[econner]

The best part is stock options. Not only are you not diversified, now you get to concentrate your portfolio by buying stock in the company that provides your income.

Stock options: for concentrating your income and your investments when you're excited and biased.

[JohnFen]

Decades of experience has taught me that stock options are essentially wallpaper. Sure, if a company wants to give me options, I'll take them -- but they are in no way a substitute for real compensation, and I won't accept them in lieu of something real.

That said, if a startup is doing something that really turns my gears and I like the company, then I'm absolutely willing to work for less pay in order to be a part of that.

[deanmoriarty]

Something I never understood about this attitude ("... then I'm absolutely willing to work for less pay ...") is: why there are almost no examples of such behavior in other highly paid professions, such as physicians or lawyers? Very rarely you'll find physicians saying "I really want to become a brain surgeon, I'll happily take 40% less than my market rate". You'll certainly find physicians doing volunteering, but that's another thing.

In software instead, that's incredibly common: several of my coworkers (late stage private company) are in mostly for the thrill of working on our technology since we operate in some interesting niche, and I know for a fact they are paid much less than me (30%+), even if they have a bigger impact than me on the company (and they are also older, with more experience!).

It's so common that many times employers use it at their advantage, by preferring people that can be sold purely on the tech rather than the tech AND the market rate for the position.

To me, both the financial aspects and the technical challenges must be absolutely satisfied in order to join a company. Maybe I'm too practical because I'm not a trust fund kid and grew up dirt poor, so I know that in my limited ~20y engineering career (assuming ageism) I need to make enough so that I will be able to retire comfortably, while making sure I work on stuff that stimulates me so I can give my very best.

[the_jeremy]

I think there are. Teachers (pretty much as a whole) and public defenders seem to fit here.

I know multiple photographers whose passion is landscapes/nature and only grudgingly supplement that income with weddings/portraits.

[deanmoriarty]

With regards to teachers or photographers, that's not a fair comparison in my opinion: in those cases, low wages are mostly dictated by high supply vs low demand, so from an economic point of view it "makes sense". That's much different than software engineering or medicine, where there is a scarcity of supply (and the only reason why software salaries are in the 6 figures).

In other words, teachers are not willingly giving up a portion of the compensation that they could otherwise be making doing the same job somewhere else. In software instead, that happens ("Oh, you work on FOO v2.0, I'll happily take 40% less than what I could otherwise be making doing this job in another company").

I don't know about public defenders, you might have a point there.

[apersona]

From my perspective it looks like a good amount of teachers decided to give up a portion of the compensation earlier (i.e. they gave up good pay not when they're looking for another job in an industry they're already in, but they decided to give up good pay upon joining the industry).

It's like how artists/writers/game developers/etc. decide to go into their field even though they know that they could be making much more money in any other field.

[BigJono]

It's still just supply and demand. Sexier products draw more candidates. The only reason you're taking 40% less to work on something cool is because if you don't, someone else will.

Most people eventually have to decide whether they want to make 150k writing CRUD apps or 90k writing algorithms.

[joe3774]

doctors without borders unusually have a very well paid job and do the free consultations on the side, like writing code and publishing it on github

[JJMcJ]

Also a physician working with Doctors Without Borders doesn't do it for a chance to get really rich.

[halbritt]

"Less pay" generally entails something that's still reasonably lucrative. One could potentially make 20% more at one or two FAANG companies. Frankly, the big difference is in the RSUs. It's not unusual to see $100k/yr RSUs going to a senior engineer at one of them whereas at a startup, the equity is most likely worth nothing.

Basically, startups are a terrible place to work. I wouldn't recommend them to anybody. However, there are some folks, myself included, that love them.

Tech or IT or whatever you call it tends to happen at a glacial pace in structured organizations. Most IT projects fail. Most folks don't care. They want to come to work, do their thing, potentially excel at their thing, go home at the end of the day, and enjoy their life. At a startup, someone that's eager to contribute can really make a difference. One inspired idea has the potential to really move the needle when it comes to the success of the business.

