[nadam]

Funny how the startup scene changes. Years ago, Paul Graham wrote essays like 'You weren't meant to have a boss'. Nowadays talent aquisitions are seen as huge successes while (money aside) we are celebrating that some former founders found jobs at big companies. (I am also more pragmatic in this question than years ago, so I am not criticizing anyone.)

[pg]

(money aside)

That's the mistake in your reasoning. The money makes a talent acquisition significantly different from getting a job.

[nostrademons]

I'm curious what the average founder's take is in a talent acquisition. http://ycombinator.com/nums.html indicates that 80% of YC's acquisitions have been for <$10M - so does that work out to about $1-2M per founder, after investors and employees get their cut?

Not chump change by any means, but skilled engineers in Silicon Valley can easily make $250K/year in total compensation. If a startup takes about 3 years of ramen wages to come to fruition and then the founders are locked up for another year while they vest, the plain old employee will have made about $1M in the time that the startup founder made maybe $2.5M. Startup founder is still ahead, but they took on all the risk of their startup failing and them getting nothing, and the difference is only about a factor of 2 instead of an order of magnitude.

[pg]

Yes, talent acquisitions tend to be 1-2m per founder. The founders make more after tax though because they pay long term capital gains tax rather than income tax.

A talent acquisition is not usually the founders' first choice. What they get in return for the risk of the startup failing is the chance of a really big success. A talent acquisition is usually a backup plan. As a backup plan it's a pretty good deal.

(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)

[zackattack]

>(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)

I thought acquisitions were one of the last surviving relics of indentured servitude, besides universities. My guess is that it's still a better deal when you adjust for risk, likelihood of large success, and fully look at the expected value matrix. Though I'm skeptical that you can really discuss probability in the context of multiple people's talents, without historical data (the best proxy I see is that you were _chosen_ by pg or other tier 1 VC, and said VC has this historical record, etc.)

[onewland]

$250k easily? I think that's a level of skill that is not at all common.

I'm not saying nobody gets paid that all, but developer compensation needs to be more realistically looked at on this forum. I'd say the majority make less than $100k, and $150k or more puts you in the top 5 percentile.

[nostrademons]

The level of skill needed to build a company from scratch and have it bought by Google is also not all that common. Apples-to-apples here: if you're going to compare a startup founder to an employee, you should compare them to someone of equal skill.

[Hisoka]

Anyone can "build" a company from scratch.... But it takes a lot to build a successful company from scratch, which isn't what Fridge did here. I mean, I know not everyone is a startup founder, but the costs and barriers to being one is pretty low these days... just start a website, say you're doing something special, and you can call yourself a "founder".

[nostrademons]

That's still missing the "and have it bought by Google" part. I know how low the barrier to entry for founding a company is - hell, I've done it myself - but there's still a fairly high bar to being acquired, or even aqhired.

[jsavimbi]

Well, if you're making that magical $100K and you vest after three years for, oh let's say $300K, that'll bring you up to $600K not including benefits and other compensation that could, in theory, make you $250K if you're willing to swallow the opportunity cost of working at $100/yr.

[jsavimbi]

Was I downvoted for math errors?

[suhail]

You should note: founders do make a salary which lowers risk. We have to eat and pay the bills somehow. So the opportunity cost you speak of is simply the net loss of potential salary - startup salary. Founders probably take nothing in a year one, something small in year 2 (50-80), and year 2+ is variable.

Another consideration is you learn a lot more than you generally would at a big company. There's a lot of value in knowledge and many (despite it sounding corny) deem that as invaluable--worth forgoing 100K/year in salary.

[brandnewlow]

Startup founder will also have no shortage of people willing to back her next company and a network of interesting people she can draw on for advice for life. Might that be even more valuable than the money?

[diolpah]

This is not always true. Plenty of founders who spend time working instead of networking end up with a sparse network and very few people even aware of their success.

[rdl]

Less true if you are the kind of startup which could get talent acquired in the first place.

In the bay area at least, it would be really hard to be working on something worthwhile and remain totally sequestered from a network. The bigger problem is not getting caught up in it to the exclusion of spending time working.

I'm sure it is different outside the bay area, and is absolutely different outside the USA.

[akkartik]

I tend to think of offers in terms of how long I can live on the savings from a single year. If you make 100k and save 20k, you make 200k and save 120k[1]. It's not 2x but 6x.

[1] I'm not considering taxes and so on, but the basic idea of leverage still applies.

