> "If it can't afford to provide for its employees, why should a small company exist?" If I rephrase that as "If a startup can't afford to provide for its empl

> "If it can't afford to provide for its employees, why should a small company exist?" If I rephrase that as "If a startup can't afford to provide for its employees, why should a startup exist?", it should be clear to HN readers why that is problematic. Without a way for new players to enter the market cheaply, you wind up with a stagnant industry fully of deeply entrenched players who are afraid to take creative risks. (Not unlike Hollywood, come to think of it.)