2 ms·
It's kind of a "known unknown"; I don't know what problems this would cause but I'm sure there would be something that no one anticipated. I realize this is a v
by wmf 3y ago
It's kind of a "known unknown"; I don't know what problems this would cause but I'm sure there would be something that no one anticipated. I realize this is a vague criticism.
My comment was inspired by recent discussion of OpenAI's custom structure (a capped-profit subsidiary owned by a non-profit) where the board seemingly had no incentive to generate profit but investors didn't realize this. I've also heard bad stories from a startup that stayed under 50 employees forever to avoid the owner having to learn about various labor regulations; it sounds like it hurt everyone involved long-term.
- coderatlarge 3y agoUnderstood - and I appreciate the discussion. Examples like the 50 employee bar you bring up are exactly the kind of unintended consequences of the current employment system I'm thinking of. (my understanding is that it happens in many places) It costs so much in dollars and in opportunity cost to make a small step (one more employee) that companies make sub-optimal decisions to avoid these costs, thus hurting everyone. If those firms were setup more flexibly (perhaps as I describe, but maybe also in other ways), then they could grow more organically and benefit more people. I suspect we each view that example differently :) The OpenAI structure that you touch on is also very interesting. When the full story of what happened and why comes out, it should shed some light on the incentives that structure created. In what I'm trying to sketch, the incentives of participants would be aligned by a common profit motive.