they still have control... they can f-cking kill you) they react to gain complete and utter control over the situation.

I'm not saying I like this. To be truthful, I absolutely hate this. But it is the way it is. Their training is f-cked. (or at least there are a majority of people that take the training past the point of (un)common sense).

<comment><USER11> I realize that under some circumstances the training is beneficial, but I have seen way too many examples of various armed officials using excessive verbal/physical force with obviously harmless people.

I think of it this way: If you're in law enforcement, the real bad guys are very scary, so you would start to feel like a real wimp after a while. The way I think many of them deal with this is by over-controlling obviously harmless, law-abiding people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If he was going back to Canada he was not passing through US customs, you just go through and stop at Canadian customs. He was pulled over by the US border police so this could not have been a customs matter. Unless they had tip that he was doing something illegal or he broke a law like speeding, I don't know why they would have pulled him over.

Also I have crossed the border plenty of times, what I have issues with is that customs officials are given too much discretion it seems in what they can do. If an officer has a bad day they can pretty much do what they wanted.

The worst I saw was when my brother was renewing his TN1 visa. I was driving him to the airport in Buffalo. We waited for close to two hours at the customs office. The whole time the customs officers were just talking about their weekend, what their plans were, on one was actually doing their job.

Two girls that were there before us finally asked, and they were were courteous while do so, when their case would be handled. They said they had waited for 3 hours and were on their way to a funeral. The customs officer blew up at them right away, told them to shut up, used allot of swear words directed at them and threatened to throw them in jail.

Nothing the girls did warranted that behavior. After his tirade he had everyone that was waiting come over and denied them entry right on the spot without hearing them out. The whole time all the other officers were just laughing.

Usually everyone has always been professional when I crossed the border and that was the only time I have seen someone on a power trip. But it does happen, and when it happens you are pretty much screwed if you are caught in the cross fire.

<comment><USER23> It's not that hard to think of reasons why the border guards would pull someone innocent over on the way out. Most obviously, he or his car could fit the description of an all-points alert; at least, enough that they want a closer look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think a lot of people don't realize that they have drastically reduced rights at or near border crossings. You and your car can be searched by customs at their discretion without warrant or probable cause.

The "in some other universe... I didn't get back in my vehicle when I was told to" quote is telling too. I think someone more familiar with how border crossings work would never refuse to physically comply with a demand from officials.

<comment><USER25> > The "in some other universe... I didn't get back in my vehicle when I was > told to" quote is telling too.

I agree. I do not know this man - but from my frequent Canada <-> USA border crossings I do know that while border guard power trips are frequent (too often so), getting beat takes effort. The story is clearly not as clear-cut as a bunch of crooked border cops deciding randomly to pepper spray and beat some guy. His friends and family are free to contribute to his legal defence, but without knowing what really happened I am unwilling to contribute.

That being said, the amount of unprofessional power tripping at American borders is ludicrous - myself and other Canadians avoid cross-border travel for this very reason, and it's costing America business. Even my American coworkers get hassled on their way home from Canada, and nearly everyone agrees that Canadian guards are on the whole a hell of a lot more professional and polite.

Nothing tops the time I was at the airport in Vancouver, pre-clearing customs. A very large border guard with a pissed off sneer on his face was hassling everyone he dealt with, and verbally berated an elderly gentleman for moving too slowly as he shuffled his way up to the booth. That sort of bullshit cannot be tolerated, and gives America a bad name for no good reason.

<comment><USER14> I suspect this has to do with the fact that you are Canadian. I am American, I have always found crossing back into America to be much less of a hassle. The Canadians have been stone-cold S.O.B's whereas the Americans are just rude.

<comment><USER24> At grave risk of redundancy: I have had the opposite experience. Canadian customs have always been friendly to me, and US customs at the Canadian border have always been total dicks.

<comment><USER26> And I've had the misfortune of meeting asshole border guards on _both_ sides, many years apart. Do I win a door prize?

<comment><USER27> Goodness no. How will we ever find out who wins now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> FYI: Updates from Watts' blog are online at <http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=935>.

<comment><USER28> Awesome, some real information, rather than pointless and obvious speculation as to what happened. He links a news story:

[http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/912110...](http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/91211010/1002/Science+fiction+writer+charged+after+bridge+struggle)

<comment><USER20> Sadly, I think we won't get too much more info for a while, since Watts is not in a place to say much right now, and I don't think that the border guards will have much to say...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> when stopped by a police officer I always act like they already have a gun pointed at me. I keep my hands visible and answer everything with a 'sir'. maybe there's lots of good cops out there. But if I get the one asshole who gets off on power I'd rather appease his view of the world than challenge it.

</comment><comment><USER30> Without hearing both sides of the story, an instructional video came to mind:

Chris Rock's: How not to get your a$$ kicked by police <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8>

Hope this situation gets worked out amicably though.

</comment><comment><USER31> From the border agent's perspective anyone can be a threat. You should approach these situations avoiding any actions that may confuse you with a lunatic or criminal. Not sure if that was the case here or not. Hopefully it was on camera so we can know the true story.

<comment><USER11> So the correct response is to supplicate before the guard, avoiding any visible signs of irritation, hurry, etc. It is generally preferable to put on the most benign facial expression one can muster to avoid threatening or annoying the guard, who has the power to waste several hours of your life on a whim, and can cause far more harm if he chooses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Blindsight (his book) is awesome.</comment>