[lolinder]

OP's not suggesting they're trying to fail, OP is suggesting they're not trying very hard to succeed.

A typical bootstrapped business wouldn't dream of spending money on equipment that wasn't absolutely essential because it pointlessly burns valuable runway. But when you're spending someone else's money and don't see this startup as your one shot—when you can always start again with a new VC when this one fails, and the new VC will be totally understanding of your past failures because that's just how the dice roll—the need to be careful isn't there, creating an incentive to live it up while you're flush with cash.

[rsynnott]

High spending on office furniture etc is _not_ a common behaviour for early-stage startups, tho. It's really something that you see more from mid-stage, and generally at a point where it doesn't _really_ matter; the amounts just aren't significant enough to make more than a few days' difference to the startup's lifespan if the next raise doesn't work out.

[cloverich]

> wouldn't dream of spending money on equipment that wasn't absolutely essential

The issue is if they don't create a desirable work place, they will have trouble attracting and keeping talent. Further most of the luxury items pale in comparison to a single engineer's salary. E.g. 10 engineers with cushy job setup, or 11 engineers with a very lean one. The former may be more attractive to the kinds of engineers you want. The trick of course is identifying the talent, IMHO and IME this is why most startups don't make it.

[lolinder]

These days, just offering WFH would be more than enough to attract the right kind of talent, with the benefit of not only not needing to pay for a cushy office but not needing to pay for an office at all.

[avgDev]

I will take WFH offer anything, especially forced "team" exercises.

Pay me competitive salary. Allow me to WFH. Spare me all the cheap benefits.

[toast0]

Some talent is going to be more attracted to sensible cost controls than lots of cushy perks.

But up to you what kind of talent you want to attract.

[atomicnumber3]

Often, one of those cost controls will be penny-pinching on salary. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a place that pays a generous salary and then buys knockoff/used aerons instead of brand new / brand name.

But often the company is either stingy or generous, and they view the chairs and the engineer comp as both things to invest in, or neither.

[lolinder]

You know your salary before accepting the offer, so if they're that kind of cost control you should have advance warning when they lowball you.

I think the big reason why this is so common is because the type of talent a lot of these startups want to attract is explicitly immature talent. People who are drawn to fluffy perks without realizing that they (a) don't actually benefit from them in any real way and (b) are actually a warning sign of what's to come financially.

[DanielHB]

Given that most employees are underpaid at very-early stage startups with stock options it seems deliberate fraud is not common at all. Besides monetary compensation the "have a failed startup in the CV" argument doesn't seem a big draw either.

I don't see how VC funding is being syphoned away by fraudsters at all. Syphoned away by incompetence yes, not deliberate fraud.

[jayd16]

Amusing office perks (and any other benefits down to the Mr. Coffee) are a branding and recruiting exercise. They are essential.

It's just a matter of budget and efficiency.