4 ms·

Leprino not giving his chief engineer/scientist any equity at all is definitely not a small fault. I can see why ShabbosGoy might say Leprino is worthy of scorn

Leprino not giving his chief engineer/scientist any equity at all is definitely not a small fault. I can see why ShabbosGoy might say Leprino is worthy of scorn. "I would tell people,'Lester is the man that made me rich,' " Leprino says. Notably, though, Leprino never gave Kielsmeier any equity. While Leprino got rich, Kielsmeier — who came to work every day right until his death at 95 in 2012--would have to content himself with being very well paid."

jdboyd 9y ago
I initially reacted poorly to that part. However, on further thought, some people just don't want partners, which is where granting equity leads. We don't know what being very well paid means in this case. If Kielsmeier was making $500k or $1 million a year, that wouldn't be too terrible, and perhaps would in the end be as much as he would have gotten from whatever equity he might have gotten. Of course, well paid might have meant only $150k a year, which seems less fair. But really, we don't know and shouldn't jump to assuming that no equity didn't mean unfair compensation.
- jakobegger 9y ago
  Also, some people don't want to be partners. Some people just want a job, and let someone else worry about all the responsibilities.
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    Are you one of those people?
- DamonHD 9y ago
  Use your favourite search engine to look for "Rich vs King" and Noam Wasserman... There are legitimate alternative approaches. I am the founder of a (previous) start-up which has a loooong list of small shareholders that costs real money and time to handle any time there is some corporate action. Equity is not always the right thing to hand out.
cko 9y ago
Alternatively, if you've read Felix Dennis' humorous book 'How to get Rich', he says to never part with any equity. He gives an example of a time his top executives get together and ask him for a piece of the pie, and he fires them all. Not what I would have done, as I am a big softy and would be giving out chunks of equity left and right, but that would probably explain why I'm not rich. Didn't Wozniak give out stock to people he felt bad for?
- idiotdummy 9y ago
  >Didn't Wozniak give out stock to people he felt bad for? Yes. And I think, as opposed to Jobs, his legacy will be rewarded.
  - 77pt77 9y ago
    > his legacy will be rewarded. Just world fallacy. People who are forgotten leave no legacy. Most people don't even know how Wozniak is and the few that know probably see him as the geek that was Jobs' "slave".
    - josephg 9y ago
      > People who are forgotten leave no legacy. You're equating fame with legacy then assuming Woz failed at his goals because he didn't end up famous. Fame might matter to you, but its very obvious that fame doesn't matter to Woz. As for legacy, Woz's legacy will be his work. My sister doesn't know Wozniak's name, but she loves her iphone and carries it everywhere she goes. Her iphone wouldn't exist as it does today without Woz. If thats not a ringing endorsement of his work, I don't know what is.
    - pvaldes 9y ago
      Don't want to sound harsh, but Wozniak is still alive. Literally alive. There are different definitions of success. Living and being able to do intelectual work until 95 (if this is what you want to do) could be perfectly one of them.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
ajdlinux 9y ago
I think the fact that Kielsmeier continued to come to work until age 95 is a fairly strong indicator that he was reasonably satisfied with his employment arrangements.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  He possessed a very specialist skillset and probably enjoyed what he did, so he was limited in his employment opportunties, especially once he hit his 50s I'd imagine. It's obvious he was taken advantage of, just like it's obvious that Steve Jobs took advantage of Steve Wozniak. Just because the Woz is a nice guy and kept working with Jobs despite the abuse doesn't change the abusive behavior.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > It's obvious he was taken advantage of That's not clear to me at all from the available evidence. Maybe he was offered stock and didn't want it. It's hard to make such black-and-white verdicts without being 100% sure you have all the evidence.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      It's a fib that rich people like to tell themselves. "They're getting me rich, but I'm paying them what they're worth." Unfortunately it's also true. Life isn't fair. The solution is to ruthlessly threaten to leave, without making it a threat. If the scientist did that, he probably would've been able to get equity. You have to be sure you're as irreplaceable as you think you are, though. It's something that took a long time to grok. Honor in business simply does not exist, and nobody will look out for you except you. (Also, woo, this downvote hiding mod is so nice. I have no idea whether I'm being upvoted or downvoted and it's wonderfullll. I can say whatever I want. Toasters are ugly. There, I've just offended everyone who likes toasters. HN hasn't been this pleasant in years.)
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > I can say whatever I want. You always could. That you assign so much value to it that it causes you discomfort if you're downvoted is the problem. As for the equity bit: People want jobs, they don't want to be entrepreneurs in general. The large companies that I've worked for must have had shareholders, but I've never seen one or even talked to them. What I was concerned with is whether they were going to pay my wage in time, which was the extent of our agreed upon contract. Now if mr. Leprino had defaulted on wage payments or had somehow taken unfair advantage of his employees by paying them wages lower than was agreed up on or were considered normal for the work they did then you have a point. But I'm not familiar with an obligation to give out stock on the part of an employer. If you feel that isn't fair then you'll have an uphill battle ahead of you, your definition of honor is an extreme one that not many people subscribe to , including employees of companies. Now, of course in an ideal world we'd all equally own all the wealth, the means of production and so on, but every time that has been tried for real it has for the most part not worked. The one counter example that I'm familiar with still has by far the largest chunk of the stock owned by founders and investors. What you will find works in practice (and which is a lot more common) is profit sharing, where a chunk of the profits is paid out (usually annually) to employees of the company.

