4 ms·
6. I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from. You talk in black in white and categorically (and quite unfairly) paint startups as slave labor camps w
by vecter 14y ago
6. I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from. You talk in black in white and categorically (and quite unfairly) paint startups as slave labor camps where employees are treated like shit and exploited at every possible opportunity. I know a lot of people both founding and working for startups, and I've never actually heard of employees being asked or even implicitly pressured to work 100+ hour weeks. That's not to say that it never happens, but from the pretty large sample I have, I've personally never heard of it. That seems to pretty much contradict your statement outright, given that it's so extreme and broad.
Dave phrased his answer in very reasonable terms that, based on my experience, closely match reality. You just flat out ignored them and went back to your original claim as if his points simply had no merit.
- calibraxis 14y ago100+ looks like a typo. confluence's original post said 60+. This is common at startups, and there was more to point #6 anyway. Aside from that typo, confluence's points closely match my perspective. Just rational risk management. Understand the system you're you're getting into, without illusions. drusenko rhetorically asked if this all makes him sociopathic. (That is, an ideal rational amoral self-interest.) Frankly, I think that's a type error -- he's not sociopathic, but his corporation probably is. And that's just plain institutional constraint; startups already have a huge failure rate, even when acting in that kind of rational way. I am not a sociopath, but my corporation overall acts like one. With my support. Otherwise we court extra chance of failure.