3 ms·
This effect would be attenuated by the fact that you could pay the equity to employees directly. You are of course correct that for those employees who would r
by wutbrodo 12y ago
This effect would be attenuated by the fact that you could pay the equity to employees directly. You are of course correct that for those employees who would rather get a high stable income instead of equity, you would likely need a third-party that was interested in equity alone. But remember that the calculus for stability vs equity would be changed for the employee pool too, so it may simply become the norm to work for equity in a startup.
- sanderjd 12y agoIt would definitely change the risk/reward equation, but I think you overestimate how much people value equity vs. living above the poverty line (which is about where basic income would need to be). Or maybe I underestimate it because I don't live in silicon valley. I think basic income would be more exciting for small businesses that aren't attractive to investors, but have similar financial constraints as early-stage startups.
- wutbrodo 12y agoI may be extrapolating the current situation out too far, but I figure that it'll just sharpen the distinction that already exists between startups and big companies. Right now you can go to a big company and make triple, or you can work for a startup because some combination of the risk/responsibility/potential equity payoff makes up for the loss in salary. I was just extending that idea out further; I already know multiple people who have saved a few 100k a couple years out of college and are much, much less motivated by money now (vs the non-monetary payoffs that startups offer). Sure, the pool of engineers who would do so may be small, but that doesn't mean EVERY startup needs to take this route. Either way, it's an interesting thought.