3 ms·
I don't like the argument I am about to make when used to attack minimum wage, but I think it applies here. When you accepted the job, you knew the terms. Thos
by rocqua 5y ago
I don't like the argument I am about to make when used to attack minimum wage, but I think it applies here.
When you accepted the job, you knew the terms. Those included not getting equity, and those included carrying some risk with known reward.
I don't see how the owners selling retroactively makes the risk-reward balance different. Unless you consider it a risk/downside that someone else gets a windfall and you don't get to share. That seems silly to me tho. How rich someone else is does not affect how much money I need to live, with a few exceptions (inflation, friends, power dynamics in pre-existing relationships).
- ryandrake 5y ago> How rich someone else is does not affect how much money I need to live, with a few exceptions (inflation, friends, power dynamics in pre-existing relationships). Many people cannot afford to even own a home in the Bay Area because everyone else around is so rich. Relative wealth is important because "other rich people" drive up prices of everything, from housing, to groceries, to health care. If my salary doesn't change, but the people around me get a 10% raise, my buying power decreases.
- rocqua 5y agoThat holds if everyone else gets richer. It does not hold if 2 founders get richer. You barely compete with them for the same items, so it shouldn't affect your buying power at all that your founders got a windfall.