[arcticbull]

You don't think someone who's smart, talented, and with diverse enough experience/background to found a startup and lead it to an exit would be capable of a staff engineer role at Facebook? What would you consider a fair point of comparison then?

[PragmaticPulp]

If we reduce people to pure levels of drive and motivation, maybe it’s a reasonable comparison.

However, in my experience the types of people who thrive in climbing the corporate ladder (Facebook included as a bureaucratic corporation) are very different from the types of people who seek out building their own successful companies. There’s less overlap between the two personality types than you might expect.

[logicslave]

"would be capable of a staff engineer role at Facebook"

Completely different skill sets. The founder can be scrappy with web programming, knowing a myriad of frameworks and some really good css. He's good at selling, networking, getting people on board with his vision. Maybe his real value comes from his domain knowledge, which lets him succeed where others couldnt.

Its a completely different job. The staff engineer could start a database startup, cofound some highly technical startup. But his highly developed technology skills just arent that valuable in an early stage company. Hes not worth 500k at a startup. He doesnt provide the same value he does at Facebook.

[jashmatthews]

You can work on compilers, distributed databases and other "hard technical problmens" as an intern. Staff Engineer means something quite different.

Staff Engineer is much more about understanding what to build (including the product implications), how to build it, how to communicate that with everyone else. The kind of skills that would make you a highly effective founding CTO.

[arcticbull]

I actually disagree with your characterization of the role at FB, however, what would you consider to be a better way to model opportunity cost?