> If 1 out of 250 ends up being a $100B company, 0.25% of equity you earn per year is $1M in cash.
Sound like the kind of math a startup would use to lure you in. More like 99.75% of the equity you gain will be worth nothing. And you won’t have 250 jobs in your career. What are the odds you actually land that 1/250 that has a great exit? Less than one in a thousand.
> What are the odds you actually land that 1/250 that has a great exit? Less than one in a thousand.
I’m sorry, but assuming you land in a random startup the odds of landing in the 1/250 would be one out of two hundred and fifty. There are other factors, but saying the odds are <1/1000 requires more justification.
At least I have some math, it looks like you pulled your numbers out of your butt.
It's true that you won't have 250 jobs in your career. But you don't need 250 jobs in your career. Take 10 jobs over 10 years. Eventually stay at the one that's promising. Startup returns have power law distribution, I'm sure you'll make some money eventually.
I don't know, my math might not be perfect, but it's not as ridiculous as you make it look.
> What are the odds you actually land that 1/250 that has a great exit?
What are the odds you're getting that Google job? Google has 0.67% acceptance rate apparently. That's only 7% probability of getting that job over 10 years. Or do you think you're more qualified and your odds are higher? If you think you're more qualified, then why do you think you're less likely to pick the right startup and get the right startup job?
> Take 10 jobs over 10 years. […] I'm sure you'll make some money eventually
Wasn’t it 1/250? Sorry but you’re pulling numbers out of thin air, all you have here is wishful thinking. Fact is most people who work for startups will not “eventually make some money”, their shares will be worthless.
In order to hit it big, you need to either be at the top of your field, which gets you exposure to unique opportunities, or be really good at picking winners (you might as well switch to VC in that case), or just be lucky. You can’t hop from one random startup to another and expect to become rich.
Again, probabilities don’t work like that. You’re not rolling dice to apply to Google, and FAANG jobs are not unattainable, nearly everyone I know that wanted one, got it eventually. Then you have guaranteed high income.
You can choose either life, and the risk/reward ratio is certainly much much higher for startups, but we have to be honest about the odds - they are not great for non-founders.
I guess my point with that is that you'll still make some money if you get a job at top company #2,#3,#4,#5, etc out of those 250.
> In order to hit it big, you need to either be at the top of your field, which gets you exposure to unique opportunities, or be really good at picking winners (you might as well switch to VC in that case), or just be lucky.
But that's exactly the kind of stuff you have to do get a good job at FAANG, is it not? Don't you need to be at the top of your field? Be a little lucky here and there? Maybe pick the right projects that end up being successful? Be a good fit for those projects?
> You’re not rolling dice to apply to Google, and FAANG jobs are not unattainable, nearly everyone I know that wanted one, got it eventually.
And my point is that it's the same with startups. You're also not just rolling dice. You can usually tell if the company you're joining is run by idiots. I also have a bunch of friends who made money, had successful careers working at startups. I consider myself to be one of those people. To be fair my FAANG friends are doing great too, and they do seem to have more job security :)
> You can choose either life, and the risk/reward ratio is certainly much much higher for startups
That's fair. It's all a bunch of compromises at the end of the day.
Sound like the kind of math a startup would use to lure you in. More like 99.75% of the equity you gain will be worth nothing. And you won’t have 250 jobs in your career. What are the odds you actually land that 1/250 that has a great exit? Less than one in a thousand.