>So what if there is a lack of cash? Keep demanding more.That's fine, but you're changing the subtopic of your text that I was specifically responding to. You asked, "what's wrong with paying a lot of cash?"
What's wrong with it is that the fledgling startups do not have "lots of cash" to pay so playing dumb about why they aren't paying it is a non-productive conversation. Sure, as a future potential employee, demand all you want -- and renegotiate for higher salary next year -- or quit for a better job -- or start your own damn company -- or don't take the job at all. All that empowerment cheerleading is fine but it's from the perspective of the "employEE" so it's changing the subject. My answer was specifically explaining the perspective of the "startup employER" -- and that's who you had asked about.
>The premise of my argument is that the separation between the two groups you mentioned is so temporary that it doesn't even matter
It can take several years for startups to receive revenue and profitability and therefore, the recruiting mindset will favor one group vs the other over a long ramp up period. This hiring strategy is unavoidable when the startup does not have a lot of cash.
>whether you're a mercenary is not up to you, it's up to your employer.
Btw, I wasn't using "mercenary" in a derogatory manner. It's a label I often proudly wear and being fabulously compensated with cash never flipped a switch in my head from mercenary to loyal employee. I was mercenary to the bone.
Anyway, I make the distinction about mercenaries to highlight that some employees' incentives may not be aligned optimally for a cash-strapped startup. Therefore, perhaps the mercenary should restrict his criteria for employers to be the more mature companies who pay high market-rate salaries and very little in stock. That strategy seems more productive than wondering why Microsoft pays "lots of cash" but startup XYZ does not.
The blog was about startups and not companies like Microsoft/IBM.