3 ms·

> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Why don't you start your own? I'm sure each line of code you create will infla

> If that's the case. If as an engineer you can contribute millions to a company. Why don't you start your own? I'm sure each line of code you create will inflate the price by a million dollars. But the same is true for founders and VCs: Everyone needs each other. VCs require founders. Founders require employees. An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. This is why they absolutely should not be complaining about the so-called entitled employee: Demand for skilled labor is high. Normally, this would push wages upward, but organizations have managed to short-circuit this by offering non-salary compensation in the form of perks. They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. They should be delighted. > Stefan Molyneux explains the true value of employees in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYY11Ro4h54 Not really. This video completely skips over all the classical and neoclassical thinking on labor economics and inadvertently lays the foundation for an argument on collective bargaining by employees.... but I don't think that's what the video's author was going for.

no1youknowz 8y ago
> But the same is true for founders and VCs No, it's not. A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. A founder, is someone who has decided to push the gratification of (payment, rewards, whatever you want to call it) to the far future and that is if they make it. In the interim they will survive by various means, bootstrap, F+F round or they approach a VC giving up equity for investment and a salary to the next round of investment. This isn't about who needs who. VCs or Founders don't actually need anyone: A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. A Founder doesn't actually need a VC, they can bootstrap the company and live off raman noodles until they reach profitability and in some cases keep investing into the company until it gets big enough to sustain itself and the founder. The only class (if you want to call it that) in this scenario are the workers that need the VC or the Founder to setup a company for them to join. > An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. What is the problem here? This is how a company is meant to be run. If you want otherwise, it's now called a CHARITY. > They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. Have they? Let me know when they have guns to people's heads demanding they work there. There is nothing stopping someone from leaving and getting more cash/perks elsewhere. We are in the free market after all. Free market, which I have pointed out numerous times and yet you don't quite seem to grasp this notion. > Not really. I don't think you understood the video and honestly, I don't know what you are arguing for. This will be my last reply. I think I've said all that needs to be said.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  > A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. I know you're done debating, so I'll leave this here for your education. VCs are fund managers who work on behalf of their LPs (Limited partners, or fund investors), with very few VC funds being self-funded by their managers. Most VCs are not independently wealthy by first-world standards and most LP money comes from large institutions rather than individuals. Angel investors are a different story, but they are working with much smaller amounts of capital. > A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. While there's nothing legally preventing them from doing so, most LPs would be very upset (and likely sue) if their fund managers took their cash and directly founded companies with it. The closest thing that exists to something like this are "Entrepreneurs in Residence" which are often not directly involved with managing the fund.

no1youknowz 8y ago

> But the same is true for founders and VCs No, it's not. A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. A founder, is someone who has decided to push the gratification of (payment, rewards, whatever you want to call it) to the far future and that is if they make it. In the interim they will survive by various means, bootstrap, F+F round or they approach a VC giving up equity for investment and a salary to the next round of investment. This isn't about who needs who. VCs or Founders don't actually need anyone: A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. A Founder doesn't actually need a VC, they can bootstrap the company and live off raman noodles until they reach profitability and in some cases keep investing into the company until it gets big enough to sustain itself and the founder. The only class (if you want to call it that) in this scenario are the workers that need the VC or the Founder to setup a company for them to join. > An entrepreneur doesn't hire workers out of the goodness of their heart and most (competent ones) will hire as few workers as they think they can get away with. What is the problem here? This is how a company is meant to be run. If you want otherwise, it's now called a CHARITY. > They've completely hacked the labor supply/demand curve greatly in their favor. Have they? Let me know when they have guns to people's heads demanding they work there. There is nothing stopping someone from leaving and getting more cash/perks elsewhere. We are in the free market after all. Free market, which I have pointed out numerous times and yet you don't quite seem to grasp this notion. > Not really. I don't think you understood the video and honestly, I don't know what you are arguing for. This will be my last reply. I think I've said all that needs to be said.

spamizbad 8y ago
> A VC already has the finances, they aren't constrained by the original argument of "demanding" a higher price for their salary. They have already attained wealth and now choose to pour some of that wealth into funding other ventures. I know you're done debating, so I'll leave this here for your education. VCs are fund managers who work on behalf of their LPs (Limited partners, or fund investors), with very few VC funds being self-funded by their managers. Most VCs are not independently wealthy by first-world standards and most LP money comes from large institutions rather than individuals. Angel investors are a different story, but they are working with much smaller amounts of capital. > A VC doesn't need a founder. They can setup a company themselves and pay market rate for the staff to fill positions. While there's nothing legally preventing them from doing so, most LPs would be very upset (and likely sue) if their fund managers took their cash and directly founded companies with it. The closest thing that exists to something like this are "Entrepreneurs in Residence" which are often not directly involved with managing the fund.