[doctorless]

Hands down, the number one problem in hiring and retaining senior engineers is being able to match the compensation level. FAANG-type companies have a huge difference to practically everyone else. Startups, especially, can’t match the salary, and few make up for it in equity comparable to the risk level engineers take on by accepting the job. Senior engineers typically know better, and so you end up with mid or even junior applicants for senior roles, and out of desperation, they end up being the pick.

[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

[gnulinux]

I find this "salary first" a little bullshit too. For the most part it's true, but it's not strictly true. If Amazon offers me $180k but I need to work like a slave, but a startup offers $150k but is very chill, I'm gonna choose the startup.

[Game_Ender]

What if Google or Facebook offer you $300k no risk, with a relatively standard work life balance. Then you have to really carefully weigh the startup equity package and how much you enjoy the respective work environments.

[WalterSear]

150k is reasonable, for a startup, but the majority are offering less. However, 180k is well, well below amazon.

And the stock grants won't begin to compare.

[scarface74]

There are other places in the US that are hiring senior developers outside of Silicon Valley and the FAANG companies. There are major metropolitan areas in the US where you can start a company, get good senior engineers and not have to pay the wages that FAANG companies pay.

[draw_down]

Well, feel free to name names then if that’s the case.

[burfog]

The difference being that the FAANG-type companies don't pay well enough to make up for the cost of living. Senior engineers seldom want to live in tiny apartments.

See if you can prove me wrong: find a 10-acre lot within a half hour commute, with a large single-family home, that is affordable to a senior engineer. Alternately, make it 1 acre, but within a 5-minute commute.

[burlesona]

I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re underestimating how many people like city life.

I work in SF and most of the people here are here specifically because they DONT want to live on ten acres in some rural place, they love that the city is walkable and dense and interesting.

For most folks the issue of living in condos or apartments it’s an issue at all until they reach a certain family size. At that point, most of the people in the city would be thrilled to live in a 3-4 bedroom townhome in the city — but THAT is where SF gets really difficult, because those cost $4 million or more these days.

Actually for many people they feel trapped because they’d like a LITTLE more space, ie. the Victorian townhome, but they specifically DO NOT want a car or a yard and do not want to leave the historic, walkable city. At that point you’re really screwed because outside of SF there is basically nothing else walkable west of the Mississippi. So there’s nowhere to go.

If somehow magically you could build a 1900s Victorian townhome city about 30’ away by train I think you’d find a couple million urban Californians wanted to move there.

But of course the sprawl all around the job centers, and the regulatory environment, both make that impossible.

Oh well.

[twblalock]

> See if you can prove me wrong: find a 10-acre lot within a half hour commute, with a large single-family home, that is affordable to a senior engineer. Alternately, make it 1 acre, but within a 5-minute commute.

That seems excessive. You certainly don't need to live on a multi-acre lot to have a good life.

I work at a FAANG and most of my colleagues own single-family homes and have no problem paying their mortgages. Of course they aren't on 10-acre lots -- we aren't in the middle of nowhere, we are in a city.

[masonic]

A 10-acre lot is a ludicrous metric, and even 1 acre (for a residence) metric is unrealistic. I doubt most technical types even want the burden of upkeep for an acre+. At that point, the main thing you're buying is isolation.

[joshuamorton]

Most people anywhere don't live on 10 acre lots (nor do they want to, I certainly don't!).

But yes, a senior engineer can likely afford a large single family home relatively close to work (many of my co-workers do).

[rockinghigh]

Living on a 10-acre lot sounds like a nightmare.

[landryraccoon]

> Alternately, make it 1 acre, but within a 5-minute commute.

Wait what? What city are you talking about that has a tech hub or commercial center within a 5 minute commute of 1 acre homes?

[gregw134]

A football field is 1.3 acres, so a 1 acre lot is going to be expensive anywhere.

[haditab]

Your somehow assuming cost of living is only high around FAANG. Bay area is full of non-FAANG companies that pay significantly less. Faang doesn't struggle to hire senior because they're the only places that affords to pay enough.

[philliphaydon]

10 acre is a lot of land. 435600 square feet intact. When I lived in NZ our home was on 9000 square feet. And that was a lot of space... I would think a fairer example is living in a landed home instead of an apartment. I’ve spent the last 11 years in apartments and just had a baby, now wanting to move back to NZ to have a landed home and back yard...

[dlp211]

Stop looking at only the bay area. Google has offices in Pittsburgh, Kirkland, Austin, and Boulder. If you are willing to work at one of those locations, you can get pretty close to getting everything you want.

[esoterica]

If you want a 10 acre lot then your lifestyle is simply incompatible with city living. It has nothing to do with money or cost of living; even the billionaires in San Francisco don't have 10 acre lots.