3 ms·

>And I think it’s interesting to explore how unusual that is relative to many other areas of technology, because there are so many innovations that were good fo

by dataker 11y ago

>And I think it’s interesting to explore how unusual that is relative to many other areas of technology, because there are so many innovations that were good for society but the people who came up with them ended up with very little. Okay, co-founders sometimes end up with a fair amount money. However, early employees that actually built the company are often forgotten and given a relatively small sum of money. Not sure if SV really changed that.

michaelochurch 11y ago
Right. The discrepancy in reward, prestige, and chance of advancement between founders and employees is Silicon Valley's elephant in the room. Founders don't really take on more risk, because they have the social resources to get seed funding right away and because their backers will protect their careers no matter what happens, but they get orders of magnitude more equity and, if the business succeeds, recognition and credibility. It really is a new caste system, and it might be Silicon Valley's weak point right now. The illusion that most people have when they go there is that they'll be founders in 3 years, when the reality is that most will never be founders because they don't have the right social class background and pedigree. It can still be worth it to be a startup employee if you can get more responsibility and faster promotions than elsewhere. However, if the startup is one of those that always promotes externally, while the engineers who built the original work get shat on for mistakes made in chasing deadlines-- this is a common anti-pattern-- then you're wasting your time and should bounce as soon as possible.
ryanSrich 11y ago
If you're an employee hoping to make it rich by working on someone else's startup you're doing it wrong. Work for someone else because you need steady pay. Work for someone else because you appreciate what they're doing. If you want to make a lot of money you need to take risks. Start your own startup. Go 4+ years without a salary. The co founders might not be the ones actually building the product but they're the ones taking the risk. They're the ones not sleeping at night. Trust me. It's a far better gig to just get paid as an employee than spend years on a startup that eventually fails. If Silicon Valley has done anything it's give young people the false impression that starting a startup is a way to get rich. Well...it is. In the same way that playing the lottery is a way to get rich. One is much easier than the other.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Why are we rewarding someone who's "taking a risk" rather than the people who are actually doing the work?
  - bhayden 11y ago
    It's not like the people doing the work are doing it for free. They're not sacrificing much. The people taking the risks are the ones sacrificing and enabling the creation of something, so they're the ones who gain from it.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      But what, exactly, are they enabling? What couldn't the people doing the actual work do without them?
paul 11y ago
Early employees of Google and Facebook made pretty good money.

by dataker 11y ago

michaelochurch 11y ago

Right. The discrepancy in reward, prestige, and chance of advancement between founders and employees is Silicon Valley's elephant in the room. Founders don't really take on more risk, because they have the social resources to get seed funding right away and because their backers will protect their careers no matter what happens, but they get orders of magnitude more equity and, if the business succeeds, recognition and credibility. It really is a new caste system, and it might be Silicon Valley's weak point right now. The illusion that most people have when they go there is that they'll be founders in 3 years, when the reality is that most will never be founders because they don't have the right social class background and pedigree. It can still be worth it to be a startup employee if you can get more responsibility and faster promotions than elsewhere. However, if the startup is one of those that always promotes externally, while the engineers who built the original work get shat on for mistakes made in chasing deadlines-- this is a common anti-pattern-- then you're wasting your time and should bounce as soon as possible.

ryanSrich 11y ago

If you're an employee hoping to make it rich by working on someone else's startup you're doing it wrong. Work for someone else because you need steady pay. Work for someone else because you appreciate what they're doing. If you want to make a lot of money you need to take risks. Start your own startup. Go 4+ years without a salary. The co founders might not be the ones actually building the product but they're the ones taking the risk. They're the ones not sleeping at night. Trust me. It's a far better gig to just get paid as an employee than spend years on a startup that eventually fails. If Silicon Valley has done anything it's give young people the false impression that starting a startup is a way to get rich. Well...it is. In the same way that playing the lottery is a way to get rich. One is much easier than the other.

s73v3r 11y ago
Why are we rewarding someone who's "taking a risk" rather than the people who are actually doing the work?
- bhayden 11y ago
  It's not like the people doing the work are doing it for free. They're not sacrificing much. The people taking the risks are the ones sacrificing and enabling the creation of something, so they're the ones who gain from it.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    But what, exactly, are they enabling? What couldn't the people doing the actual work do without them?

paul 11y ago

Early employees of Google and Facebook made pretty good money.