3 ms·

I don't think so. If it stopped there, he would only be a lucky gambler.

• mehrdada 13y ago
  I'd characterize it as an investment, rather than gambling.
  • moron4hire 13y ago
    Do you think the mean outcome for this /(gambling|investing)/ behavior over time for all people is a net positive or a net negative one? If we looked at all of the startup ecosystem employees in all of the startups over the years, would you say they have earned more or less, on average, than if they had stuck to enterprise industry? Granted, that the outcomes have a much higher standard deviation in startups is probably a no-brainer. But if the mean is less, then it's by-definition gambling. I guess the question centers on, do the winners outweigh the losers. In Las Vegas, they do not. That's why they advertise the winners so much, to make it look like winning happens all the time. They don't advertise the churn. Given how much SV "advertises" its big exits, to me it feels more like Las Vegas than a career.
  • Argorak 13y ago
    You might be closer to my point that you imagine, I just wanted to say that his role was not only that of a risk taker, but also that of a valuable employee.
  • ryandrake 13y ago
    I do not understand the difference between investing and gambling.
    • canvia 13y ago
      The level of confidence you have in the expected value.
• carbocation 13y ago
  Only to the same degree that all early employees could be seen as such.
  • Argorak 13y ago
    Sure, but the statement this article was written as a reply to was hinting that the chef did "unimportant" work and should not have his share of luck as everyone else. So explaining the impact makes sense.
• dspillett 13y ago
  That is how taking a new job works. You assess the risks of each option available to you (including the option of staying put if you are already employed, or including waiting for something better if not) against the potential benefits (salary and other conditions, future movement). It is a gamble and you use all the information and experience available to you in order to make sure the risk/reward balance is where you are comfortable. He could easily have made nothing if Google had gone down the pan, then he'd have had a low paid job for a few years and nothing to show for it aside from the experience. How you assess the benefits/risks is a gamble every time, and some people play it safer (favouring stability) than others. How is the cook taking shares as part of his employment package (perhaps in lieu of a chunk of salary he might get elsewhere) any different to a national manager taking shares as part of his package? Of course it could just have been the first half decent job that came along while he was out of work and he took it without much consideration, in that case he was just lucky rather than a lucky gambler. But there is nothing wrong with that either.