I once had a job, where the CEO, during his monthly all-hands call, banned the phrase 'work-life balance'. He talked about it as an invention of the industrial revolution that applied only to sweatshop work. He was from a farm, see, and on farms, you work until the work is done. The company, he told us, never promised its employees work-life balance, and we should all stop talking about it. We should work until the work is done, like farmers do.
The chatroom I was in at the time exploded with everyone posting the job descriptions we currently had open, all of which boasted about the healthy work-life balance our company offered.
Those job descriptions changed within a week, and I left within 2 months.
Blockai is the first universal blockchain browser. A single platform for using the best blockchain apps, with a bitcoin wallet and social identity to make it simple to use.
We’re making it fun to explore and publish on the blockchain, visualized as a filterable stream.
The same way that Netscape took people into the world of the web, and built open-source technologies to support its growth, we are doing the same for the blockchain. Unlike Netscape, we have a clear path to revenue with a bitcoin wallet built right in.
We anticipate 1,000s of amazing applications will be built on the blockchain that will change the status quo of everything on the web. We want Blockai to become the main way people experience those applications.
> You'll be responsible for the reliability, security and scalability of our platform. You'll also get your hands dirty creating open-source protocols, customer service and whatever else the constantly evolving situation demands.
Wait $100k salary with 6% equity at max sounds not bad at all if you believe in their idea. Although I highly doubt they're a once in a decade opportunity that will be changing the world in a better way.
$100k in SF is laughable (for that kind of commitment). If you're not offering $200k minimum, it's not even worth 60 seconds of consideration. Unless you really really believe in that 6%. But man you really shouldn't.
Edit: To back this up a little more:
To buy a median house in SF you need to make ~$142k.
If it's an exaggeration then this industry's labor pool is in even worse shape than I suspected.
To put this in context: I'd consider myself average, maybe slightly above in some contexts, below in (many more) others, and my current salary (full-time, all-in) is closer to $200k than $150k. The majority (about 80%) of that is base salary, not "bonus", stocks/options, or benefits. If I can get a ("senior developer" level, not management) job with that compensation, the people in this valley who are much better than me (and that would be most, or at least many, many others) ought to be able to command significantly more.
Yes to the first, no to the second (I would almost certainly not qualify for the ones you listed--not for lack of talent, as I forgot more math by the time I took my PhD qualifying exams than most CS graduates ever learn, but for other reasons).
It is my second job in this area, and I'm a bit (~15%) better compensated this time than last.
I'm not sure how you're expected to value equity - most of the stuff I find online recommends valuing it at basically zero - or what the market is like in San Fran, but where I live, you can do quite a bit better than $100k and still have work-life balance. So the only real compensation they're selling is the dubious honor of working for yet another startup that thinks it will change the world.
One reason for working for them sounds less abusive, but more...stupid.
"You're one of the best front-end engineers you've ever known."
No, dickwad, that's a reason you should hire me. What it really means, of course, is: "We use the rash pride of inexperienced developers to set expectations sky-high, then justify the low salary when they turn out not to be the lovechild of Brendan Eich and Mike Bostock."
"Something you can be proud of when you're old and reflecting on your life." Yes, I would love to look back at my life and reminisce about all the hours spent at a desk and how my pension is now unable to put food on the table.
At least they offer a salary. I'm appalled by the number of startups that think "lunch and expenses" is acceptable compensation for up to 3 months of full time work with a possibility of a salaried position at the end
(Bonus points for boasting about funding and how nice the offices are in the ad and expecting the unpaid lackey to meet certain minimum academic standards and have prior commercial experience)
That's horrible. I've spent many a days at events (e.g. Code For Orlando) where you're expected to work for free, but they provide food, for one day on a volunteer basis to better your city.
But that's the clincher: It's only one day (on a weekend so it doesn't compete with your dayjob interests), it's completely volunteer, and it's fun.
