4 ms·

Yeah, I've definitely felt like cattle at times... especially when I realize that my development team (and what we've built) is a big part of what adds value to

by gooseus 11y ago

Yeah, I've definitely felt like cattle at times... especially when I realize that my development team (and what we've built) is a big part of what adds value to a potential acquisition, yet no one on the current development team was here early enough to get any kind of substantial equity/options. So it really does seem like there is this expectation that we're supposed to be as happy as the investors/executives with any eventual sale, even though we will profit minimally (if at all) and have no choice in who our eventual overlords will be.

greggman 11y ago
I know no one likes to hear this but rewards are generally about risk. Someone, investors, risked their money. If their investment failed they'd be out $$$$$$$. Employees rarely risk anything. They get paid $$$$$$ a year. If the company fails they made $$$$ a month for the time they were employed. Now of course the response will be the employee took a risk by joining risky company A instead of stable company B or by risking a lower salary for potentially higher rewards but those risks are far far lower than the investors risks and hence get far far lower rewards. If you want the bigger return you have to take the bigger risk (in general)
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "I know no one likes to hear this but rewards are generally about risk" No, they're not. They're about value. If you're the one actually doing the work to make the company money, why shouldn't you be getting the bulk of the reward? The idea that people should be rewarded more just for simply having money is stupid.
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    This. It infuriates me when people casually dismiss workers claims of value by saying they didnt put any money in, so they deserve little. To me, my time is more valuable than you will ever be able to pay me for, but Im willing to take what I consider a huge paycut to work on something I enjoy and believe I can bring value to. To give a good example of this disparity in value eatimates, I have in the past done a lot of consulting work for law firms. In the process, I made friends with quite a few paralegals and secretaries. At least two I know locally are bringing in over 1mil a year by their own work product, mostly seperate from their bosses. neither of them have gotten a bonus or raise for it. Why? Because all the partners thing they have most of the risk (somewhat true) and therefor they should get it all. In reality though, while the risk itself is largely the partners, the value is not, and by failing to properly reward value contributions, they create a really fucked up employment atmosphere where people arent nearly as motivated to do all that work for so little reward. So for all the ones I know who do produce a lot of value and fail to get compensated, I know more who could bring that level but chose not to because they simply have no incentive. As a side note, I also recently found out that the office managers of various firms will call around and discuss salaries so that they can all keep position x at roughly the same pay in the entire city, so that people dont jump ship to other firms. When I said it seemed illegal, the secretaries said yeah, but what are you going to do, sue all the people in town who do it when they are the ones who are "upstanding members of the community, know all the judges, and have all the money?". This disparity of power is the problem, and I see it constantly. What annoys me the most is all the people who tell people to just be happy they even have a job, as if the oppressed should be happy and thankful for their wage slavery. Class warfare is real, ongoing, and the rich are winning.
  - greggman 11y ago
    The workers got paid. You said you'd do the job for $XX. Someone else took your work and sold it for $XXXX. You don't therefore deserve some cut of that sale. You sold your work for $XX. No one forced you into that. If you wanted a bigger cut you shouldn't have negotiated with someone to do the work for a fee. If you ask for a bigger cut of the sale you'll most likely have to give up some or most of the up front fee because otherwise you aren't taking any risk the sale won't happen.
- asolove 11y ago
  But also remember that risk isn't just about actual money, it's also about opportunity costs. If you join a startup that gets acquired but before your shares vest (or with preferences that kill the value of your shares), it's true that you still got paid well above an average non-programmer salary. But it's also true that you could have spent those years working for a much bigger salary at a big company. Or worked 35 hours a week and had a lot more fun with a significant other or friends. Or started your own company that might have turned into something you totally owned. There are certainly startups where the net dollar value that the engineering team turned down by not working at Google is as much risk as all the investors put in as cash.
- gooseus 11y ago
  I think some of it is relative. If someone is risking 500k on an idea, then I'm impressed... but that's because my net worth is negative. Some of these investors, and especially investor groups, have hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars and have access to lawyers and analysts who know how to hedge their risks. So to say that they're taking more of a risk with their investment based just on numbers ignores the fact that the risk to their actual well-being and wealth is actually quite low. For the generic employee of these startups, few people have the resources to evaluate the companies financials and the reputations of the owners/investors, etc. You're essentially given the same pitches that all other investors get and yet don't have the same resources to evaluate the credibility. Now you said it, employee risks joining eventual-failure company A instead of eventual-unicorn company B or risks giving up years of a higher salary for the potential of windfall stock options. Looking at just the numbers, losing 20-30k/yr in salary over 2-5 years is 40-150k loss, nowhere near the 500k single investment... yet comparing the net worth of these individuals you realize the investor risks a small percentage of their net worth, while the employee risks a much more significant portion. This isn't even taking into account the emotional investments that employees make, which are almost always higher than those of investors. The main point being (and I hope I'm making it decently) is that how you have compared risks between individual employees and investor groups is not exactly fair.

