[ilaksh]

Amazing that he goes into such detail about how unequal pay should be slightly less unequal.

People are always going to take advantage of other people if they can or if things are structured that way. It is traditional for VCs to take advantage of founders. It is harder for them to take advantage of people who know there is already funding and are coming in after.

And VCs will go into excruciating detail rationalizing all of this.

What about the programmers who are actually building the software and often getting a pittance in relative compensation even though the business is 100% reliant on them to solve most of the problems (which are technical).

[bpodgursky]

The value of a programmer at a startup isn't their output... it's their value relative to the second-best person the company could have hired. Sometimes the employee is a critical component, and sometimes they are a replaceable code-monkey. If you are easily replaced, code-monkeying simple code that makes $1B doesn't mean you provided $1B of value.

(I say this, as a software dev at a startup).

[throwawaythekey]

It's easy to follow your line of reasoning to the ultimate end point that no one is really worth anything much at all. Even if it is logically sound the main outcome of thinking like that is to limit your own potential...

Note how very few of the non-labor class will refer to themselves in those terms.

[UncleMeat]

Surely this is true of everybody, including founders. Why do we assume that it is only founders that are providing some creative asset to the company?