jdboyd 9y ago

I initially reacted poorly to that part. However, on further thought, some people just don't want partners, which is where granting equity leads. We don't know what being very well paid means in this case. If Kielsmeier was making $500k or $1 million a year, that wouldn't be too terrible, and perhaps would in the end be as much as he would have gotten from whatever equity he might have gotten. Of course, well paid might have meant only $150k a year, which seems less fair. But really, we don't know and shouldn't jump to assuming that no equity didn't mean unfair compensation.

jakobegger 9y ago
Also, some people don't want to be partners. Some people just want a job, and let someone else worry about all the responsibilities.
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  Are you one of those people?
DamonHD 9y ago
Use your favourite search engine to look for "Rich vs King" and Noam Wasserman... There are legitimate alternative approaches. I am the founder of a (previous) start-up which has a loooong list of small shareholders that costs real money and time to handle any time there is some corporate action. Equity is not always the right thing to hand out.

cko 9y ago

Alternatively, if you've read Felix Dennis' humorous book 'How to get Rich', he says to never part with any equity. He gives an example of a time his top executives get together and ask him for a piece of the pie, and he fires them all. Not what I would have done, as I am a big softy and would be giving out chunks of equity left and right, but that would probably explain why I'm not rich. Didn't Wozniak give out stock to people he felt bad for?

idiotdummy 9y ago
>Didn't Wozniak give out stock to people he felt bad for? Yes. And I think, as opposed to Jobs, his legacy will be rewarded.
- 77pt77 9y ago
  > his legacy will be rewarded. Just world fallacy. People who are forgotten leave no legacy. Most people don't even know how Wozniak is and the few that know probably see him as the geek that was Jobs' "slave".
  - josephg 9y ago
    > People who are forgotten leave no legacy. You're equating fame with legacy then assuming Woz failed at his goals because he didn't end up famous. Fame might matter to you, but its very obvious that fame doesn't matter to Woz. As for legacy, Woz's legacy will be his work. My sister doesn't know Wozniak's name, but she loves her iphone and carries it everywhere she goes. Her iphone wouldn't exist as it does today without Woz. If thats not a ringing endorsement of his work, I don't know what is.
  - pvaldes 9y ago
    Don't want to sound harsh, but Wozniak is still alive. Literally alive. There are different definitions of success. Living and being able to do intelectual work until 95 (if this is what you want to do) could be perfectly one of them.
- jacquesm 9y ago

ajdlinux 9y ago

I think the fact that Kielsmeier continued to come to work until age 95 is a fairly strong indicator that he was reasonably satisfied with his employment arrangements.

wavefunction 9y ago
He possessed a very specialist skillset and probably enjoyed what he did, so he was limited in his employment opportunties, especially once he hit his 50s I'd imagine. It's obvious he was taken advantage of, just like it's obvious that Steve Jobs took advantage of Steve Wozniak. Just because the Woz is a nice guy and kept working with Jobs despite the abuse doesn't change the abusive behavior.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > It's obvious he was taken advantage of That's not clear to me at all from the available evidence. Maybe he was offered stock and didn't want it. It's hard to make such black-and-white verdicts without being 100% sure you have all the evidence.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    It's a fib that rich people like to tell themselves. "They're getting me rich, but I'm paying them what they're worth." Unfortunately it's also true. Life isn't fair. The solution is to ruthlessly threaten to leave, without making it a threat. If the scientist did that, he probably would've been able to get equity. You have to be sure you're as irreplaceable as you think you are, though. It's something that took a long time to grok. Honor in business simply does not exist, and nobody will look out for you except you. (Also, woo, this downvote hiding mod is so nice. I have no idea whether I'm being upvoted or downvoted and it's wonderfullll. I can say whatever I want. Toasters are ugly. There, I've just offended everyone who likes toasters. HN hasn't been this pleasant in years.)
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > I can say whatever I want. You always could. That you assign so much value to it that it causes you discomfort if you're downvoted is the problem. As for the equity bit: People want jobs, they don't want to be entrepreneurs in general. The large companies that I've worked for must have had shareholders, but I've never seen one or even talked to them. What I was concerned with is whether they were going to pay my wage in time, which was the extent of our agreed upon contract. Now if mr. Leprino had defaulted on wage payments or had somehow taken unfair advantage of his employees by paying them wages lower than was agreed up on or were considered normal for the work they did then you have a point. But I'm not familiar with an obligation to give out stock on the part of an employer. If you feel that isn't fair then you'll have an uphill battle ahead of you, your definition of honor is an extreme one that not many people subscribe to , including employees of companies. Now, of course in an ideal world we'd all equally own all the wealth, the means of production and so on, but every time that has been tried for real it has for the most part not worked. The one counter example that I'm familiar with still has by far the largest chunk of the stock owned by founders and investors. What you will find works in practice (and which is a lot more common) is profit sharing, where a chunk of the profits is paid out (usually annually) to employees of the company.