[cloogshicer]

I disagree a bit here. Of course, salary is very important, but I (and many people I know) would easily choose (and have chosen) a lower salary for any combination of these perks:

- Work fewer hours

- Work from anywhere

- Work in a specific location

- Work in a certain environment

- Work in a specific kind of organization

- Work with specific technologies

- etc.

People are very different and have very different wishes and needs. Salary isn't always priority #1.

[xenadu02]

The problem isn't lower salary, it's the paltry options most startups offer these days.

The YC startup I worked for got acquired recently. I was employee #38. I've still made more in RSUs working at a big tech company than I would have made had I stayed the full four years and vested all my options. In fact I got a bigger RSU award this year than what I got from my stock in the acquisition.

Startups would be well-advised to hire fewer people, get rid of under-performers quickly, and reserve an extra slice in the cap table for really high performers. If someone comes along that creates entire new features on their own initiative (features still featured prominently in your marketing) then may I suggest you continue to award that person either their initial grant or half (depending on how much it was) on a yearly basis? Even if that means you skip an extra hire that year you'll still come out ahead, both by keeping your high performer happy and by saving the extra salary.

(I want to be clear: The founders were well within their rights to deny my requests for more options and I hold no ill will toward them. It was their business, not mine, and they were free to run it however they wanted.)

[albertgoeswoof]

But you don’t get any of those with a startup. They want you there onsite working long hours doing one specific thing

[souprock]

You can get those with a startup. I sort of did, for some definition of "certain environment" and "specific technologies" and so on. I still do actually, post-startup.

Notably, I got what most software developers would describe as "fewer hours". We tracked time and got paid for actual hours worked. (still do) Since the company would be paying more, we were/are seldom asked to work beyond 40 hours per week. Much of this comes naturally with government contracting. You must track time, and you must pay employees for their time.

Being onsite is a positive. I'm never expected to work at home. Work is work, and go home I can focus on my family or hobbies or sleep.

[humanrebar]

And even if they did make those promises and honored them, you're taking a risk that they won't. And it's not like you get the FAANG salary back if they can't follow through on working hours, the tech stack, or whatever other consideration is important.

[woolvalley]

Work from anywhere is a fairly powerful lever. You can reduce taxes and cost of living extensively and still be able to save the same amount of money in the bank and have the same amount discretionary income. I estimate something from a %30-%40 'discount'.

[schreiaj]

I work at a startup - I work from home, very reasonable hours, doing a range of things. So uh. What?

[Aeolun]

The only thing I would disagree with is that they want you to do all the things.

[cloogshicer]

From my experience, it depends entirely on the startup. There are enough success stories now from startups that treat their employees very well and came out on top.