11 ms·

These "founders" are the modern equivalent of land owners looking for naive/desperate share croppers. Disgusting. It really comes down to labor politics to me.

These "founders" are the modern equivalent of land owners looking for naive/desperate share croppers. Disgusting. It really comes down to labor politics to me. For the majority of web start-ups the "means of production" are entirely in the brains of the people slinging the code. So what sort of jedi mind tricks are they pulling where they convince people that they should somehow keep the majority (or all) of the equity? Learn to code, learn to value those who do, or go open a multi-level-used-car-dealership-scheme.

coryl 16y ago
I don't think its as black and white as you'd like to see it. Entrepreneurship is and has always been about organizing labor and capital. Nothing on its own is useful until there is an organizing factor that makes it greater than the sum of their values. Do we give brick layers and construction workers ownership in the buildings they create? No. Do they deserve to? That could be argued all day, but if you're a capitalist, you probably believe they deserve whatever the market offers or whatever they agree to accept. It's not that non-technicals are out to get you or exploit you, its that they simply see themselves as the organizing force that takes the risk and thus deserves the reward.
- dasil003 16y ago
  Exactly. When you're starting a business everything is risk. If you pay someone more than you need to then you are jeopardizing the success of the business. Getting your "fair share" is the responsibility of the employee. If you think you're hot shit that will make the difference between the success or failure of the company, then by all means negotiate for it. The bottom line is, if, as a developer you think you are worth significantly more than the going rate, you have two options. Either prove it by founding your own company. Or else convince the person hiring you that you are worth that much.
  - shaunxcode 16y ago
    Actually let me be even more clear. I originally said these "founders" were like land owners looking for share croppers. What I am really trying to describe is these are "owners" with out land still thinking they are entitled to ownership of the work done by those who they coerce. I think there is no more transparent example of exploitation. It makes usury look like an equitable situation. What land? What bricks?
    - coryl 16y ago
      I think you're being a bit dramatic. I agree that programmers need a little more respect, but what you're saying is a bit silly. You can't coerce a programmer into doing work for you. They want either cash or stake for their work. They have the right to say no if they don't like the deal. I can't see how you could take that as a form of exploitation. Good programmers are in demand and are paid well; they have a choice, unlike low wage foreigner workers (for whom you could better argue were being exploited).
    - dasil003 16y ago
      I bumped you back up to 1 because I don't think you deserve to be negative, but I agree with the other reply. It's a bit dramatic. There's a material difference between land owners exploiting a tough economy and young developers with stars in their eyes getting suckered in by a good pitch.

coryl 16y ago

I don't think its as black and white as you'd like to see it. Entrepreneurship is and has always been about organizing labor and capital. Nothing on its own is useful until there is an organizing factor that makes it greater than the sum of their values. Do we give brick layers and construction workers ownership in the buildings they create? No. Do they deserve to? That could be argued all day, but if you're a capitalist, you probably believe they deserve whatever the market offers or whatever they agree to accept. It's not that non-technicals are out to get you or exploit you, its that they simply see themselves as the organizing force that takes the risk and thus deserves the reward.

dasil003 16y ago
Exactly. When you're starting a business everything is risk. If you pay someone more than you need to then you are jeopardizing the success of the business. Getting your "fair share" is the responsibility of the employee. If you think you're hot shit that will make the difference between the success or failure of the company, then by all means negotiate for it. The bottom line is, if, as a developer you think you are worth significantly more than the going rate, you have two options. Either prove it by founding your own company. Or else convince the person hiring you that you are worth that much.
- shaunxcode 16y ago
  Actually let me be even more clear. I originally said these "founders" were like land owners looking for share croppers. What I am really trying to describe is these are "owners" with out land still thinking they are entitled to ownership of the work done by those who they coerce. I think there is no more transparent example of exploitation. It makes usury look like an equitable situation. What land? What bricks?
  - coryl 16y ago
    I think you're being a bit dramatic. I agree that programmers need a little more respect, but what you're saying is a bit silly. You can't coerce a programmer into doing work for you. They want either cash or stake for their work. They have the right to say no if they don't like the deal. I can't see how you could take that as a form of exploitation. Good programmers are in demand and are paid well; they have a choice, unlike low wage foreigner workers (for whom you could better argue were being exploited).
  - dasil003 16y ago
    I bumped you back up to 1 because I don't think you deserve to be negative, but I agree with the other reply. It's a bit dramatic. There's a material difference between land owners exploiting a tough economy and young developers with stars in their eyes getting suckered in by a good pitch.