4 ms·
As an aside, this is a curious situation that points to capitalism (in its current form) being something of a continuation of aristocracy but by other means: >
by photochemsyn 4y ago
As an aside, this is a curious situation that points to capitalism (in its current form) being something of a continuation of aristocracy but by other means:
> "Some employees can't afford to buy their equity at all, so that when their startup is acquired or goes public, they earn nothing from the outcome, looking on in silence while their colleagues become millionaires. The people who find themselves in this situation are, of course, disproportionately those who work in lower-paying roles, and who don't have family or friends to borrow from."
A society in which each person is given something like a 'equity stake' at adulthood might work. It would be their decision as to how to use it - buy equity in a startup, pay for a college education, start a small business, etc. Maybe certain limitations on frivolous activities would make sense. It's similar to universal basic income, but more delivered in one chunk rather than as a pittance spread out over time. It would create a much more even playing field while still allowing for competitive success stories.
- paulddraper 4y agoI'm confused. RSUs cost nothing. ISOs are heavily discounted especially because they are offered years before IPO. Yes there is a case where employees give up equity entirely, but I would guess this is < 15%. And when the 16th percentile is the aristocracy...
- phendrenad2 4y agoProbably very few startup employees can't afford to exercise SOME options, but how many can exercise ALL of their options? Most probably fall somewhere in-between, hence the existence of the high-interest loans mentioned in the article.