3 ms·

Being on a board of an angel-investment group we see this regularly. Its many times humorous - to the point of absurdity. You would be surprised at how many "in

by _red 9y ago

Being on a board of an angel-investment group we see this regularly. Its many times humorous - to the point of absurdity. You would be surprised at how many "inventors" want to ask for money, yet are scared of revealing how their invention works to their own investors. They honestly believe building a better mousetrap is all thats needed - and fame and fortune follow as a given. Thus, they are so guarded of their precious ideas that they never get past the garage-level design phase. They really expect someone to turn over 500k in angel-funding on no due-dillegence. Its a sort of hubris run wild. The truth is, the engineer in this case no doubt provided value. But that value was effectively of a commodity nature. If he refused to deliver, any number of other competent engineers would've stepped up and done work-for-hire for an hourly rate. No doubt the success in this case was like nearly all success: Unsexy, year-after-year persistence, building industry connections, meeting deadlines and delivering products. Overall being a good company to do business with. However, its understandable that this concept of the "ripped off engineer" would be popular on a place like HN, since engineer types tend to overestimate the importance of clever ideas on success.

christophilus 9y ago
I think you've laid the facts out clearly. As an engineer, I have seen well-engineered solutions fail (due to business incompetence) and poorly-engineered solutions succeed (due to business acumen). Humans, almost unilaterally, overestimate the value of their efforts. There's a name for the fallacy, but I can't remember it. Anyway, having said that, I suspect that the "ripped off engineers" that you mention are disillusioned with Capitalism. They may not realize it explicitly, and may even object to what I'm saying, but I think that's the underlying truth. And I'm with them on it. I question any economic system that yields salary imbalances of 262:1 at a single company.[1] [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_2006062... (a 2006 article, and I vaguely remember seeing that the situation has only worsened for the workers)
- runeks 9y ago
  So, in essence, we're dealing with anti-capitalistic engineers who want to make more money?
  - webnrrd2k 9y ago
    Or engineers who want more fairness.
    - lobotryas 9y ago
      More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less? The criticism boggles my mind. If someone thinks they deserve more, they should make steps towards that (ex: leave for another company) instead of expecting for the money to drop in their lap.
      - rhubarballoon 9y ago
        Who is "expecting" anything? Who mentioned mere "deserving more"? Questioning something and seeking to change it is a long shot from what you're conveniently and predictably framing it as, and in context "leaving for another company" isn't even a joke, it's a tired old chestnut beginning to become offensive. Don't expect sympathy saying your mind is boggled while spending more effort to misconstrue than to understand. > More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less? You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right? If you don't, your mind is boggled for sure, but not because of anything anyone else is saying. If you do, why pretend you don't?
        lobotryas 9y ago
        >Who is "expecting" anything? Apparently the people who are complaining about fairness are expecting something (unless they are just complaining for its own sake). >You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right? It seems you're being purposefully obtuse. There are plenty of people who would love to use force (or the State) to ensure that some group of the "underserving" earns less than they do now and some group of the "deserving" earns more. Maybe this isn't what the GP intended, but their post smacked of communist/socialist collectivism thinking to me. I don't expect you to reply constructively since you're likely hiding behind a new account, but am always curious if you do.

by _red 9y ago

christophilus 9y ago

I think you've laid the facts out clearly. As an engineer, I have seen well-engineered solutions fail (due to business incompetence) and poorly-engineered solutions succeed (due to business acumen). Humans, almost unilaterally, overestimate the value of their efforts. There's a name for the fallacy, but I can't remember it. Anyway, having said that, I suspect that the "ripped off engineers" that you mention are disillusioned with Capitalism. They may not realize it explicitly, and may even object to what I'm saying, but I think that's the underlying truth. And I'm with them on it. I question any economic system that yields salary imbalances of 262:1 at a single company.[1] [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/ http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_2006062... (a 2006 article, and I vaguely remember seeing that the situation has only worsened for the workers)

runeks 9y ago
So, in essence, we're dealing with anti-capitalistic engineers who want to make more money?
- webnrrd2k 9y ago
  Or engineers who want more fairness.
  - lobotryas 9y ago
    More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less? The criticism boggles my mind. If someone thinks they deserve more, they should make steps towards that (ex: leave for another company) instead of expecting for the money to drop in their lap.
    - rhubarballoon 9y ago
      Who is "expecting" anything? Who mentioned mere "deserving more"? Questioning something and seeking to change it is a long shot from what you're conveniently and predictably framing it as, and in context "leaving for another company" isn't even a joke, it's a tired old chestnut beginning to become offensive. Don't expect sympathy saying your mind is boggled while spending more effort to misconstrue than to understand. > More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less? You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right? If you don't, your mind is boggled for sure, but not because of anything anyone else is saying. If you do, why pretend you don't?
      - lobotryas 9y ago
        >Who is "expecting" anything? Apparently the people who are complaining about fairness are expecting something (unless they are just complaining for its own sake). >You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right? It seems you're being purposefully obtuse. There are plenty of people who would love to use force (or the State) to ensure that some group of the "underserving" earns less than they do now and some group of the "deserving" earns more. Maybe this isn't what the GP intended, but their post smacked of communist/socialist collectivism thinking to me. I don't expect you to reply constructively since you're likely hiding behind a new account, but am always curious if you do.