The most common problem, if you're a really talented engineer, is that you could work for a big company and be paid more in a single year than your business will bring in for its entire lifetime.
Conversely what you really find is, the people running 20+ person companies with tens of millions in investor money to bring in only $1m in revenue a year - they lacked the talent, actually, to just make the money at a big company. That you should start with the assumption that capitalism works, and that the person doing this thing is not stupid but just shut out from a better opportunity.
So maybe you're a really talented engineer but you are foreign so you'd need an H1-B to work for Google. Or maybe you're a former product manager from Microsoft who didn't quit, but was laid off, so you really can't just go and make the money.
A transplant surgeon brings in about $1m in revenue per day for heart transplants. There is no risk there, there is unlimited demand for heart transplants. It's just extremely hard to become a transplant surgeon, it is extremely competitive, much more competitive than making a website. While I'm not suggesting every startup CEO is just a washed-out up-and-coming surgeon, there is other stuff they may have washed out from broadly, like just medicine itself, that led them to chase the worse economics of where they are.
I think it's often more about personality than talent or money. Founders tend to be the kind of people that hate the idea of being a cog (even a very well paid cog) in a big machine. People often start companies not because they can't get a good job, but because they can't stand working on other people's ideas when they've got a head full of their own.
The first business I started out of college was enabled solely by the fact I couldn’t find a full-time job. Like, at all really, for any pay. Was the business I started modestly successful? Sure. But did I move on when far better opportunities came about? Yes, I did. Opportunity cost is very much a real thing that dictates who actually starts a business or goes to work for one for under market rates.
I have met some people who implicitly or even explicitly claimed they were above being an employee but I think they weren’t being honest about their actual employment prospects.
So, you've got a choice: $200K/year at bigco, or $120K/year + a one time payout of $2m when you sell your company in five year. Yes, slow and steady can win the race, but last I looked, $200K x5 is $1m. The solo founder will make $2.6m. Of course, there's no guarantee of any of this. The talented engineer could be caught up in layoffs at bigco, and the founder could go out of business or never sell. Usually, exits are done at a multiple of revenue, so it is not uncommon to sell a small company with $600-700K/year of revenue for 3-5x that amount.
BTW, raising tens of millions for one million in revenue doesn't happen that often.
Everyone I know who has worked at the top tech companies for 5 years has earned considerably more than the entire startup's revenue. I wasn't ever talking about the startup's equity value, but even if I was, they were earning more than the equity value they would receive too.
I've seen companies raise single digit millions and not even get close to $1M in revenue, over 5 years later. The result is founders have been diluted massively after a couple of down rounds. Meanwhile, preferred dividends are accruing year after year. The odds of a big payoff gets smaller and smaller the longer this goes on.
Odds are you'd make more money taking a job at BigCo, live like you only needed half what you're making, and invest that extra money into the public market. This isn't as fun though.
This is entirely correct, and it also true that there are more opportunities in the startup world to build something meaningful and exciting from scratch and to have an unforgettable experience doing it. Not quite everyone is in tech for the money..
The most common problem, if you're a really talented engineer, is that you could work for a big company and be paid more in a single year than your business will bring in for its entire lifetime.
Conversely what you really find is, the people running 20+ person companies with tens of millions in investor money to bring in only $1m in revenue a year - they lacked the talent, actually, to just make the money at a big company. That you should start with the assumption that capitalism works, and that the person doing this thing is not stupid but just shut out from a better opportunity.
So maybe you're a really talented engineer but you are foreign so you'd need an H1-B to work for Google. Or maybe you're a former product manager from Microsoft who didn't quit, but was laid off, so you really can't just go and make the money.
A transplant surgeon brings in about $1m in revenue per day for heart transplants. There is no risk there, there is unlimited demand for heart transplants. It's just extremely hard to become a transplant surgeon, it is extremely competitive, much more competitive than making a website. While I'm not suggesting every startup CEO is just a washed-out up-and-coming surgeon, there is other stuff they may have washed out from broadly, like just medicine itself, that led them to chase the worse economics of where they are.