[raw_anon_1111]

Can we use the same argument for all of the businesses that are only surviving because of VC money?

I find it rich how many tech people are working for money losing companies, using technology from money losing companies and/or trying to start a money losing company and get funding from a VC.

Every job is not meant to support a single person living on their own raising a family.

[dpkirchner]

That's what VC money is for. When it comes to paying below a living wage, we typically expect the government to provide support to make up the difference (so they're not literally homeless). Businesses that rely on government to pay their employees should not exist.

[raw_anon_1111]

That’s kind of the point, a mom and pop restaurant or a McDonald’s franchise owner doesn’t have the luxury of burning $10 for every $1 in revenue for years and being backed by VC funding.

Oh and the average franchise owner is not getting rich. They are making $100K a year to $150K a year depending on how many franchises they own.

Also tech companies can afford to pay a tech worker more money because you don’t have to increase the number of workers when you get more customers.

YC is not going to give the aspiring fast food owner $250K to start their business like they are going to give “pets.ai - AI for dog walkers”

[dpkirchner]

In that case they probably shouldn't be running a McDonald's. They aren't owed that and they shouldn't depend on their workers getting government support just so the owners can "earn" their own living wage.

[raw_anon_1111]

Yet tech workers are “owed” making money because they are in an industry where their employers “deserve” to survive despite losing money because they can get VC funding - funded by among others government pension plans?

I find it slightly hypocritical that people can clutch their pearls at small businesses who risk their own money while yet another BS “AI” company’s founders can play founder using other people’s money.