3 ms·

I agree you get what you can get based on the market and it has nothing to do with anything else. It doesn't matter how "smart" you are, or how "hard" you work,

I agree you get what you can get based on the market and it has nothing to do with anything else. It doesn't matter how "smart" you are, or how "hard" you work, that really doesn't correlate directly with what you get paid. But I think your second point (Founder get more money because they have more ownership) is tautological. The article is really asking, should the founders get such a great proportion of ownership? I think that equity % is just like normal income. You get what the market will let you get. Founders get a lot because the right combination of qualities, risk taking, and luck are rare. Being an employee of any kind makes you more common than a founder, and thus the market will always pay less.

gamble 16y ago
I basically agree with you. My response was more directed at the comments in this thread glorifying the intestinal fortitude of founders. Founders don't give much equity to employees because the successful ones don't have to, and the failures never have the chance. It doesn't have much to do with founders bravely trading risk for an equivalent measure of reward.
wisty 16y ago
Another reason - 90% (my guess) of founders end up with nothing but a good story about the business they tried to launch. 90% of the guys who try to climb the corporate ladder to become CEO do distasteful work, and lots of it, and ends up a 50 year old middle to upper management type who gets made redundant the minute his company restructures, and hasn't got the skills to do anything else. Also, moralising prigs (especially journalists and high school teachers) dissuade a lot of people from seeking a high paying job (unless it's in medicine), so the few people (many of whom are quite greedy) who do go for the top job get paid more money.