5 ms·
> She was getting richer at a stupendously rapid rate. And yet she hadn't been doing anything bad. The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that us
by owaiswiz 4mo ago
> She was getting richer at a stupendously rapid rate. And yet she hadn't been doing anything bad. The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. So she could feel from her own experience how wrong that politician was. She wasn't exploiting anyone.
I presume it's a company that just has co-founders then?
Or everyone is getting an equal % of the share? In which case SHE's not getting 93% richer just cause her start up is.
- FromTheFirstIn 4mo agoNo it’s a magical startup where it’s just going to be her in a basement doing 100% of the work required for 10 months straight while demand doubles every month.
- Telemakhos 4mo agoLet's say she has ten employees. They all voluntarily agree to work for her: slavery is illegal, so people work for others on a consensual basis. Both the employer and employee negotiated and consented to a salary or wage schedule for that employee. The employer pays the agreed-upon compensation, and the employee receives it. If the company makes an unexpectedly large profit, the employer is not obligated to redistribute that to her employees in addition to the already agreed-upon and paid compensation. If the employees think that what they agreed to work for is no longer sufficient, they are welcome to renegotiate their compensation or, if they feel they have been wronged and are being paid less than they are worth, to take their talent to a different employer. After all, everything so far has been consensual. The only thing that would be non-consensual would be obligating the employer to redistribute her profit over and above what had already been negotiated.
- AndrewKemendo 4mo ago[flagged]
- brchn 4mo agoPG thinks racism was solved in the 60s
- JimmyBuckets 4mo agoThis completely negates the fact that due to how the labor market is structured, most people who sell their labour to survive are in a disadvantageous position for the negotiation you are talking about. What you are talking about works well in a basic economics text book but does not translate to the real world.
- stephbook 4mo agoThe cleaning lady at SpaceX doesn't do a better job than that at Walmart. So why should she be paid more? You think she's doing the heavy lifting there? Creating the billions? While the underperformer at VideoBuster / Radio Shack is responsible for tanking the business? That's just not true.
- FromTheFirstIn 4mo agoFinally, the case for exploitation! So brave to say people who do physical labor deserve less.
- stephbook 4mo agoI didn't say that. You misunderstood me. Read again.
- FromTheFirstIn 4mo agoYou are saying that, you just value physical labor so little you no longer recognize it. Read again.
- therealdrag0 4mo agoIf you think they were commenting on physical labor your reading comprehension is poor. The example job could have been a “non physical” job, say the hallway CCTV monitor, and made the same point.
- bluecheese452 4mo agoAnd we all lived happily ever after in our frictionless world of spherical cows.
- wat10000 4mo agoThe fact that everything is consensual doesn’t mean the rewards are earned. If I find gold on my land and dig it up and sell it, I haven’t done anything wrong, but I haven’t earned most of that money. I just got lucky.
- didibus 4mo ago> If the company makes an unexpectedly large profit, the employer is not obligated to redistribute that to her employees in addition to the already agreed-upon and paid compensation. What if they were ? That's the whole point of the conversation lol. It's like you're side stepping the entire discourse. Maybe the company should be obligated to redistribute it to her employees, or to the public, etc.
- carlosjobim 4mo ago... and to you, right? Would you want to take a pay cut if your employer was having financial problems? Why not? Because you have an agreement on what your salary should be. It is fair that it works both ways.
- davemp 4mo ago> Would you want to take a pay cut if your employer was having financial problems? This happens constantly in the form of layoffs…
- carlosjobim 4mo agoWould you prefer to stay and work without pay and not be allowed to change jobs? Millions of people have also had that experience in countries without a free labor market.
- davemp 4mo agoJust because it could be worse doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better.
- didibus 4mo agoUh, pay cuts due to financial problems of the business happens all the time.
- brigandish 4mo ago> That's the whole point of the conversation lol > It's like you're side stepping the entire discourse. No, they addressed that with: > The only thing that would be non-consensual would be obligating the employer to redistribute her profit over and above what had already been negotiated. Which would be truly immoral. "lol"
- robotpepi 4mo agoso many people missing the point... try to get out of the box
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- zarathustreal 4mo agoNot giving everyone equal % is exploitation? Interesting, by that logic every participant in the economy should also be required to bail out any startup that fails otherwise we’re exploiting the founders! They’re taking all the risk and we’re getting all the benefit of the services and goods they create!
- inigyou 4mo agoWell yeah? We should have really wide safety nets actually, so people can try startups and feel comfortable that they might fail. What kind of losses are you envisioning - is it just salaries?
- therealdrag0 4mo agoSome have argued American bankruptcy laws is a contributing factor to how many companies get founded, more than most/all other counties in the world.
- Muromec 4mo agoIt may not be exploitation, but one can question how fair is the exchange rate of risk to reward and whether answering "free market" makes the question go away.
- ozgung 4mo agoYeah math is wrong. She has to wait one more month to be a billionaire since she has a co-founder. So 10 months. The good news is she can be a trillionaire in another 10 months.
- migueloller 4mo agoLet’s not be silly. If there are 10 people each with 10% and the company grows by 93%, then everybody’s shares, including the founder’s, grows by 93%.
- Muromec 4mo agoI mean they have a point if you account for issuing new shares.