A soul-draining corporate job without a salary? I shudder.
I thought a salary was... you know... the primary thing that separates "a job" from "doing whatever the hell you want". But I guess I'm just not passionate enough to be a slave to other people's enterprises.
> But I guess I'm just not passionate enough to be a slave to other people's enterprises.
I spend a lot of time working on open source. (I never do so at my dayjob.)
The second an open source project demands my time, I shut my computer down and go for a walk. Out of spite, to be truthful. Whatever is wrong, it can wait.
I've rarely ever accepted a request from an employer to stay late to work on something. And when I did, I regretted it later.
I'm passionate by most peoples' standards, and even I wouldn't subject myself to that treatment.
I can't even call people willing to do this masochistic.
There's a tremendous amount of idealization involved there -- that the cost of renegotiation/finding a new job is zero (it's not), that no systematic effects outside the market exist lowering salaries (they do), etc.
As an approximation, employees are paid what they're worth. It's an approximation, not definitional.
Your two sentences rather contradict each other - if an employee is already being paid what they're worth they should be unable to negotiate a higher salary or find a higher-paid job.
Being more specific - there may be transition periods where you may become more valuable (through training or whatever) at which point you have the opportunity to seek higher compensation. If one does not seek higher compensation, then one is trading their higher potential salary for other wants/needs (maybe they trade the enjoyment of their current work at a lower pay over the higher salary at another job).
In equilibrium and in an efficient market, the value of the labor provided is equal to the cost of the labor provided.
Of course, in the real world, there are inefficiencies and irrational behaviors, but to a first order - it's approximately correct.
Employers pay their employees exactly what they're worth - by definition.
That makes no sense to me. When I hire someone, it's in the expectation that the extra money they bring in is more than what they're being paid. They're worth what they bring in, and because I want to make a profit, I pay them a bit less than that.
Gotta give them credit for being "honest". Of course it plays off on people wanting to appear as eager and not workshy, but this is pretty sadist and I imagine the company is being a bit masochistic in this job market.
Who in their right minds would work for people who openly espouse overwork and aggressive work environment? I'd like a follow up on their ability to retain workers, provided they don't get "reeducated" in the process.
I can't see how this could appeal to anyone beside new male graduates in a bit of a bind and have some latent sadist tendencies. Or people looking for sponsorship and might put up with this ridiculousness.
> Who in their right minds would work for people who openly espouse overwork and aggressive work environment?
The screencap doesn't have an experience requirement so I am guessing fresh graduates and/or those who never got a BSC and are desperate. We're all laughing at the posting because we probably have had the misfortune to work at a place like that, or know someone who has. There are people who will fall into this type of trap and sadly it's the people who can't afford to.
I'm curious to know what is this company that is a "once in a decade" opportunity "to change the world for the better".
Is there a limit to this ridiculousness? What's next? "Join our company because it is literally the only path to salvation. Seriously, your life is worthless if you pass this up." Boom... now your company is a cult.
Run as fast as you can in the other direction of this job listing.
It's bad enough trying to manage a work-life balance at a company that claims to support it. I can't imagine how hellish it would be to work at a company that consciously scoffs at it.
We're all talking about what we would do when seeing this job post, but the issue isn't how many thousands of us wouldn't apply, but how many dozens would. And it's easy enough to test response rates to these things. I.e., as much as it turns off many of us it might turn on a few people, and they may even have some evidence that this approach works. No clue whether they did or didn't, but they can always post it again if they don't get applicants they like.
There's no point in debating what we like when they can get the right answer with confidence via testing.
Why would anyone ever take a job like this when there are tons of interesting jobs that actually do have work-life balance and pay a hell of a lot better? Hell, you could still work long 6-day weeks if you wanted to, but at least that way you would have the option of taking a break.