[sk5t]

How about: Doctors Without Borders? Docs who enter general practice in underserved areas rather than metropolitan dermatology? Legal pro bono work, or most prosecutors?

[JJMcJ]

They forgo some income, or work for free.

But for public service, not because there is a 0.1% chance they'll get a lot of money.

[deanmoriarty]

You might have a fair point. I am, however, empirically convinced (but have no data) that the examples you are quoting are a very small portion of their respective professional market population, whereas, always empirically, I'd say that the amount of software professionals who willingly choose to be underpaid purely because of their attraction to some kind of work is much much higher, probably in the 30%+.

[lmeyerov]

Someone doing pediatrics might have been better off skipping med school and being a nurse practitioner, or a taxi programmer. Or when going through it, specializing instead in dermatology. Now imagine your town without any pediatricians and GPs and emergency staff ;-)

[lmeyerov]

Doctors pick specialties and the balance of $, time, stress, location, marvel, and giving back all factor in. Think city dermatologist vs small town pediatrition.

Source: married to an md phd, meaning ~half the potential salary is both forgone and that time is used to be in public labs solving cancer. Hours still stink tho and every day is life and death, so aggrieved programmer discussions of hours, burnout, compensation, and ability to own equity come off sounding similar to how bankers do. Clearly real for those living it, but odd from the outside.

[qqqwerty]

There are a few factors that you are overlooking. A lot of startups (and small companies) aren't on the 'SV Unicorn Track', particularly so for startups focused on 'hard' problems. Energy, biotech, aerospace, etc.. These types of startups often have to cobble together funding from a variety of sources (grants, strategic partnerships/investments, niche VC firms). The pay is lower because it has to be, funding is limited and developing the product (and sometimes just a prototype) can take years, so there is little to no revenue.

Something to consider as well, is that while the salaries might be lower, they are often not that far off from what one would make in their respective industry. So someone working at a biotech startup will probably be making a lot less than a FANNG engineer, but would probably be pretty competitive with their peers in 'BigBiotechCo'.

And the other thing to consider is that engineers, and in particular programmers, tend to be pretty bad negotiators. Its possible that your co-workers would gladly take a 30% raise if they knew they were making that much less. I highly doubt they are 'trust fund kids' (those folks tend to found crappy startups, cause if you are set for life, why would you work for someone else?). And if they are older (as you imply) its also possible they were starting to feel the impacts of ageism in tech, and took a low ball offer as a result. Or perhaps they have saved up enough from previous jobs and just don't care that much if they are maximizing their pay, and are more focused on working on cool things and with non-toxic co-workers!

[JohnFen]

> A lot of startups (and small companies) aren't on the 'SV Unicorn Track'

Yes. My willingness to work for less pay if the work is interesting enough only applies to those sorts of companies. The stereotypical SV-style business has no appeal to me regardless of what sort of work is involved. Been there, done that, learned my lesson!

[solveit]

The most obvious example is academic research. Many engineers, doctors, lawyers, and economists take massive pay cuts to work in an academic environment.

[shalmanese]

Plenty of lawyers quit Big Law to work in human rights law or as public defenders because they find the work more meaningful. All lawyers are also required to do pro bono work and different lawyers and some treat it as pro forma but many go above and beyond because they feel the work is important.

[JohnFen]

> I'm not a trust fund kid and grew up dirt poor

This applies equally to me.

Here's the thing -- a job that isn't fun and interesting is a job I can't tolerate regardless of how much it pays. Life is too short to suffer on a daily basis.

But I do have a minimum amount of income that I can tolerate as well. I have to earn enough money to live, after all. How much the minimum is depends on the cost of living in my area.

[deanmoriarty]

But does the “enough money to live” include money to cover your future living expenses as well? As I was saying, I plan for a scenario in which I’ll be “forced into obsolescence” in my late 40s due to ageism, and won’t be able to claim any social security benefits due to the massive deficit in federal budget.

Hence, what I really strive to make now is actually 3-5X my cost of living expenses every year, so I can ensure a decent retirement down the road.

