4 ms·

Such a narrow definition of risk... Their money is the only risk invested? What about employees who moved across the country, or who worked for two years of th

by SamBam 10y ago

Such a narrow definition of risk... Their money is the only risk invested? What about employees who moved across the country, or who worked for two years of their lives here and lost the opportunity costs of working elsewhere, and now have nothing more than a failed company on their resume?

EpicEng 10y ago
So, I assume the company paid for you to make that move, right? Yes, you took on some risk by moving cross country, but you likely did so because the work was interested and/or the compensation was worth it. Let's not pretend that you didn't get anything out of the deal. So, it fails, as startups often do, and you find another job. During your time there you pocked over 200k + benefits. What a rough life. What did you lose exactly?
- joatmon-snoo 10y ago
  I'm so confused. You think that the startup employee, who's placed a bet on their own personal value, doesn't deserve sympathy, but the VC, who gets to hedge their bets, does?
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game. Sucks for both, but were paid quite well for what we do and can walk away whenever we like.
    - alpha_squared 10y ago
      Is "were" supposed to be "we're"? If it is, who's "we"? Not all startups pay "quite well" and there are varying levels of risk employees take. Some are certainly more extreme than others.
    - siphor 10y ago
      I think skin in the game is proportional to net worth... as a percentage of net worth, I'd bet employees put more skin in the game. If some unfortunate VC tied 100% of their assets in this, which was tied to 100% of some direct persons money, then that'd suck for sure. Not likely though.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game. No, they don't. They are putting more money in the game, but way less skin -- since with "skin" we usually refer to actual personal consequences (it doesn't get any more personal that our own literal skin).
  - jartelt 10y ago
    Both parties, investors and employees, should get sympathy and remediation. Employees have been paid a salary all along, but should still get a proper severance if the company is shut down. Investors who gave Theranos >$300M in 2015 also have a right to get some of their investment back if the company is hopeless. The investors are shareholders in the company and the board and CEO need to consider their interests along with the employees' interests.
  - hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
    Yes, the guy is a moron. You are wasting your time.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Why do you make these assumptions that they're well paid? And aren't VCs well compensated as well? In many cases taking the bulk of reward despite not doing any of the work?

by SamBam 10y ago

EpicEng 10y ago

So, I assume the company paid for you to make that move, right? Yes, you took on some risk by moving cross country, but you likely did so because the work was interested and/or the compensation was worth it. Let's not pretend that you didn't get anything out of the deal. So, it fails, as startups often do, and you find another job. During your time there you pocked over 200k + benefits. What a rough life. What did you lose exactly?

joatmon-snoo 10y ago
I'm so confused. You think that the startup employee, who's placed a bet on their own personal value, doesn't deserve sympathy, but the VC, who gets to hedge their bets, does?
- EpicEng 10y ago
  I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game. Sucks for both, but were paid quite well for what we do and can walk away whenever we like.
  - alpha_squared 10y ago
    Is "were" supposed to be "we're"? If it is, who's "we"? Not all startups pay "quite well" and there are varying levels of risk employees take. Some are certainly more extreme than others.
  - siphor 10y ago
    I think skin in the game is proportional to net worth... as a percentage of net worth, I'd bet employees put more skin in the game. If some unfortunate VC tied 100% of their assets in this, which was tied to 100% of some direct persons money, then that'd suck for sure. Not likely though.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game. No, they don't. They are putting more money in the game, but way less skin -- since with "skin" we usually refer to actual personal consequences (it doesn't get any more personal that our own literal skin).
- jartelt 10y ago
  Both parties, investors and employees, should get sympathy and remediation. Employees have been paid a salary all along, but should still get a proper severance if the company is shut down. Investors who gave Theranos >$300M in 2015 also have a right to get some of their investment back if the company is hopeless. The investors are shareholders in the company and the board and CEO need to consider their interests along with the employees' interests.
- hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
  Yes, the guy is a moron. You are wasting your time.
st3v3r 10y ago
Why do you make these assumptions that they're well paid? And aren't VCs well compensated as well? In many cases taking the bulk of reward despite not doing any of the work?