[throwaway4000]

Having worked at several start-ups, I'd say the employment risks are not worth the cost. In most of my cases, when the start-up hasn't raised enough money, you end up with a poor work environment - pissed off/stressed bosses, weird work hours, "do anything" to save the business mentality... Generally layoffs/firings occur pretty abruptly and you're left filing for unemployment without a "thank you". My advice would be to wait for a start-up to be "derisked" / 3-5 years old with a solid run rate above $100m in revenue.

The few success stories, such as Airbnb and Facebook, are the extreme exception.

[jiveturkey]

I think a willingness to take on the risk is assumed by the author. Once you've made that choice, then how do you evaluate one startup vs another. (as an employee)

[throwaway4000]

i think we'll look back a decade from now and realize 90% of the start-ups from 2008 to present were small businesses in disguise with MUCH MUCH smaller markets than forecasted by founders.

i think hopping to a startup and back to a big tech company is fine. i've done it for career advancements, but it was grueling.

[tdumitrescu]

3-5 years old with $100M revenue is deep into unicorn territory already. I'm sure you can count companies that currently fit those criteria on one hand.

[ummonk]

I imagine they meant at least 3-5 years old.