4 ms·
hard 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 sala
by eek2121 1y ago
hard 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]