Hacker News Reader

Comment by EpicEng | Hacker News Reader

Because they funded the thing and took on far more risk than anyone else? I'd want my money back to; I'm not in the business of paying out white collar welfare.

View on HN

> took on far more risk than anyone else

Hahahahaha! Oh boy, that piece of Ayn Rand junk propaganda never gets old.

Yeah, they took on so much "risk" compared to everyone else. I wonder what are they going to do when the investment fails. Are they gonna be able to get health insurance? Not default on mortgage payments? Justify holes in the resume timeline to potential employers? Put food on the table for the kids, and a roof above their heads? Send their kids to college? These are tough to do when you're "risking" so much.

Poor things, they live so close to the edge, it breaks my heart.

Nope, they took on less risk than anyone else involved. Money is fungible, and they've likely got a lot of it.

The people there, day after day, they gave their time. That's something we all only have a limited amount of, and that's something you'll never get back.

They did not "give away" their time; they were compensated at a fair market value for their time. I believe this is what we call "employment."

If it was a fair salary. A lot of places try to pay low and give shares for payout in the future. Many young and techie people go for that if they are enthusiastic about the idea.

At a fair market value -- except if it was an early stage startup it was discounted from market value, with subpar benefits, but with a "tonne" of (now worthless) equity.

It is in many ways personally more rewarding, but taking a job in a startup versus a well-established business is taking a risk, accepting subpar conditions today for a shot at a big prize later on.

The company has been around for 10 years, with hundreds of millions in funding through multiple rounds, so I would not consider this a "startup".

The employees were/are highly paid and not assuming any real risk.

While philosophically time is invaluable, I bet people would rather spend their time earning money if they don't have other options.

Such a narrow definition of risk... Their money is the only risk invested?

What about employees who moved across the country, or who worked for two years of their lives here and lost the opportunity costs of working elsewhere, and now have nothing more than a failed company on their resume?

So, I assume the company paid for you to make that move, right? Yes, you took on some risk by moving cross country, but you likely did so because the work was interested and/or the compensation was worth it. Let's not pretend that you didn't get anything out of the deal.

So, it fails, as startups often do, and you find another job. During your time there you pocked over 200k + benefits. What a rough life. What did you lose exactly?

I'm so confused.

You think that the startup employee, who's placed a bet on their own personal value, doesn't deserve sympathy, but the VC, who gets to hedge their bets, does?

I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game. Sucks for both, but were paid quite well for what we do and can walk away whenever we like.

Is "were" supposed to be "we're"? If it is, who's "we"? Not all startups pay "quite well" and there are varying levels of risk employees take. Some are certainly more extreme than others.

I think skin in the game is proportional to net worth... as a percentage of net worth, I'd bet employees put more skin in the game.

If some unfortunate VC tied 100% of their assets in this, which was tied to 100% of some direct persons money, then that'd suck for sure. Not likely though.

>I didn't say that. I said the VC is putting more skin in the game.

No, they don't. They are putting more money in the game, but way less skin -- since with "skin" we usually refer to actual personal consequences (it doesn't get any more personal that our own literal skin).

Both parties, investors and employees, should get sympathy and remediation. Employees have been paid a salary all along, but should still get a proper severance if the company is shut down. Investors who gave Theranos >$300M in 2015 also have a right to get some of their investment back if the company is hopeless. The investors are shareholders in the company and the board and CEO need to consider their interests along with the employees' interests.

Why do you make these assumptions that they're well paid?

And aren't VCs well compensated as well? In many cases taking the bulk of reward despite not doing any of the work?

I don't buy that. Given that the VCs are not investing their own money, they have huge portfolios with many investments, and I'm investing something I can never get back: My time and energy, I'd say they're taking nowhere near the risk anyone else is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com