5 ms·

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 valu

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.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  If you work for money, you're poor and you'll always be poor. Real money doesn't come from work, it comes from money. So you can keep fantasizing about a meritocracy. I'll be over here brokering mortgages and managing properties making six figures in a 20 hour workweek using nothing but a laptop and a mobile phone. Out here in the real world, money is just a dream. Nothing more.

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.

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
If you work for money, you're poor and you'll always be poor. Real money doesn't come from work, it comes from money. So you can keep fantasizing about a meritocracy. I'll be over here brokering mortgages and managing properties making six figures in a 20 hour workweek using nothing but a laptop and a mobile phone. Out here in the real world, money is just a dream. Nothing more.