4 ms·

I know others already hit on it but since you replied to me: I would say those are not equivalent. With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your mo

I know others already hit on it but since you replied to me: I would say those are not equivalent. With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your money and doing something personal with it. When you're giving it to charity it's money you didn't need. If you didn't need the money, why wouldn't it go to the first employees (or even later employees) in the form of equity since they helped build the company? Surely many of them joined possibly at lower salaries to gain equity and now the founder(s) are simply giving it away to others? See the difference? Emotionally this feels awful. I was involved in something roughly sorta similar and the amount of emotion and resentment is awful. I'm now convinced more than ever that EQ (emotional intelligence) is one of the biggest parts of running a business while keeping your best talent. I see the good that can come from Founders Pledge but I also see it putting a company in a disadvantage in finding and retaining talent.

tptacek 10y ago
It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through. I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to myself being white, a male, my industry, the area in which I live? Why would my post, because of my race, gender, industry, area or country, make it disturbing whereas it may not have been otherwise? Where did I say other developers should "get dibs on" another founder's equity? Who mentioned "worthy charitable cause"? There are so few but I get the general impression you chose your words to try to make my comments appear worse than what they are. When you give to charity you give money you do not need, correct? So when you pledge X percentage of your equity to charity while, at the same time, paying less than the average salary for your workers who are hoping to use their equity as another way of compensation should everything go well, you're saying that because it goes to charity and because of their demographics, everyone should feel fine? I only talked about the emotions of such a decision. If someone tells you that they don't need a certain amount of money that they only made because of your and your team's hard work and you're being underpaid, you don't think you deserve to feel slighted? Because that's exactly what happens. Next time, instead of trying to make me look like a monster for talking about feelings, how about we try to understand each other's view point and talk this out?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't think you're a monster; I meant what I said. You seem to be proposing not only that it's a better idea to give money to software developers than to charities, but that founders who give money to charities are somehow violating some norm or ethic --- after all, any dollar they donate to charity is a dollar that could have gone to a developer on their team. I totally believe that's not what you're saying, but I'm struggling to find a logic in your argument that doesn't lead there. Help me out!
    - loeg 10y ago
      Maybe: pay your (startup) software developers enough to be able to donate to charity themselves.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Virtually all SFBA software developers make more than enough to donate to charity themselves.
  - whack 10y ago
    Your argument is premised on the assumption that startup employees are being underpaid. If they are really being underpaid, why did they agree to join the startup in the first place? Why not pursue other career options where they won't be underpaid? We aren't talking about big companies like Google or Amazon, which have tremendous negotiating power; we're talking about startups, which by definition, possess little market power through which to distort wages. The idea that someone can point to a very competitive marketplace, and unilaterally declare that the goods are being "undervalued", goes against all free-market/capitalist principles.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
cyphar 10y ago
> With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your money and doing something personal with it. When you're giving it to charity it's money you didn't need. And the founder could've easily continued to live in their parent's house. They don't need to buy a house either. And sometimes donating to charity is personal and necessary as well. Not everyone feels okay with swimming in giant piles of cash while other people need it more than them -- "other people" meaning charities. I don't work at a startup, but I pledge a significant portion of my salary towards many charities and free software projects. Why don't you do the same? It's not that I don't need my money (if you intend to invest your money then you technically always need more money), it's that they need money more than I do.

tptacek 10y ago

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through. I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to myself being white, a male, my industry, the area in which I live? Why would my post, because of my race, gender, industry, area or country, make it disturbing whereas it may not have been otherwise? Where did I say other developers should "get dibs on" another founder's equity? Who mentioned "worthy charitable cause"? There are so few but I get the general impression you chose your words to try to make my comments appear worse than what they are. When you give to charity you give money you do not need, correct? So when you pledge X percentage of your equity to charity while, at the same time, paying less than the average salary for your workers who are hoping to use their equity as another way of compensation should everything go well, you're saying that because it goes to charity and because of their demographics, everyone should feel fine? I only talked about the emotions of such a decision. If someone tells you that they don't need a certain amount of money that they only made because of your and your team's hard work and you're being underpaid, you don't think you deserve to feel slighted? Because that's exactly what happens. Next time, instead of trying to make me look like a monster for talking about feelings, how about we try to understand each other's view point and talk this out?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't think you're a monster; I meant what I said. You seem to be proposing not only that it's a better idea to give money to software developers than to charities, but that founders who give money to charities are somehow violating some norm or ethic --- after all, any dollar they donate to charity is a dollar that could have gone to a developer on their team. I totally believe that's not what you're saying, but I'm struggling to find a logic in your argument that doesn't lead there. Help me out!
  - loeg 10y ago
    Maybe: pay your (startup) software developers enough to be able to donate to charity themselves.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Virtually all SFBA software developers make more than enough to donate to charity themselves.
- whack 10y ago
  Your argument is premised on the assumption that startup employees are being underpaid. If they are really being underpaid, why did they agree to join the startup in the first place? Why not pursue other career options where they won't be underpaid? We aren't talking about big companies like Google or Amazon, which have tremendous negotiating power; we're talking about startups, which by definition, possess little market power through which to distort wages. The idea that someone can point to a very competitive marketplace, and unilaterally declare that the goods are being "undervalued", goes against all free-market/capitalist principles.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

cyphar 10y ago

> With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your money and doing something personal with it. When you're giving it to charity it's money you didn't need. And the founder could've easily continued to live in their parent's house. They don't need to buy a house either. And sometimes donating to charity is personal and necessary as well. Not everyone feels okay with swimming in giant piles of cash while other people need it more than them -- "other people" meaning charities. I don't work at a startup, but I pledge a significant portion of my salary towards many charities and free software projects. Why don't you do the same? It's not that I don't need my money (if you intend to invest your money then you technically always need more money), it's that they need money more than I do.