undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdaveidol4y ago0 comments

> When a business goes under, the employees have just lost their abilities to feed themselves, keep a roof over their heads, see doctors, buy medicine and provide for their families.

Yes, but that's always the risk of working at any company (and it's a risk the investor may also have if the company goes under). You can typically just get a new job and get these things back.

I think an even more compelling argument here is the one of opportunity cost when working for a startup vs big FAANG company.

Early startup tech employees not only invest their time but also lose out on real money they would have earned at another (bigger) company.

0 comments

rizzom50004y ago

| Early startup tech employees not only invest their time but also lose out on real money they would have earned at another (bigger) company.

Isn't that by design? With greater risk comes the potential for greater reward. If someone doesn't want the startup risk, they can choose to pursue a job at FAANG. If your goal is to minimize risk, then choose a job as a schoolteacher or the post office. That's the nice thing about freedom of choice.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/charlie-ayers-made-millions-c...

lumost4y ago

This presumes that early employees are getting a fair shake. In many cases they are being sold a lottery ticket with a value of only a few thousand dollars even when the company sells/IPOs.

WJW4y ago

Isn't that exactly what "risk" means in this context? Sometimes you get very rich (see the early google/microsoft employees), usually you get nothing or almost nothing. If you don't want to play the lottery there is nobody forcing you to work at startups.

1 more reply

alisonkisk4y ago

Only of they are paid partly in equity. If they are getting a lower comp package than FAANG because of intangibles they value highly (perhaps developing skills FAANG will pay more for later) that's their choice.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse