zlacker

>>colone+(OP)
Is it wrong to be glad FB's reputation has tarnished (and stock price sideways) over the past year or so? For so long they've monopolized the talent pool in the Bay Area. If more people decide 1) they don't want to work at FB and 2) FB employees are itching to leave then I see any stain on FB's employment brand as a net positive to the greater tech + startup ecosystem.

>>dawhiz+N1
How have they monopolized the talent pool? By paying their employees better than everyone else?

>>ummonk+I3
there is also prestige associated to big names like Facebook (and Google, Apple, etc)

>>make3+45
> there is also prestige associated to big names

I hate that this has happened. The Bay Area used to be a place where working for the big, shiny company that makes your parents happy wasn't prestigious. It was safe. But taking a risk and starting something new was admired. The present state of affairs reminds me of Wall Street.

>>JumpCr+N5
What happened was that VCs started sucking up all the equity and it became not worth it from a risk-reward perspective for most people to work at a startup. This, coupled with companies staying private longer meant that in the lat 5 years, you were better off working at G/FB than a small or mid-sized startup.

e.g https://www.slideshare.net/a16z/state-of-49390473/29-29Becau...

>>umeshu+me
While VCs certainly played into this, I'd say founders merit the bulk of the blame. VCs are generally more amenable than founders to larger equity pools for employees. They're also much more enthusiastic about IPOs than founders, since they want liquidity events for their investments.