3 ms·
> Many, many people are committed to jobs for reasons other than money, across all walks of life. This is often true for engineers, too. Of course. But there's
by dunpeal 8y ago
> Many, many people are committed to jobs for reasons other than money, across all walks of life. This is often true for engineers, too.
Of course. But there's a reason why SV begun this expensive tradition of giving engineers substantial equity: the realization that startups and other ambitious companies must align employee incentives with company success.
It's possible that the employee will develop some irrational dedication to his job that is not based on any rational incentive structure, but that's not something you want to count on, especially with the type of intelligent, rational employees you hope to hire.
Incidentally, I've seen this position of "employees should just be dedicated regardless of equity" elsewhere in this thread. It feels like a step back to me. SV took a big step forward giving employees meaningful equity some 50 years ago. Now we're trying to roll this back in the name of... what? VC greed?
- kwindla 8y agoAgain, I definitely agree about early stage employees having substantial equity. But I would also not call dedication to a job for reasons that go beyond compensation "irrational."
- dunpeal 8y agoThere are costs to "dedication to a job". These costs must be balanced with benefits, or choosing them is irrational. Notice you're talking about "dedication", which is different than "I'm working on rewarding problems in a fun team". That's the opposite of dedication. Dedication is what keeps you committed to a team when it's no longer fun, working on problems that are no longer rewarding. I've seen plenty of people give their heart and soul to startups, that ended up exiting in ways that made the founders and VCs rich, while these people walked away with nothing, often not even a job (since their old job was effectively gone in the exit). Is it rational to choose such fate?