4 ms·

I think his point is that anyone applying for and accepting regular, full-time employment does it with the assumption that the job will continue to exist into t

by pw 10y ago

I think his point is that anyone applying for and accepting regular, full-time employment does it with the assumption that the job will continue to exist into the foreseeable future. That's kinda the definition of "employee" in our society. And he's saying the alternative in this scenario is "cofounder", in which the would-be employee takes on a job that may disappear and is compensated for that fact by getting significant equity in the company.

throw9987432 10y ago
I mean, I understand what he is saying... but if you join a startup (even as an employee), you should be aware that your risk of your job going away is higher. If you want a really safe job for 20 years you would join the government or a fortune 100 type company. Does the 2nd and 3rd employee ever think his job is as secure as working for a fortune 100?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Good startup managers don't hire people they're not sure they can pay indefinitely. It's not the case that people applying to startups for jobs are aware of the risks that they're taking, and if your risk set includes "entirely possible this job is gone in 3 months", the word for the person who takes that job really is "cofounder". Either way, I think you're going to find that outside funding on the scale you're contemplating is much less magical than you think it is. It's going to be harder to close than you think, and it's going to do less for your business --- at least, if you really do mean to do all the things you need to do to stay off the funding treadmill! There's no reason you can't get on the funding treadmill and sell enough of your company to get a "runway" to the next round of funding. Lots of successful businesses are built that way. It's harder, however, to think of bootstrapped businesses that have leveraged small seed rounds tactically the way you're thinking of. You may also find that it's difficult to raise funding when one of your "use of proceeds" bullets is "enables me to quit full time job". People who invest in startups are largely driven by signals, and a pretty important one is "founder believes in the business enough to have dedicated themselves to it full time for some time".

by pw 10y ago

throw9987432 10y ago

I mean, I understand what he is saying... but if you join a startup (even as an employee), you should be aware that your risk of your job going away is higher. If you want a really safe job for 20 years you would join the government or a fortune 100 type company. Does the 2nd and 3rd employee ever think his job is as secure as working for a fortune 100?

tptacek 10y ago
Good startup managers don't hire people they're not sure they can pay indefinitely. It's not the case that people applying to startups for jobs are aware of the risks that they're taking, and if your risk set includes "entirely possible this job is gone in 3 months", the word for the person who takes that job really is "cofounder". Either way, I think you're going to find that outside funding on the scale you're contemplating is much less magical than you think it is. It's going to be harder to close than you think, and it's going to do less for your business --- at least, if you really do mean to do all the things you need to do to stay off the funding treadmill! There's no reason you can't get on the funding treadmill and sell enough of your company to get a "runway" to the next round of funding. Lots of successful businesses are built that way. It's harder, however, to think of bootstrapped businesses that have leveraged small seed rounds tactically the way you're thinking of. You may also find that it's difficult to raise funding when one of your "use of proceeds" bullets is "enables me to quit full time job". People who invest in startups are largely driven by signals, and a pretty important one is "founder believes in the business enough to have dedicated themselves to it full time for some time".