5 ms·
> initially his own, but eventually others—by paying themselves a market hourly rate This is massively flawed thinking. So called "market rate" is actually a t
by varispeed 1y ago
> initially his own, but eventually others—by paying themselves a market hourly rate
This is massively flawed thinking. So called "market rate" is actually a tool for value extraction from the workers and is not connected in any shape or form with what they create for company they work at. As corporations refer to this as if it was a consensus (as in developer should earn $x an hour), they pay this much and workers have no choice but to accept (if someone has working class background and no trust fund, it is rather impossible to throw the towel and start own business, sometimes there are even regulations designed to keep workers captive).
In such a project, "founder level" people should pay themselves as much as they think their worth is. Simple as that.
I often hear VC talking that if founder takes too much money, it's a bad look. They just want to shame people into not taking the slice they deserve.
It's interesting that IT is full of intelligent people, yet they can't grasp how they are being played by the market frames set by the rich.
- eek2121 1y agohard disagree. For a project like this, all members should be paid a fair, but not "get rich" sum. There are companies out there that pay EVERYONE the same salary, all the way from CEO to janitor. Mysteriously, those companies don't have folks trying to hijack things, because nobody benefits. It's almost like removing money from the equation stops all the nasty stuff that happens inside organizations. Who'd have thought?
- varispeed 1y ago"Market rate" is not neutral. It is a wage‑fixing device that standardises labour pay while letting profits float to shareholders. Treating it as holy writ is how extraction is hidden in plain sight. Flat salaries do not remove politics. With unequal equity and control, a flat wage simply disciplines workers while investors keep uncapped upside. If money is the poison, start by flattening carry, liquidation preferences and board vetoes. Otherwise you have only flattened one side. Capping founder pay is class gatekeeping. It selects for people with savings or family safety nets and pushes working‑class founders out. Shaming those who take cash once they create surplus protects investor optics, not fairness. Equal pay only makes sense when ownership, risk and power are equal. Without that, "equal pay" is theatre.
- lazerwalker 1y agoThis project is or will be a worker-owned co-op, as evidenced by the strict requirements placed on anyone who registers a .coop domain name. I imagine at least equal ownership (if not risk and power) is a given in this specific instance, and profits will explicitly not flow upwards to shareholders who are not also workers.
- varispeed 1y agoThis likely won't last long, because it is at odds with human nature.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]