by gooseus 11y ago

greggman 11y ago

I know no one likes to hear this but rewards are generally about risk. Someone, investors, risked their money. If their investment failed they'd be out $$$$$$$. Employees rarely risk anything. They get paid $$$$$$ a year. If the company fails they made $$$$ a month for the time they were employed. Now of course the response will be the employee took a risk by joining risky company A instead of stable company B or by risking a lower salary for potentially higher rewards but those risks are far far lower than the investors risks and hence get far far lower rewards. If you want the bigger return you have to take the bigger risk (in general)

st3v3r 11y ago
"I know no one likes to hear this but rewards are generally about risk" No, they're not. They're about value. If you're the one actually doing the work to make the company money, why shouldn't you be getting the bulk of the reward? The idea that people should be rewarded more just for simply having money is stupid.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  This. It infuriates me when people casually dismiss workers claims of value by saying they didnt put any money in, so they deserve little. To me, my time is more valuable than you will ever be able to pay me for, but Im willing to take what I consider a huge paycut to work on something I enjoy and believe I can bring value to. To give a good example of this disparity in value eatimates, I have in the past done a lot of consulting work for law firms. In the process, I made friends with quite a few paralegals and secretaries. At least two I know locally are bringing in over 1mil a year by their own work product, mostly seperate from their bosses. neither of them have gotten a bonus or raise for it. Why? Because all the partners thing they have most of the risk (somewhat true) and therefor they should get it all. In reality though, while the risk itself is largely the partners, the value is not, and by failing to properly reward value contributions, they create a really fucked up employment atmosphere where people arent nearly as motivated to do all that work for so little reward. So for all the ones I know who do produce a lot of value and fail to get compensated, I know more who could bring that level but chose not to because they simply have no incentive. As a side note, I also recently found out that the office managers of various firms will call around and discuss salaries so that they can all keep position x at roughly the same pay in the entire city, so that people dont jump ship to other firms. When I said it seemed illegal, the secretaries said yeah, but what are you going to do, sue all the people in town who do it when they are the ones who are "upstanding members of the community, know all the judges, and have all the money?". This disparity of power is the problem, and I see it constantly. What annoys me the most is all the people who tell people to just be happy they even have a job, as if the oppressed should be happy and thankful for their wage slavery. Class warfare is real, ongoing, and the rich are winning.
- greggman 11y ago
  The workers got paid. You said you'd do the job for $XX. Someone else took your work and sold it for $XXXX. You don't therefore deserve some cut of that sale. You sold your work for $XX. No one forced you into that. If you wanted a bigger cut you shouldn't have negotiated with someone to do the work for a fee. If you ask for a bigger cut of the sale you'll most likely have to give up some or most of the up front fee because otherwise you aren't taking any risk the sale won't happen.
asolove 11y ago
But also remember that risk isn't just about actual money, it's also about opportunity costs. If you join a startup that gets acquired but before your shares vest (or with preferences that kill the value of your shares), it's true that you still got paid well above an average non-programmer salary. But it's also true that you could have spent those years working for a much bigger salary at a big company. Or worked 35 hours a week and had a lot more fun with a significant other or friends. Or started your own company that might have turned into something you totally owned. There are certainly startups where the net dollar value that the engineering team turned down by not working at Google is as much risk as all the investors put in as cash.
gooseus 11y ago
I think some of it is relative. If someone is risking 500k on an idea, then I'm impressed... but that's because my net worth is negative. Some of these investors, and especially investor groups, have hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars and have access to lawyers and analysts who know how to hedge their risks. So to say that they're taking more of a risk with their investment based just on numbers ignores the fact that the risk to their actual well-being and wealth is actually quite low. For the generic employee of these startups, few people have the resources to evaluate the companies financials and the reputations of the owners/investors, etc. You're essentially given the same pitches that all other investors get and yet don't have the same resources to evaluate the credibility. Now you said it, employee risks joining eventual-failure company A instead of eventual-unicorn company B or risks giving up years of a higher salary for the potential of windfall stock options. Looking at just the numbers, losing 20-30k/yr in salary over 2-5 years is 40-150k loss, nowhere near the 500k single investment... yet comparing the net worth of these individuals you realize the investor risks a small percentage of their net worth, while the employee risks a much more significant portion. This isn't even taking into account the emotional investments that employees make, which are almost always higher than those of investors. The main point being (and I hope I'm making it decently) is that how you have compared risks between individual employees and investor groups is not exactly fair.