3 ms·

Why should leaders and team builders be more “equitable” than what is transactionally afforded by their diligent appreciation of their assets? How is the utilit

Why should leaders and team builders be more “equitable” than what is transactionally afforded by their diligent appreciation of their assets? How is the utility of money not best suited for those who created something from nothing versus those who entered into the tent after it was pitched? Aren’t there gradients of personal ambition being demonstrated between the two parties? If so, wouldn’t society be abler if the leaders were able to do more after having created the opportunity in the first place? The generosity emerges out of the availability for lending the capital to strangers in society thanks to the successful investment realization.

Eridrus 5y ago
We're in a thread talking about how equity compensation at startups is generally not sufficient to overcome the pay cut that folks would take from working at a top tier tech company, so even if you come at this from a purely transactional perspective, you may want to be less stingy with equity. You can do whatever you want of course, but I think people should ask themselves if trying to hold onto all the returns is helping them achieve what they actually want.
- x0x0 5y ago
  > equity compensation at startups is generally not sufficient to overcome the pay cut ... so don't take the job. Everything will naturally sort itself out -- a startup will increase their grants, hire different people, or not hire and fail. :shrug: This thread sure looks like it's full of people who can't get that well paid job at google, are taking jobs at less demanding employers out of necessity, and are mad about it. Otherwise, we're living through one of the absolutely hottest markets for engineering talent we've ever seen, so getting a new job is always an option if you're worth the money. As for founder vs employee risk... certainly at my company, every employee except for the founders walked into a six figure cash comp, fully paid health insurance, and a runway that's never fallen below 12 months.
  - achillesheels 5y ago
    I have to say, I am in agreement. We are not talking about computer illiterates here who cannot find work if their life dependent upon it.
- achillesheels 5y ago
  You are the one bringing up the utility of money.

Eridrus 5y ago

We're in a thread talking about how equity compensation at startups is generally not sufficient to overcome the pay cut that folks would take from working at a top tier tech company, so even if you come at this from a purely transactional perspective, you may want to be less stingy with equity. You can do whatever you want of course, but I think people should ask themselves if trying to hold onto all the returns is helping them achieve what they actually want.

x0x0 5y ago
> equity compensation at startups is generally not sufficient to overcome the pay cut ... so don't take the job. Everything will naturally sort itself out -- a startup will increase their grants, hire different people, or not hire and fail. :shrug: This thread sure looks like it's full of people who can't get that well paid job at google, are taking jobs at less demanding employers out of necessity, and are mad about it. Otherwise, we're living through one of the absolutely hottest markets for engineering talent we've ever seen, so getting a new job is always an option if you're worth the money. As for founder vs employee risk... certainly at my company, every employee except for the founders walked into a six figure cash comp, fully paid health insurance, and a runway that's never fallen below 12 months.
- achillesheels 5y ago
  I have to say, I am in agreement. We are not talking about computer illiterates here who cannot find work if their life dependent upon it.
achillesheels 5y ago
You are the one bringing up the utility of money.