| > 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. |
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.