4 ms·

I worked for a startup for 2 years. The CTO was one of the nicest, realest people I've met. Very down to earth. But I just knew part of the reason he could stic

I worked for a startup for 2 years. The CTO was one of the nicest, realest people I've met. Very down to earth. But I just knew part of the reason he could stick his neck out far was because of his family. Even if the startup exploded and crashed (it's not doing great last I checked) he would be fine as he was part inheritor of a $300 mil fortune. For many of the employees they had invested years of their lives, many hours away from their family and more importantly, a possible later retirement due to lower income and lack of matching retirement. We also lost many quality candidates due to this fact. I often felt like I was just part of some rich person's game, where win or lose the stakes were so much higher for myself than for anyone who stood to make the real money if we ever went public. If we went bust I stood to lose big, while the people who ran the company would go off and do something else.

chii 9y ago
This is why early employees take more risk then the founders, and i would like to see this acknowledged with more compensation commensurate with the extra risk.
- manigandham 9y ago
  How does that story support your comment at all? Early employees are still employees and get paid for their time, they are nowhere near the risk level of the founders.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    People like to pretend the strictly finance industry definition of "risk" is what this discussion is about, but it's rarely that simple.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      In that case it's completely subjective and up to the individual to make the call, although founders still have to shoulder more "risk" to create the opportunity for an early employee to even consider as a choice.
      - chii 9y ago
        If the founders were such as well off already, then then taking risk in the same quantity of time and/or money isn't the same as the employee trekking the same amount of time/money. The founders that are well off can easily move on after failure, but the employee have lost out (it's not very useful to list a failed company in your resume).
        manigandham 9y ago
        If they are well off already then they, as individuals, are well off which has nothing to do with whether they are founders or not. Rich people have more options than poor people. There are rich people who work at companies too who won't be bothered by failure while the founder who came from nothing will be hurt.
ryandrake 9y ago
Almost every business owner I've met (a few notable exceptions) gave off this exact vibe. "If this doesn't work out, I'll just scoop into the money vault and try something else. No biggie!" Most of us get three strikes at bat so we go for the safe base hit. These guys get to keep swinging so obviously they all go for the home run.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
I had a CEO like this. "Hopefully we can afford pay rises next year", he said. Fuck you, you live in a nice house, drive a nice car and drink expensive drinks, and I can barely afford to live a comfortable lifestyle.

chii 9y ago

This is why early employees take more risk then the founders, and i would like to see this acknowledged with more compensation commensurate with the extra risk.

manigandham 9y ago
How does that story support your comment at all? Early employees are still employees and get paid for their time, they are nowhere near the risk level of the founders.
- sidlls 9y ago
  People like to pretend the strictly finance industry definition of "risk" is what this discussion is about, but it's rarely that simple.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    In that case it's completely subjective and up to the individual to make the call, although founders still have to shoulder more "risk" to create the opportunity for an early employee to even consider as a choice.
    - chii 9y ago
      If the founders were such as well off already, then then taking risk in the same quantity of time and/or money isn't the same as the employee trekking the same amount of time/money. The founders that are well off can easily move on after failure, but the employee have lost out (it's not very useful to list a failed company in your resume).
      - manigandham 9y ago
        If they are well off already then they, as individuals, are well off which has nothing to do with whether they are founders or not. Rich people have more options than poor people. There are rich people who work at companies too who won't be bothered by failure while the founder who came from nothing will be hurt.

ryandrake 9y ago

Almost every business owner I've met (a few notable exceptions) gave off this exact vibe. "If this doesn't work out, I'll just scoop into the money vault and try something else. No biggie!" Most of us get three strikes at bat so we go for the safe base hit. These guys get to keep swinging so obviously they all go for the home run.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

I had a CEO like this. "Hopefully we can afford pay rises next year", he said. Fuck you, you live in a nice house, drive a nice car and drink expensive drinks, and I can barely afford to live a comfortable lifestyle.