4 ms·

This is none of the employee's business to assess founder's risk exposure, he/she does not not lend money to them, but takes away from instead. By taking an em

This is none of the employee's business to assess founder's risk exposure, he/she does not not lend money to them, but takes away from instead. By taking an employee founder is effectively paying monthly, mind that, very expensive, insurance which provides free hands at any moment when needed. Employee's benefit is immediate, unconditional and guaranteed. The opposite of being an owner of business.

hobofan 6y ago
> he/she does not not lend money to them, but takes away from instead The employee takes money from the company, not the founder. Those two are only the same for the pre-seed phase of a startup. It's also unlikely that any people are employed before some investment round has been raised. Once some investment is raised, the money comes predominantly from the investors and not from the founder. At that point the risk for the founder is mostly gone. I'm not saying that there is no risk at all for the founders, just that it's concentrated in the pre-seed phase of a startup. > This is none of the employee's business to assess founder's risk exposure If you are asking me to join your very-early-stage startup, you can bet your ass that I'm going to probe you on your risk exposure.
- denisastoyanov 6y ago
  Why do you automatically assume that every single company have investors?
  - hobofan 6y ago
    Because we are on a thread about Amazon, and founder stock. We are also on HN, which has a startup context by default. Of course not every company has investors. In fact I personally strongly favor that for my own endeavours nowadays, but that's not what the discussion was about.
jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
The employee doesn't take money. The employee gives away life itself, measured in hours, in exchange for money. Do not trivialize this exchange. All of the value of the company comes from the bottom. The money that the shareholders put in is just a bet. SOMETHING has to back up that money, and that's what the employees are for: to help the investors win that bet. Don't say "I'm taking all the risk over here" because it creates an adversarial dynamic with your team. There is no need for you to separate yourself from the rest of the company in that way. You're all on the same side and the language should focus attention on cooperation and the benefits which cooperation will bring. Writing a check takes seconds. Real work takes hours, days, months, years off of a person's finite life. Try to stay grounded in the real world.
- juskrey 6y ago
  This is a static one dimensional socialist logic. In dynamics of lifetime and in aggregate employee leads much safer and well fed life than entrepreneur. And again, the latter gives his money to the former in any case
  - neffy 6y ago
    And I fear yours is static, exploitation logic. Certainly there are a lot of failed entrepreneurs out there, but there are millions more people who never even got the chance to fail, because they were screwed over by the former. With the greatest irony of all being, that if they hadn't screwed their employees over, they would have stood a far higher chance of success.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  So the life an employee gives us what matters, sure, but where did the capital come from that is ‘just a bet’? That money comes from blood sweat and tears too, it comes from work as well. It represents hopes, dreams and aspirations sunk into earning it. That’s what money is. It had to be earned by someone too, just as much as the salary of an employee at a startup. This is what naive Socialist economic analysis misses.

hobofan 6y ago

> he/she does not not lend money to them, but takes away from instead The employee takes money from the company, not the founder. Those two are only the same for the pre-seed phase of a startup. It's also unlikely that any people are employed before some investment round has been raised. Once some investment is raised, the money comes predominantly from the investors and not from the founder. At that point the risk for the founder is mostly gone. I'm not saying that there is no risk at all for the founders, just that it's concentrated in the pre-seed phase of a startup. > This is none of the employee's business to assess founder's risk exposure If you are asking me to join your very-early-stage startup, you can bet your ass that I'm going to probe you on your risk exposure.

denisastoyanov 6y ago
Why do you automatically assume that every single company have investors?
- hobofan 6y ago
  Because we are on a thread about Amazon, and founder stock. We are also on HN, which has a startup context by default. Of course not every company has investors. In fact I personally strongly favor that for my own endeavours nowadays, but that's not what the discussion was about.

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago

The employee doesn't take money. The employee gives away life itself, measured in hours, in exchange for money. Do not trivialize this exchange. All of the value of the company comes from the bottom. The money that the shareholders put in is just a bet. SOMETHING has to back up that money, and that's what the employees are for: to help the investors win that bet. Don't say "I'm taking all the risk over here" because it creates an adversarial dynamic with your team. There is no need for you to separate yourself from the rest of the company in that way. You're all on the same side and the language should focus attention on cooperation and the benefits which cooperation will bring. Writing a check takes seconds. Real work takes hours, days, months, years off of a person's finite life. Try to stay grounded in the real world.

juskrey 6y ago
This is a static one dimensional socialist logic. In dynamics of lifetime and in aggregate employee leads much safer and well fed life than entrepreneur. And again, the latter gives his money to the former in any case
- neffy 6y ago
  And I fear yours is static, exploitation logic. Certainly there are a lot of failed entrepreneurs out there, but there are millions more people who never even got the chance to fail, because they were screwed over by the former. With the greatest irony of all being, that if they hadn't screwed their employees over, they would have stood a far higher chance of success.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 6y ago
So the life an employee gives us what matters, sure, but where did the capital come from that is ‘just a bet’? That money comes from blood sweat and tears too, it comes from work as well. It represents hopes, dreams and aspirations sunk into earning it. That’s what money is. It had to be earned by someone too, just as much as the salary of an employee at a startup. This is what naive Socialist economic analysis misses.