“Cultural fit” is one of the most corrosive ideas in the tech industry.

Culture is super-important-- in large part, to help make sure that the 47-year-old female Haskell badass and the 22-year-old male Ruby rockstar work well together-- but "cultural fit" is often used as an excuse for shitty behavior and exclusionist hiring practices.

Older developers, for example, bring a lot to the table. One study found that developers actually get better with age.

Very true. But people who've been around the block aren't going to carry a pager except for a project that is absolutely career-making for them (with both internal and external credibility as rewards) or when they're owners (and 0.05% ain't ownership). I hate the age discrimination culture but I know why it's there: there's a fear that older developers will "poison" the young with, you know, real world experience and knowledge about the industry and how it actually works, and of the games often played against politically inept engineers.

People often say that tech companies must be near other tech companies in order to succeed.

The Valley's about funding, not other tech companies. The west coast of the US is the easiest place in the world to raise VC. It's still difficult, and the process takes a long time and is generally obnoxious, but it's easier there than elsewhere.

Also, don't downplay "managed outcomes" (e.g. acqui-fails) that are bad for employees but good for founders' careers. Bay Area VCs can call in a favor they're owed, have the thing bought, and get the founders popped into executive positions at Google or Facebook. Harder to do that in Utah. This doesn't matter to employees but it's important for many VC-funded founders, especially since the VCs will push you to take on a much higher degree of risk than most founders would otherwise want.

They want privacy. “They say they work in an open office plan and wish they could go back to a cubicle,” he tells us.

Cubicles suck, too. Private or semi-private (i.e. two people) offices are the way to go. They're not that expensive. If you must use an open-ish plan, then give engineers booth-style seating where they have walls at their back. Open-back visibility is borderline abusive.

Don’t have the money for Swedish massages or an in-office coffee bar? There are less expensive perks.

Google's "free massage" perk is overstated. When I was there, you got one (for free) per year. Any more, and you have to pay for it. (That said, the price is quite fair.) This is not to nick Google-- I don't think that any company should be expected to pay for unlimited massage-- but just to point out that the competition ain't that stiff on the massage front. One 60-minute massage per year? That's about $80.

Many of those perks are cheap insofar as they're effective marketing expenditures. For $80 per employee, Google gets "free massage" out there.

Still, as a cynical 31-year-old, I'd rather have few of the "cute" perks and more salary. 401k matching and health benefits are important; massage, I can get on the market.

Finally, for one item that was missed... Rethink equity. Personally, I think finance-style profit-sharing (even if the bonus system can be really political) is superior. Also, equity has an uncanny valley. The amounts that non-executive employees get in startups are, quite often, so insignificant that I'd rather have it all in cash. If you are going to make equity part of the package, cut out slices that will make people actually care. This means 3-5% for employee #10 and 0.5-1% for employee #50... the actual numbers seem to be closer to 0.3% and 0.04%, which are in the "who gives a fuck" range.

People gripe about Wall Street's bonus system (in which profits are shared but employees, except for upper-tier executives, are not expected to acquire stock in the company) but it's a much better and fairer model of profit-sharing than what Silicon Valley does.