3 ms·
> the reason they don't start companies is they don't have the savings to work on it for 6-12 months, and gamble on getting accepted into YC or another angel/ac
by mbesto 5y ago
> the reason they don't start companies is they don't have the savings to work on it for 6-12 months, and gamble on getting accepted into YC or another angel/accelerator. They don't have a safety net to fall back on if that fails.
Which is part of the reason for their compensation.
Did the first few factory workers and car design people at Ford become millionaires (in their equivalent dollars)? Probably not, but if you're the first engineer of a Twitter, Google, etc. it's not unreasonable to see your net worth to reach 7 figures, if not 8 figures. Early engineers are compensated just fine IMO, they are just taking a big gamble relative to the market (i.e. $500k annual salary at Google).
- epicureanideal 5y ago> Which is part of the reason for their compensation. Right, those without capital are always compensated poorly relative to the value they produce. They don’t have a better option, which is part of the problem. One of the people with access to capital but possibly far less skill will end up being their boss and also receive the vast majority of rewards for their combined efforts. > Did the first few factory workers and car design people at Ford become millionaires True, but not necessarily optimal.
- _9rq6 5y agoAccess to capital is the underestimated aspect of the entire scenario. Sheer amount of money available and accessible to you once you are rich is tremendous. From stimulus funds from US Fed to parent's trust fund.