[nostrademons]

That's a fair way of looking at it, but again, you need to compare equivalent lifestyles. If a startup founder lives on $30K/year because they were constrained to that for the 3 years they were growing their startup, you should compare that to an employee also living on $30K/year. In both cases, their expenses are negligible compared to their income. The employee banks about 7 years for every year he works (modulo taxes, which are not insignificant), while the startup founder banks nothing for the first 3 years and then banks 60-70 years in the final year.

[prpon]

I wonder how many of these talent acquisitions happen because of being related to YC? There are many startups out there with strong talent. Not many of them get acquired for talent reasons.

How do talent acquisitions happen? Do they usually start with exploring partnership opportunities?

[rdl]

I'd draw a distinction between talent acquisitions to go join the general pool of people at a big company, and talent acquisitions to work on the big new focus of a "sleeping giant", in something similar to what you were doing before.

[nostrademons]

Wasn't Etherpad the latter, and then they found out that big new focus had been canceled and quit? Same with Dodgeball, Aardvark, Jaiku, Jotspot, and any number of other acquisitions.

You shouldn't assume anything about what your job duties will be in a big company, even if it's written into your contract. Big companies have an internal logic that often makes no sense to the outside world, and usually depends upon what the decision makers are paying attention to at the moment. Priorities change.

[rdl]

Other than YouTube and Android, nothing Google has set out to do approaches how seriously they are taking Google+. Bigger than gmail, definitely (which, for acq, is tied to o Grand Central I think)

Wave had its own issues, mainly due to being political and inviolate, from what has been written outside google. It was really sad to see etherpad get caught up in that.

[timxpp]

True. If they would go and work for IBM, would it still sound so good? How come getting a job at Google is seen as a small Nobel price?

[hristov]

I never really understood talent acquisitions. They are still puzzling to me. If you only need the talent why pay for the company? A huge chunk of the money you are paying for a company goes to the investors.

Why not just offer the people that you like multi-million dollar signing bonuses and have them join you. But what if they want to stay in the company and believe in their product, you say. Well if that were the case why would they agree for their company to be acquired in a deal that shuts down their service?

I don't know, I must be missing something.

[ChuckMcM]

Perhaps your puzzlement comes from a lack of exposure to all the variables? Not being critical here, I don't know anything about your background.

For some people, they have a demonstrated level of competence which allows them to work on what ever they are passionate about. If that is combined with a modest disregard for money such that they work somewhere because they are passionate, and for any salary as long as it meets some base level. If you want to hire them it is effectively impossible.

You have recruiters call them, they brush them off. You invite them to conferences and schmooze them with all the great things going on at BigCorp and they thank you politely for the invite and don't call back. You shower them with flattery, gifts, whatever and they persistently ignore you.

But if they get passionate about an idea and start a company around it and work day and night to breathe life in it, and more importantly take outside money, then BigCorp gets a chance. If BigCorp can convince the investor(s) to sell them the company they can move this thing you are passionate about into their company and have this star entrepreneur follow it.

Then there is a somewhat less sensational side, you've started a company and you've convinced people to invest, people who are now your friends, and it hasn't turned out quite the way you hoped it might. Perhaps the timing is off, or there was some gotcha you thought would be insignificant but turned out to be much more difficult, or maybe someone turned up a patent or something that makes your idea impossible to implement. Maybe its as simple as customers are willing to pay you what you need to make in order for you idea to be a viable business. You've got talent, you demonstrated an ability to execute, but your investors aren't going to come in on another round of funding because they, like you, no the concept as planned is dead.

You are friends with these folks (your investors) and you don't want to screw that up, so if BigCorp comes along and buys the company which pays off the investors, you get to keep your friendships intact, BigCorp gets to put some golden shackles on you for some period of time, and you get to try again after the shackles come off.

The short of it is that its rarely successful for a large corporation to 'poach' employees by luring them away with promises of better pay and more regular working hours.

[revorad]

Years ago, PG also wrote "Hiring is obsolete" - http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html

[badclient]

Nowdays talent acquisitions are seen as huge successes

Citation needed.

[AlecSchueler]

See: the congratulations that are invariably offered in threads like these.

[badclient]

Sorry if its just me but I always thought that if you've spent some time around HN, you can tell between talent acquisitions that occur out of need(other option being going dead) and talent acquisitions that occur from a position of power(ie. friendfeed). In the former case, congratulations are still in order for the founders not coming out completely empty handed, but I would not term it as "huge successes".

Congratulations != huge success(in the big picture sense)