4 ms·

Yeah, this begs the obvious question - who are startups for? Sure, people love ownership and the sense of mission/purpose, but if the argument is that startups

by whakim 4y ago

Yeah, this begs the obvious question - who are startups for? Sure, people love ownership and the sense of mission/purpose, but if the argument is that startups are only for people that love mission/purpose so much that they're willing to get shafted on compensation and shafted on quality of life (in order to make other people rich), then it sounds like the issue is with startups and not the employees who are smart enough to see they're getting a raw deal.

jjeaff 4y ago
By their logic, startups are for (primarily) white people who come from well off families or otherwise well off individuals that can afford to subsidize and supplement the investor's cash infusion.
- leetrout 4y ago
  Or the family was the primary early investors.
simsspoons 4y ago
Feels like the point is more about risk tolerance - whether someone is willing to accept lucky of the draw vs. “get shafted.” Most startups fail, but to be captain obvious lots of non-founders still get absurdly rich in startups.
- whakim 4y ago
  I understand that there's a big difference between a guarantee of a relatively small amount of money and a low chance of a huge amount of money even if the expected value of the former is higher. To also state the obvious, lots of people get absurdly rich winning the lottery - but I still wouldn't advocate buying lottery tickets. Startups which ask their employees to sacrifice "financial stability" (author's words) and any semblance of work-life balance seem like lotteries which most people can't afford to play and provide extremely low EV even to those who can. Even if startups can't match bigco perks and compensation, when they ignore the author's advice and pay employees reasonably well/give them a decent work-life balance, they'll be able to attract talented employees for whom the tradeoffs are actually worthwhile.
erikerikson 4y ago
The old "ask smart people to be stupid" error followed by confusion from what follows. The deeper problem is that pattern isn't only common at startups.

by whakim 4y ago

jjeaff 4y ago

By their logic, startups are for (primarily) white people who come from well off families or otherwise well off individuals that can afford to subsidize and supplement the investor's cash infusion.

leetrout 4y ago
Or the family was the primary early investors.

simsspoons 4y ago

Feels like the point is more about risk tolerance - whether someone is willing to accept lucky of the draw vs. “get shafted.” Most startups fail, but to be captain obvious lots of non-founders still get absurdly rich in startups.

whakim 4y ago
I understand that there's a big difference between a guarantee of a relatively small amount of money and a low chance of a huge amount of money even if the expected value of the former is higher. To also state the obvious, lots of people get absurdly rich winning the lottery - but I still wouldn't advocate buying lottery tickets. Startups which ask their employees to sacrifice "financial stability" (author's words) and any semblance of work-life balance seem like lotteries which most people can't afford to play and provide extremely low EV even to those who can. Even if startups can't match bigco perks and compensation, when they ignore the author's advice and pay employees reasonably well/give them a decent work-life balance, they'll be able to attract talented employees for whom the tradeoffs are actually worthwhile.

erikerikson 4y ago

The old "ask smart people to be stupid" error followed by confusion from what follows. The deeper problem is that pattern isn't only common at startups.