Shame is a pretty good motivator for encouraging people to behave in a manner deemed appropriate by society. I don't think there's an easy or definite answer for how much is appropriate. I guess the question I'd ask in return is: in the case of the woman caught on security footage dumping a whole bucket of Halloween candy into her plastic bag. Why is it that we find it appropriate to shame her and not a founder/ceo who does effectively the same thing? Why can we not apply these same rules of decency to business?
> If the financial incentive to start a company is reduced, there will necessarily be a cost to innovation.
I don't think this is necessarily true. By spreading the fruits of successful innovation more broadly you put the people who enabled that innovation in a position to use that experience to innovate further.
I'd argue that model where innovation centers around founders aiming to hit unicorn status and then retire with 'fuck you' money limits it in the sense that those once you've earned your 'fuck you' money you aren't really incentivised to innovate any further.
> The rules and incentives for employment were very clearly outlined in the employment contract these people signed.
I'm questioning whether they were fair, not in this specific case, but I'm asking more generally is our approach to employment as a society reasonable and fair.
