2 ms·
implying what? that "workers" can't start something? Technically if there's no company yet there is nowhere to work and thus no workers. You need "founders" to
by dagw 3y ago
implying what? that "workers" can't start something?
Technically if there's no company yet there is nowhere to work and thus no workers. You need "founders" to get the company started for there even to be workers. Now those people have to decide if they want to never hire anybody new, 'give away' a a piece of 'their' company each time they hire, or give up on the worker-owned idea all together.
Of course most "founders" used to be "workers" and often become "workers" again after the company is founded, but the act of founding a company is fundamentally different from the act of working at a company
- hnbad 3y agoAs someone who founded a company and had employees: it's not all that different, though the specifics depend on the kind of business. The biggest difference is that in order to found a company you need capital and workers generally don't have enough capital to found a company (and if they do and do found a company, as you said they become founders themselves). There is of course different work to be done at every stage of development of a company and this means that founding a company may require skills running it may not or vice versa but there is no reason someone who is good at founding companies should continue to call the shots or pocket most of the revenue once the company is fully operational. That's an expectation tied to the return on investment primarily and our system being set up in such a way that founders are owners and workers coming in later are not.