3 ms·

> 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 hig

> 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.

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.