3 ms·

Where was it implied that never selling made someone work for less than market rate... Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen an

Where was it implied that never selling made someone work for less than market rate... Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen and X thing happens? - The rebuttal everyone in this thread is parroting is a tautology. Saying "things change". Yes by the very act of existing over a period of time a company will indeed have changed even if it's just age. It's not a helpful response to how people feel, and again, you're always free to throw feelings in the trash in business... but at the very least have the courage to admit you're doing it. There's no reason to pretend you don't see why people don't like it (And again Mailchimp's founders seemed to have that courage, hence the fund)

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I've been seeing the implication around in this post - including here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561255 to quote: I assume GP's fix is, "Don't accept below-market pay." which implies to me that people were accepting below market pay because - reasons? on edit: >Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen and X thing happens? sure, but in the case of someone having accepted below market pay I can see how being misled would have meant an actual hurt suffered. Let's say I like to bake cakes and the school announces this year because of Corona there will not be a bake sale but then 4 days before they announce guess what there will be anyway! Then I would be upset because I had changed my behavior based on what they said and now I couldn't undo it. I guess anyone who stayed at the company because it wouldn't be sold would feel mislead but why I guess I have a hard time considering to stay at a company because it wouldn't be sold as a decision I would make - I would want other reasons to stay at a company that would not matter whether it was sold or not. It's obviously a failure of imagination on my part, so it would be good to have an actual scenario as to how someone would feel hurt not just if someone says X and its not X you are mislead, because you still need the part about how X made you do Y instead of Z.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  This is like everyone gets the problem but saying they don't. You didn't get cheated, but you feel cheated. And for the umpteenth time, you're always say to say "fuck your feelings, you knew the deal", but that works both ways, you know the deal on why people are going to feel cheated... If Mailchimp's founders had never mentioned not selling (or were just ruthless) I'm sure that 500m fund would look a lot different... - Also you wanted an example, here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561963
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    >This is like everyone gets the problem but saying they don't. no, this more like me thinking huh I guess there might be a problem here but I have a hard time conceiving of how there actually would be one. Also I guess I would like an example in the actual scenario - people owning company saying they never sell but then they do many years down the road, people have changed their behavior on this promise how? Are you saying that there were people who would have said no I don't want to work at market rate for you if you're going to sell in the future, I will only work for you for equity if you intend to sell. That's what that example implies to me? Maybe my imagination is failing again here but that sounds crazy, although I have to admit playing the lottery sounds crazy to me anyway so...
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Maybe it's just over your head, and that's ok. And to be clear, I'm not saying that to be mean, but for example, if you get hung up because a lottery is used as an analogy for startup equity (which might as well be a lottery), then it really might be a little past you.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        or again, as a lottery is generally described as a tax on stupidity, I would wonder why anyone complains about getting money instead of a chance to participate in a lottery.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

I've been seeing the implication around in this post - including here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561255 to quote: I assume GP's fix is, "Don't accept below-market pay." which implies to me that people were accepting below market pay because - reasons? on edit: >Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen and X thing happens? sure, but in the case of someone having accepted below market pay I can see how being misled would have meant an actual hurt suffered. Let's say I like to bake cakes and the school announces this year because of Corona there will not be a bake sale but then 4 days before they announce guess what there will be anyway! Then I would be upset because I had changed my behavior based on what they said and now I couldn't undo it. I guess anyone who stayed at the company because it wouldn't be sold would feel mislead but why I guess I have a hard time considering to stay at a company because it wouldn't be sold as a decision I would make - I would want other reasons to stay at a company that would not matter whether it was sold or not. It's obviously a failure of imagination on my part, so it would be good to have an actual scenario as to how someone would feel hurt not just if someone says X and its not X you are mislead, because you still need the part about how X made you do Y instead of Z.

BoorishBears 5y ago
This is like everyone gets the problem but saying they don't. You didn't get cheated, but you feel cheated. And for the umpteenth time, you're always say to say "fuck your feelings, you knew the deal", but that works both ways, you know the deal on why people are going to feel cheated... If Mailchimp's founders had never mentioned not selling (or were just ruthless) I'm sure that 500m fund would look a lot different... - Also you wanted an example, here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28561963
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >This is like everyone gets the problem but saying they don't. no, this more like me thinking huh I guess there might be a problem here but I have a hard time conceiving of how there actually would be one. Also I guess I would like an example in the actual scenario - people owning company saying they never sell but then they do many years down the road, people have changed their behavior on this promise how? Are you saying that there were people who would have said no I don't want to work at market rate for you if you're going to sell in the future, I will only work for you for equity if you intend to sell. That's what that example implies to me? Maybe my imagination is failing again here but that sounds crazy, although I have to admit playing the lottery sounds crazy to me anyway so...
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Maybe it's just over your head, and that's ok. And to be clear, I'm not saying that to be mean, but for example, if you get hung up because a lottery is used as an analogy for startup equity (which might as well be a lottery), then it really might be a little past you.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      or again, as a lottery is generally described as a tax on stupidity, I would wonder why anyone complains about getting money instead of a chance to participate in a lottery.