[DominikR]

> Any IPO ultimately results in people earning money who don't "work" for that money - that means the actual workers lose out everytime.

It is wrong to believe that people would invest large amounts of money randomly without spending significant amounts of their time to make sure the investment will create them some returns.

Also they have the risk to actually loose 100% of their investment, which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have.

Of course they'll need more profit to cover for the risk.

Think about it this way: If there were no investors there wouldn't be a Google or Facebook as we know it today as these companies didn't make a dime for the first 5 or 6 years of their existence.

You can be critical of these two companies (I am) but there are thousands of other companies in the IT sector that just wouldn't exists if they had to make profit right from the start and grow organically.

[gringofyx]

Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk. Not to mention conflating IPO with startup options/shares. There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful. There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place. Your argument also suggests that founders must go "cap in hand" to investors to beg for startup capital. In all scenarios I do not see a positive outcome for the employee, and it seems only more and more difficult to attract new talent

[DominikR]

> Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk

I wrote "which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have." -> you are free to work at an established company and have no risk, I didn't say that startup employees have no risks.

Otherwise they wouldn't get equity, wouldn't they? So please don't twist my words.

> There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful

Great, but how is this related to anything I wrote? My comment was about investors and companies that accept investors money, nothing else.

> There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place.

Isn't Google or Facebook highly profitable? It's hard to imagine that a company can reach such a scale in such a short period of time without outside investment.

No society can have private property rights and freedoms without the right to private investment. If I am not allowed to decide for myself where I will invest the money I have earned then I have no money, the state owns it instead.

> Your argument also suggests that founders must go "cap in hand" to investors to beg for startup capital

No, not at all. I didn't suggest anything like that.

> In all scenarios I do not see a positive outcome for the employee, and it seems only more and more difficult to attract new talent

Sorry, but software development is one of the most privileged and highest paid professions. You make it sound as if we are all working in coal mines.

[gringofyx]

I think we're taking the extremes as the norm, and it is clouding the argument. Let's just say there is risk on both sides, nobody is entitled to anything except the chance to receive remuneration that is deemed fair, whether that's through investment or salary.

Your last point is the most interesting, though, coal-miners were paid very well and by contrast I know (good) developers that earn less than the national average. I am not arguing (in this case) about software developers, but all employees from all backgrounds.

[DominikR]

> Let's just say there is risk on both sides, nobody is entitled to anything except the chance to receive remuneration that is deemed fair, whether that's through investment or salary.

Fully agree.

[landryraccoon]

I dunno man, if you don't like the offers at Google where do you think you'll do better? They pay pretty well...

[gringofyx]

See my previous comment to you (above) - also play out the proposal in the article over, say, 100 years, ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company.

[DominikR]

> ... ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company

This is an utopian Socialist phantasy. It has often been tried and has never worked.

I came from a Socialist country where every company was employee owned. The only exit we received is fleeing as refugees from a civil war.

Look, I understand that you mean well but the only reality that exists is the market and that people are most productive when they have freedom.

Socialism tries to undermine both, first through ideology and when it later inevitably doesn't work through use of force.

[gringofyx]

Conflating political ideology with corporate structuring was not my point, nor my intent. Attracting staff after 100 years of operations was my point, to clarify; I said "could" (implying risk)... not "should" (implying ideology)