My job. Sitting at home in my pajamas, in a place a hell of lot cheaper than SF, making about the same amount these guys are offering (according to a link someone posted further up). I think I'll go for a walk at lunch, and keep working from the nature preserve down the road because it's a nice day. And when my wife gets home, 90% of the time the laptop closes and I'm off the clock.
If you can't imagine a job paying $100k+ that lets you also have a life, you're not looking hard enough. Or maybe I'm just lucky to not be a programmer.
I'm (obviously) not the person you're replying to, but information security, financial analyst, systems analyst (ok, some basic programming skill required), systems architect, IT audit all come to mind. That's just within the scope of the jobs I've been asked to interview for within the last 3-4 months. I'm a CISSP with a couple years of infosec consulting & audit experience; I can read/write SQL, and that's about it, in terms of programming.
That said, I understand large-scale organizational infrastructure and am current on the organizational concepts associated with building & mainaining a large-scale IT environment, so that's what I bring to the table as an employee. I work 40-45 hours in an average week, and the glassdoor box charts for positions with my skill set are typically between $80k and $130k, depending on experience and the company you choose to work for in my region.
Spot on. I'm an information security consultant for a major SIEM vendor. It's not an easy job by any means, but I don't have to fight tooth and nail for a job in an overly crowded market, I don't have to live in San Francisco, and I don't have to work overtime for less than market wages.
In my personal experience, you don't tend to be too successful doing freelance security consulting unless you have a lot of certifications and you're aiming at very small companies. Bigger organizations will go with PWC, even if you're half the price.
I had a company effectively tell me the same thing -- that taking their job would be disastrous for my hobbies/family ("We work from 10AM until 11PM most days, and later on Friday and Saturday") and then gave me a salary formula that would bring me down to making less than half of what I was currently making.
I politely declined -- and am still getting emails from them once a week saying that they'd love to have me on their team and if I reconsider, please let them know.
So don't work for this company? Sometimes people live and breathe the work they do, and are looking for others who will as well. It's up to you to decide whether you want to participate in what they're doing.
A translation of their post is "Don't work for us if you want either adequate compensation for your time and effort, or reasonable work hours."
People who fully invest themselves in their work should be compensated accordingly, and this company is at their own admission not doing so. They are not looking for dedication, they are looking for cannon fodder.
See, the trouble is there are people in this industry who would work at this place, and that contributes to lower wages and poorer working conditions. Sure, I won't work there but the fact that others will has an impact on me at least indirectly. I think that's sufficient reason to call out this kind of job/company for the bullshit it is.
Damn right they are, if they're doing it without pay. Any union would put a stop to that. A shame America's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are unwilling to act in their own interest.
"Asshole" isn't the right word, assuming you mean they are working overtime regularly without pay. I'd probably use other words like "gullible" and "useful idiot[1]." And, yes, I would put them in the same tent as the other useful idiots who'd happily (as opppsed to out of desperation) take a job advertised as per the link in the article.
I seriously want to meet the kind of person who looks at a job advert, maybe does an interview, and then decides "Yep, this is the kind of job that I would like to live and breath".
I can understand if someone does a job for a good while and gets invested and passionate about it. But who are these people who just look at job adverts and say "Yep, I could definitely centre my whole life around this."?
Maybe I'm in the minority with my opinion. This is pretty common in most startups in Silicon Valley (it is true in the one I'm working for currently). You usually have an option of getting a less pay, more equity or higher pay, less equity. It is assumed that you won't have much of a work-life balance, but some would like to spell it out clearly. Nobody forced me into this, I chose it because I wanted to work with brilliant people (I'm not saying there aren't any in established companies) and roll the dice and see where it goes.
I really don't see how this is so controversial when there is a chance, however small, that there could be a big windfall if things fall into place. For someone who values work-life balance, they should look to join an established company.
The chatroom I was in at the time exploded with everyone posting the job descriptions we currently had open, all of which boasted about the healthy work-life balance our company offered.
Those job descriptions changed within a week, and I left within 2 months.