7 ms·

Why do things need an exit strategy, why can they not simply exist and do good work and pay people fairly? Does everything have to exist purely to maximise prof

Why do things need an exit strategy, why can they not simply exist and do good work and pay people fairly? Does everything have to exist purely to maximise profit?

heleninboodler 5y ago
The employees who traded compensation for equity probably don't agree. Bandcamp's success is built partially on this trade and at some point it needs to pay off for them. I suppose they could stay private forever and give out profit-sharing bonuses, but I think people go into this expecting an exit.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Did Bandcamp offer employee equity?
  - heleninboodler 5y ago
    Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Who's to say they didn't? As mentioned elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30532741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30532741), they were always focused on slow and steady growth and seemed to be more lifestyle business than wannabe unicorn. Not the shop to join if you wanted lottery ticket options. Maybe they didn't.
    - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
      Some people just want to work at a decent company for reasonable pay, and aren't looking to get filthy rich busting their asses for a FAANG. Bandcamp is absolutely a company I would've considered working for. I'm long past the point in my career where I care about a lottery ticket. They were profitable, big enough to be sustainable, but small enough to be nimble. The management seemed to make all the right noises regarding their values and motivations. I'll take that over a massive tech company or a tiny startup any day of the week.
      - heleninboodler 5y ago
        I didn't think it needed clarification, but "they wouldn't be able to hire anyone" does not literally mean they would have zero candidates. It's expressing the fact that they would be severely limiting their talent pool by offering 0 equity in this industry, where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup.
        BaseballPhysics 5y ago
        > where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup. They're not a startup. They're a profitable, mature, 15 year old company of 100-150 people. Working there isn't "taking a risk", so there's no need to entice people with hazard pay.
        hamburglar 5y ago
        And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I never thought I’d see the day where hacker news, of all places, forgot how this works.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        BaseballPhysics 5y ago
        > And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I was interpreting the original comment that kicked this off ("Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?") as referring to their hiring practices now, not 15 years ago when they were first starting up. Granted I may have misinterpreted the nature of their remark. Obviously back then, yeah, folks would probably have been given an equity stake. So we're arguing different points. What I personally don't know is if they were continuing to give out options to new hires to this day. Based on my own experience in a startup-now-going-concern, my bet is "no", given that it would no longer be strictly necessary to entice folks to join the company, but I could be wrong.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    Yes, they did.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
>Does everything have to exist purely to maximise profit? No, everyone is free to start a bandcamp alternative that does not sell out. But the probability of people wanting to "cash out" or trade equity for other things they want is pretty high. And so that is the world that we see, because it is a reflection of what people want.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Sure, but what people want as individuals and makes sense for them to individually do can nevertheless be harmful to society. That is what people are complaining about generally. I don’t know how to combat the shift to a single monopoly/duopoly in every market though, but it’s definitely going to make our lives worse. Especially with the erosion of private ownership for us plebeians.
munificent 5y ago
Because in our current corporate environment where there is essentially no anti-trust enforcement, any small or medium-sized company is vulnerable to being destroyed by one of the giants.

Why do things need an exit strategy, why can they not simply exist and do good work and pay people fairly? Does everything have to exist purely to maximise profit?

heleninboodler 5y ago

The employees who traded compensation for equity probably don't agree. Bandcamp's success is built partially on this trade and at some point it needs to pay off for them. I suppose they could stay private forever and give out profit-sharing bonuses, but I think people go into this expecting an exit.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Did Bandcamp offer employee equity?
- heleninboodler 5y ago
  Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Who's to say they didn't? As mentioned elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30532741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30532741), they were always focused on slow and steady growth and seemed to be more lifestyle business than wannabe unicorn. Not the shop to join if you wanted lottery ticket options. Maybe they didn't.
  - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
    Some people just want to work at a decent company for reasonable pay, and aren't looking to get filthy rich busting their asses for a FAANG. Bandcamp is absolutely a company I would've considered working for. I'm long past the point in my career where I care about a lottery ticket. They were profitable, big enough to be sustainable, but small enough to be nimble. The management seemed to make all the right noises regarding their values and motivations. I'll take that over a massive tech company or a tiny startup any day of the week.
    - heleninboodler 5y ago
      I didn't think it needed clarification, but "they wouldn't be able to hire anyone" does not literally mean they would have zero candidates. It's expressing the fact that they would be severely limiting their talent pool by offering 0 equity in this industry, where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup.
      - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
        > where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup. They're not a startup. They're a profitable, mature, 15 year old company of 100-150 people. Working there isn't "taking a risk", so there's no need to entice people with hazard pay.
        hamburglar 5y ago
        And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I never thought I’d see the day where hacker news, of all places, forgot how this works.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        BaseballPhysics 5y ago
        > And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I was interpreting the original comment that kicked this off ("Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?") as referring to their hiring practices now, not 15 years ago when they were first starting up. Granted I may have misinterpreted the nature of their remark. Obviously back then, yeah, folks would probably have been given an equity stake. So we're arguing different points. What I personally don't know is if they were continuing to give out options to new hires to this day. Based on my own experience in a startup-now-going-concern, my bet is "no", given that it would no longer be strictly necessary to entice folks to join the company, but I could be wrong.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  Yes, they did.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

>Does everything have to exist purely to maximise profit? No, everyone is free to start a bandcamp alternative that does not sell out. But the probability of people wanting to "cash out" or trade equity for other things they want is pretty high. And so that is the world that we see, because it is a reflection of what people want.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Sure, but what people want as individuals and makes sense for them to individually do can nevertheless be harmful to society. That is what people are complaining about generally. I don’t know how to combat the shift to a single monopoly/duopoly in every market though, but it’s definitely going to make our lives worse. Especially with the erosion of private ownership for us plebeians.

munificent 5y ago

Because in our current corporate environment where there is essentially no anti-trust enforcement, any small or medium-sized company is vulnerable to being destroyed by one of the giants.