[dimdimdim]

Being an employee at a startup does mean you took a risk, but nothing in comparison to the founders who built it.

Most employees don't understand that a lot of things change along with way when building a company. Most product companies start with dreams of IPO or getting sold to a large company at a massive valuation. This seldom happens for the vast majority of startups - who either go bust, sell to slightly larger players or becoming SMBs for life.

The owners of a company will make money in most of the above cases - employees won't, and rightfully so.

[x5n1]

> Being an employee at a startup does mean you took a risk, but nothing in comparison to the founders who built it.

Bullshit. I hate this sort of rhetoric. Founders took no more risk than the first employees. The founders got funding, and if they did not they convinced some poor schlub to waste their time on the startup. That's the only difference between early startup employees and founders. Many employees at tech startups may be just as capable as the founders, but are not in the same position of power. That's the only difference. Founders take no more risk and get much more reward, if a startup succeeds, than employees, often not for any good reason other than they did it and the employee did not. I mean obviously chances of success are only ~<30% if you do your job well, but still.

If a startup fails the founders still got paid a salary, just like employees, as long as they got funding. If not then they paid out money out of their pocket, to pay a few employees a small salary which was below market. This is the only case in which founders come out worse off than if they took a job with a salary, so take more risk. The rest of it, their outcome is much better just because they did it and you did not and you believed them.

[landryraccoon]

> founders still got paid a salary

Founders get paid a salary? That hasn't always been true in my experience.

> Founders took no more risk than the first employees.

If it's actually that easy you should go be a startup founder. After all, there's no risk, right?

[pikzen]

Let's be honest: people who found startups fall in three categories:

* Those who have funds to fall back on in case the startup fails

* Those who got VC funding

* Those who are actually risking things because they invested everything in their startup

I'd wager the first two categories make up 90% of startup founders. These people take absolutely zero risks. Whoop, startup fails. Oh well, it was either not your money or you've still got a comfortable amount to sit on.

Thsoe last 10 percent, yes, they do take risks. Don't expect me to cry for the others.

[mpbm]

This word "risk." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just because someone has lots of money (their own or a VC's) doesn't mean they aren't risking that money when they put it into a startup. The money is at risk because it probably WON'T be returned, let alone increased.

I think what you're conflating with risk is actually diversification. You're only willing to cry for the people who are "all in" on a single investment. Arguably, being diversified is the sensible thing to do and it's the idiots who don't make sensible choices who you shouldn't cry for.

[hyperliner]

So, if they have "funds to fall back under" isn't that a risk?