Every time an engineer joins Google, a startup dies

"Whenever I see a brilliant kid decide to join Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, or Google, I think to myself: a startup just died, and as a result our world is a little less wealthy, innovative, and interesting."<p>Or, a future founder just began the process of gaining experience and perspective.

There are a bunch of advantages to the non-startup route:<p>- Weekends are yours.<p>- Guaranteed good pay. After ~4 years at MSFT, I was making nicely north of $200k gross. As a developer. In 2004 dollars --- it's probably more now.<p>- There are technical people more experienced than you, interested in mentoring your growth. I used to joke as a hiring manager that you could tell quickly in an interview how long someone had been in the startup pit because they had learned no new concepts (only new technology) since they started.<p>Why would anyone technical who doesn't explicitly want the startup experience do it these days? It's not like the mad IPO cash-out and low corporate pay days of the late 90s / early 00s.

<i>there are probably 100 Steve Jobs born every year. The vast majority just never have a chance or give a thought to starting a revolutionary new company.</i><p>A Steve Jobs that doesn't give a thought to starting a company is not a Steve Jobs. That's <i>all</i> he thought about from a young age. Just because our "top talent" often goes to big firms doesn't mean our <i>top founders</i> are going to big firms. A startup founder is more than just top talent; it's a very rare breed.

I think the reason so many VCs think the VC business needs to shrink is not that there' some limit on the number of startups, but because of a historical accident that caused the VC business to bloat suddenly. The bubble of the late 90s caused a great increase in the number of VC firms, and many of the new arrivals were incompetent. When VCs say the VC business is going to shrink, it's largely a tactful way of saying that those firms are going to get GCed.

When I was in college, I went to the career center looking for a job. I had my resume all spiffy and on it was a startup I had been working on in college.<p>The recruiter asked why I didn't pursue the startup idea and I said, "I need to pay the rent."<p>I think that sums it up right there for most. We enter college with nothing, and we leave college with less than nothing (i.e. $100,000 in debt). So we go get a job so we can pay the bills meaning we get $5k a month coming in pretty easily and that's a lot of money. It's definitely enough money for a college kid to pay for rent and be happy for a while and they probably end up being so happy that nothing else is worth the risk.<p>Why risk $60k a year on a startup that will buy you (if you are <i>lucky</i>) some ramen to eat and some space in your parents' basement? A BMW plus a phat apartment in a high rise is difficult to turn down for something that appears, for all intents and purposes, to have about a 1 in 1000 (at best) shot of success.<p>That's why we have no entrepreneurs anymore. Life is too easy without them.

V.C. is suffering because there are not enough companies that have got to a big enough stage for them to fund.<p>There needs to be more put into early stage companies. I meet endless companies in the U.K. that can't easily even get $20k to get off the ground. Yes, we've got SeedCamp, but it only funds 5 or 6 companies a year. There are 1000s of good potential companies in the U.K. alone that can't get this first step of funding. And that's the U.K. which is fairly developed for this and there are lot of countries that this could apply to.<p>Basically, I think we need several Y-combinator style companies in every country in every industry. I think as people see the returns come into Y-combinator there will be explosion of these companies as there a lot of people can spend $2m/year on a range of outside bets.

I know a number of people who after they graduate would love to focus on startups under the right circumstances, but one of a number of constraints they have is that they need health insurance, which isn't at present something that fits easily into a "Boot Strap Budget"

"Whenever I see a brilliant kid decide to join Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, or Google, I think to myself: a startup just died"<p>Many smart "kids" (gee, thanks dad, glad you know what's best for me!) want to solve interesting problems, not muck around with all that other stuff you have to deal with as an entrepreneur.

"Whenever I see a brilliant kid decide to join Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, or Google, I think to myself: a startup just died"<p>What does mere dumb brilliance have to do with creating a successful startup? I thought it had more to do with stamina, discipline, luck, persistence, flexibility, hunger, vision etc.<p>If that brilliant kid is more interested in working for a big company, maybe it just means that they were smart enough to realize that they weren't cut out for the ramen life.

Yeah but not all engineers who join Google stay in Google forever.<p>The ones who eventually leave and start their own company bring with them whatever parts of the Google culture that they felt were valuable: maybe it's the data-driven, engineer focused management style, maybe it's the code review and use of real computer science in the creation of software, maybe it's the free food rule.<p>They also leave after meeting a lot of smart people and making a lot more connections that could potentially help them in the future.

Most people here seem to think that startups are more net productive / innovative / whatever than large corporations? Even if this is true, that doesn't mean that everyone should join a startup.<p>Big companies like Goldman, McKinsey, and Google provide value not only to normal people, but also startups. Google builds tools and infrastructure that help power the Internet. There are probably tons of startups that rely on Google products like Gmail and Google Maps, and without smart engineers working at Google, those startups would be worse off.<p>McKinsey provides consulting services to companies big and small, including startups. Some startup engineers may not have the best knowledge for how to best access a foreign market, and companies like McKinsey, who do this research all the time, provide valuable business advice about how to set prices, enter new markets, structure growing organizations, and all kinds of other business questions that startups may not know how to answer.<p>Even Goldman Sachs has something to contribute to startups. GS financial advisers (as well those other banks, obviously) are the ones telling large sovereign wealth and pension funds to diversify their allocations into categories like venture capital. This money is critical for lots of startups to grow.<p>Maybe these companies aren't completely necessary for startups to start and grow, but they do have a lot to contribute to this space.

The company where I work currently, an analytics company, was founded by a McKinsey alumn.<p>The company is going on 9 years.<p>Our biggest client last year was McKinsey and when he first started the company (i.e. before biz dev), he leveraged the contacts he'd made at McKinsey heavily.<p>All in all, I'd say the article argues one extreme, when as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Many ex-googlers I know are now startup founders.

This article is very true.Normally when a person is fresh out of college the responsibilities are less, he might not be married or might not have a housing loan etc, so it is the right time to start a startup. Once a person joins a big company he comes into something known as a 'comfort zone' , its easy to get into that zone by following a defined path or trend i.e to say good college + good marks + some contacts and you land up a good job with good pay.Its difficult to get out of this comfort zone. I personally feel innovation happens mostly in startups.It does happen in big companies but in bits and pieces but in startups it happens all the time because innovation is the only thing that can make a startup a success.

BS. This is true of anybody joining any company.

Is it just me, or does it seem unfair to lump Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, and Google all into the same class? In particular (having worked at none of them), I'd reject putting Google, an engineering company, into the same category as the other two, which largely cater to institutional clients.

Not I think. He anybody has ideas and/or dreams and believe in himself he would have pursued it anyway. Now if you have some doubts then obviously go for the safer option. And may be as nfnaaron points out may be they are gaining experience.

This seems to be subtly jabbing Aardvark's acquisition, specially since Hunch (cdixon's startup) is still out in the open.

VC just needs to get out of its parents basement and spread out more. Why not open offices at major universities?

It's hard out there for a venture capitalist... Cry me a river. Let engineers choose the life that it best for them.