3 ms·
> Almost by definition, if a startup succeeds its founders become rich. And while getting rich is not the only goal of most startup founders, few would do it if
by kzhahou 11y ago
> Almost by definition, if a startup succeeds its founders become rich. And while getting rich is not the only goal of most startup founders, few would do it if one couldn't.
As usual, the investors and founders are teamed up, with employees in the background. In contrast with founders, there is no certainty that employees will get any life-changing financial gain from working at a successful startup. The only certainty is that whatever the founders make, the employees will make several orders of magnitude less. In fact, all employee wealth put together won't usually add up to the founders' share.
I understand why founders are OK with this and have a long list of justifications including "personal risk" and vision. But why do non-founders continually sell themselves short?
I find it ironic that's there such a blatant economic inequality even among those who create the wealth.
- firebones 11y agoThat quote stuck out for me as well. It assumes there are no models where value can be created unless the value creators can become rich. At the very least, the typical Kickstarter project is one where value is created and the creators don't become rich. Or that no one would try to create value in the absence of potential riches. To say that "few would do it" without the prospect of becoming rich is bogus. Describe the world in which these motivated founders roll over and give up the essence of who they are. Even repressive, dictatorial regimes have entrepreneurs. The will to innovate and create value won't disappear if the rules change. It never has.