[elefanten]

They absolutely shouldn’t “take the loss on this one”, what kind of an asinine comment is that?

OP performed labor at an agreed-upon rate. The hypothetical broke and failed founder should “take the loss”, even if it requires taking on further financial burdens.

Externalized risk is one of the most rampant and harmful moral hazards of this age.

[dang]

Hey, can you please make your substantive points without name-calling or otherwise breaking the site guidelines?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[elefanten]

Ok, fair enough. Sorry.

[dang]

Appreciated!

[gred]

For what it's worth, I "took the loss" in a similar situation. The owner put everything he had into the business, it legitimately failed, and I didn't want to kick him while he was down. My financial situation was such that it didn't hurt me too badly. I could imagine pushing harder if the situation had been different, either on my end or on his.

[DiggyJohnson]

The tone of this comment is completely out of line. We probably disagree on many things, yet your comment makes sense to me. So does the comment you're replying to.

It's not clear it's asinine: the cost of trying to recoup money from an entity that is completely out of money can very easily become not worth it.

[elefanten]

The comment I replied to said OP should take the loss if they think the failure is “in good faith”. This implies that OP should give up what they’re owed to take pity on the failed business’ owners.

That would be giving the owners a pass on the risk that should be inherent in starting a business venture at the expense of OP’s already-delivered labor.

I stand by my tone. That kind of risk shuffling is cancer to the whole realm of private ventures and contributes to general distrust of business as a means of organizing and motivating collective human action.

[maerF0x0]

One thing to consider is that Startups, Tech, the bay area, and life in general is a very small world. You'd be surprised how some good faith spread around becomes a nepotistic interview invite a few years later.

[true_religion]

Regardless the founders should pay their employees. As a founder, I would never feel good about not paying staff. Taking care of “your people” has to be a primary responsibility or else you are spitting on their loyalty and sacrifice.

However the extent to which they should take this case is pretty wide.

At least the guy should ask for his wages.

Maybe he should insist on them if he needs it.

Should they sue the founders and get an lien on their houses? I don’t know.

The first two shouldn’t remove good faith or good feeling. The third means bridges burned.

[DiggyJohnson]

Presumably the founders that cannot pay their employees in this “good faith hypothetical” do not feel good at all about not being able to pay out. I would imagine they feel defeated and embarrassed.

[elefanten]

In retrospect, you were correct my tone and rhetoric were out of line. I think siblings to my original comment (written by cogitoergofutuo and itsthecourrier) did a better job by more directly problematizing the "good faith hypothetical" itself. Mismanaging your way to missing payroll twice with no satisfactory communication about it and no promises to make it up is hard to classify as "good faith", even if bad luck was involved.

But I also concede that, in some cases, the cost of recouping might not be worth it.

[paulajohnson]

I think the parent comment is about the likelihood of recovering enough money to make the exercise worthwhile, rather than the propriety of getting ripped off.