3 ms·
The kinds of workers he suggests to hire basically boil down to, "hire people who are willing to work harder for less compensation with a promise of a big equit
by Iftheshoefits 12y ago
The kinds of workers he suggests to hire basically boil down to, "hire people who are willing to work harder for less compensation with a promise of a big equity cash out (which is about as likely as winning the lottery)." That is to say, hire workers who are exploitable.
I am sure some, perhaps even Sam himself, don't view it that way; that they really, honestly believe the rhetoric they're using is not negative or indicative of an exploitative relationship. That's just how dog whistles work, though: in some cases the audience and messenger are merely casual, unwitting participants in a larger, cultural narrative, but in others one or more parties "knows what they mean."
So the words about employees having to be passionate and believe in the mission are basically dog whistles indicating "it's culturally acceptable to target would-be employees who are easily exploited." These would-be employees don't have to think they're being exploited, by the way, in order for an exploitative relationship to exist.
At least that's how I read it.
- johan_larson 12y agoThe deal, as I see it, is that in a start-up you work extra hard for moderate pay, and in return get a chance at a big payout if the company succeeds in a big way. There's nothing wrong about that, in principle. But I wonder how the math works out. It might be possible to calculate the pay per hour of extra work for employees in startups. But some of the parameters would be hard to get data on. How many more hours of work per week? For how many years? For how much less pay? With how much chance of a big win? And the big win gets you how much?