4 ms·
I wonder where people draw lines between con and not con. Seems he didnt make any money from this company. Obviously, faking employees, company history etc sh
by qnsi 5y ago
I wonder where people draw lines between con and not con.
Seems he didnt make any money from this company.
Obviously, faking employees, company history etc shows his dishonesty / con side of this.
But seems like he could almost make this con happen without being that dishonest. Get a free work from people working on commision to bootstrap his company and start making real money and actually start paying them.
Was this what he was planning? Probably not, but would that still be a con?
- tyingq 5y ago>Obviously, faking employees, company history etc shows his dishonesty / con side of this He also faked past work for 42 clients he never had, contractually promised visas and relocation to London, faked his own education and work history, faked a co-founder, and more. You could, of course, bootstrap a company via hiring with a commission-only probationary period. But you would have to comply with minimum wage laws and other labor laws if they were actual employees.
- maxerickson 5y agoEmployment involving any intentional misrepresentation is a con. It's not complicated. Not getting paid at all of course makes the con more consequential than finding out some of the claimed company background was faked.