3 ms·

It's interesting that "venture backing" is considered as something normal, a success even. Being approved by your rich overlords. Workers have to pay huge tax,

It's interesting that "venture backing" is considered as something normal, a success even. Being approved by your rich overlords. Workers have to pay huge tax, whereas corporations don't. So workers are less able to amass capital and because of that they are forced to share their business with VC. If you were a rich VC owner, surely you would lobby politicians to ensure entrepreneurs are dependent on you. I think this is sickening. Corporate feudalism?

rmac 5y ago
vc's job: find and invest in companies that will make large amounts of money. if they are good at their jobs, these companies will make them large amounts of money and in so doing employ a large pool of workers. if what I just wrote is true, then I can see how others might use vc-backed companies as a proxy for broad economic gains
- cratermoon 5y ago
  > and in so doing employ a large pool of workers. Uber and DoorDash have entered the chat...
- hogFeast 5y ago
  Some people view any trade where the other side wins to any degree as exploitative. Regardless of whether they gain themselves. It is an interesting thought pattern.
bsedlm 5y ago
yes but the "lord" is a publically traded corporation.
solumos 5y ago
This is a pretty zero-sum way to look at VC/investment/startups. In reality, GPs have to hustle to get LPs to invest in their fund. Then, they're able to take that money and create a portfolio out of it by investing in big opportunities. They really only want to invest in businesses that can exceed a $1B valuation (sometimes $10B these days). The very best VCs have a track record of identifying $1B+ opportunities and helping those companies get there. As a founder, if your business doesn't fit that mold you probably shouldn't raise from VCs. There are angels out there with a higher risk tolerance who write fewer checks and are more interested in contributing directly to a company's success outside of capital. The idea that workers are diluted by the VCs is usually bogus. In an upside scenario, everyone wins. In a neutral exit scenario, the employees get to keep their wages, the investors get their money paid out first (if there's any left) and the founders/employees get hosed. In a downside scenario, everyone loses, except employees still get to keep their wages earned. It seems like you're conflating wage workers vs VC vs founder. Each of these roles has a wildly different risk profile when it comes to a startup.

rmac 5y ago

vc's job: find and invest in companies that will make large amounts of money. if they are good at their jobs, these companies will make them large amounts of money and in so doing employ a large pool of workers. if what I just wrote is true, then I can see how others might use vc-backed companies as a proxy for broad economic gains

cratermoon 5y ago
> and in so doing employ a large pool of workers. Uber and DoorDash have entered the chat...
hogFeast 5y ago
Some people view any trade where the other side wins to any degree as exploitative. Regardless of whether they gain themselves. It is an interesting thought pattern.

bsedlm 5y ago

yes but the "lord" is a publically traded corporation.

solumos 5y ago

This is a pretty zero-sum way to look at VC/investment/startups. In reality, GPs have to hustle to get LPs to invest in their fund. Then, they're able to take that money and create a portfolio out of it by investing in big opportunities. They really only want to invest in businesses that can exceed a $1B valuation (sometimes $10B these days). The very best VCs have a track record of identifying $1B+ opportunities and helping those companies get there. As a founder, if your business doesn't fit that mold you probably shouldn't raise from VCs. There are angels out there with a higher risk tolerance who write fewer checks and are more interested in contributing directly to a company's success outside of capital. The idea that workers are diluted by the VCs is usually bogus. In an upside scenario, everyone wins. In a neutral exit scenario, the employees get to keep their wages, the investors get their money paid out first (if there's any left) and the founders/employees get hosed. In a downside scenario, everyone loses, except employees still get to keep their wages earned. It seems like you're conflating wage workers vs VC vs founder. Each of these roles has a wildly different risk profile when it comes to a startup.