Based on that math, I really can't afford the luxury of taking a job that will just cover my yearly expenses. In my case, I really have to go for jobs where swes make $300-400k/yr, and I live pretty frugally myself (I spend 60k/y post tax in the Bay Area). I don’t think it’s safe to assume software engineering is a career that you can keep up until your 60s, unlike teachers for example, so you have to plan for it.

I’ve seen several people actually employ this logic and justify to themselves a 120k software job at a cool Bay Area startup, because it fully covers their living expenses in the Bay, despite not letting them save even one single dollar for retirement. I think that’s very irresponsible though, and they’re in for a sad surprise when they’ll discover in their late 40s that employers don’t consider them as hireable as they once were, and now they have to drive Uber to not become destitute (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s hardly a great outcome).

[JohnFen]

> But does the “enough money to live” include money to cover your future living expenses as well?

I've covered that through savings over the decades. But, honestly, I don't expect that I'll ever retire anyway.

> I plan for a scenario in which I’ll be “forced into obsolescence” in my late 40s due to ageism

That's not inevitable. I'm in my 50s and am in as much demand as I ever have been. The key (at any age) is that you have to keep your skillset up to date.

Not all companies want experienced people, but companies who strongly prefer younger employees do so because they know they can take advantage of them, and so aren't the sorts of companies I'd be willing to work for anyway.

> In my case, I really have to go for jobs where swes make $300-400k/yr.

Yow! You must live in an area with an insane cost of living! If that were me, I'd move to somewhere more reasonable. Software engineering jobs are everywhere.

[fgonzag]

If Google or MS give you options, or RSUs, or whatever, they are essentially cash. You'll be able to liquidate them at market price as soon as you vest. So in those companies stock options are a real form of compensation.

For startups whose stock has 0 actual value in a market, then yeah stock options are worth nothing.

[alex_young]

Stock Options are just that - an option to buy a share of stock at a future date. They are a bet on a future outcome which contains lots of risk.

Restricted Stock Units are cash. They are new shares issued to you with restrictions on exercising them. Once they vest, there is no value in not selling them immediately. The tax consequences are the same if you hold them, and you gain the value of diversification by selling.

The above should tell you something about the calculation you are espousing. Yes, the very risky asset called stock options is much less likely to hold any future value. The risk implied should also tell you that for a rare good pick with lots of well managed influence to the outcome, you can succeed with fantastic gains where you cannot simply by holding public shares.

YMMV. The only way to win the startup lottery is to work very hard to influence the outcome. I can't think of any other lottery like that.

[sokoloff]

> The tax consequences are the same if you hold them

The gains that occur after vest-and-release are capital gains. Capital gains for assets held over a year are much lower than ordinary income rates for most people receiving RSUs. (It's still reasonable advice to diversify in the typical case.)

[alex_young]

I think I'm either misreading your comment, or there's a misunderstanding here.

When RSUs are issued, they typically appreciate in value due to either an increase in share price or a discount or both.

When the RSUs vest, one of 2 things happens: either the number of shares is reduced by a sum equivalent to pay income taxes, or (more rarely) income taxes are paid by the recipient later at tax time. In either case, the shares didn't exist in the recipient's account before that vesting date.

If the shares are sold, those funds can be used to buy other shares if desired. If they are held, they are just normal shares in that company. In either case, they appreciate as capital gains instead of income, starting with the point in time when they were either purchased or vested whichever the case may be.

[sokoloff]

When the RSUs vest, what typically happens is both of the things you describe. A number of shares is withheld at vesting and the value sent to the Treasury as an income tax withholding. The following April, you true-up the full tax liability with the full number of shares treated as ordinary income. (The withholding is typically at the supplemental wage rate [22%, used to be 25%], which is frequently not enough to cover the full amount of tax due.)

Your initial comment suggested that you didn't distinguish between the ordinary income and capital gains taxation for the pre and post time periods. It turns out you did understand that distinction, but I didn't glean that from your prior text.