241–250 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.8 is non trivial (assuming no shenanigans) back in 2000 I had .5% in a uk vc backed company if we had been taken out I would have been a millionaire IRL not just on paper :-(
It's not enough for five years after little dilution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely nobody pays the actual statutory corporate tax rate, the average tax rate paid by US business after applying loopholes and so on is 22-24%: [1], and about a fifth of profitable companies pay no tax at all: [2]. This is so well-known and obvious that even mentioning the 35% rate at all is evidence of bad-faith arguing. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporat... [2] https://www.forbe…
It's not even a relevant comparison. "Corporations" don't spend profits on luxuries for themselves. Their human owners do. Owners pay capital gains tax (which you can argue is too high or low or too easily avoided.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't need the money, then don't take it. Problem solved. If it's such a small amount of money, then self-fund. The VC is thinking "I'm paying this guy's salary to work on something that may or may not ever pay for itself", and he's got dozens of companies that he's funding and they won't all hit it big... or even survive. Or, another option, don't throw everything you have at a company -- join a later stage s…
1.8 is non trivial (assuming no shenanigans) back in 2000 I had .5% in a uk vc backed company if we had been taken out I would have been a millionaire IRL not just on paper :-(
The risk adjusted returns on startup stock options are so close to zero you might as well classify them as "winning the lotto".
Personally, I'm done with startups. They simply don't pay nearly what you'll get from working at the big boys.
The allocation of profits in startups, at least, feels... problematic. I was the #2 engineer hire when I was hired five years ago. Since then, we haven't become super successful -- yet -- but we're at least at breakeven. We have three engineers and we're working on a huge new project that hopefully will really grow the company. I have 1.8% equity. Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is of…
> Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is often, I wonder: Is this really worth it? The key problem in your (all too common) story is that you're only waking up to reality now. I'm guessing that like most startup employees, you were swayed by initial aggressive courtship by the founders / chief-execs, with lots of vague handwaving and hyperboles telling you that you'll definitely become a…
So, um, about that. I should not have said I have 1.8% in the bank. I actually just have about half of that vested so far. I won't be fully vested until three years from now.
I don't really want to quit. I'm excited about what we're working on and I think it could be really useful for people. I just wish that the upside was a little bigger. I also really loathe the idea of walking away from something that isn't finished, you know?
Plus, all the intangibles are nice: I like my co-workers, I like our full-remote office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot I don't like about Trump, but I think his tariffs really will make America great again Tariffs won't do that. Trade negotiation aimed at trade deals with strong common (not necessarily identical but converting over time) labor and environmental protections—where the partners with weaker protection in reach sub-area catch up over time to those starting out with stronger protection—so that competition i…
Trump has been talking about intellectual property issues and using the tariffs as leverage in those discussion. That is, exactly what your third paragraph was saying, except that he isn't talking about labor or environmental protections - which you seem to be implying are the only two places where they can work. I don't agree with Trumps' strategy, but I can see what he is trying. We will see if they work long term.
IP is a capital issue; tightening IP protections reinforces the relative power of capital on all sides of a trade regime.
> That is, exactly what your third paragraph was saying, except that he isn't talking about labor or environmental protection
Yes, it's exactly what I'm talking about except for being completely different and benefitting a narrow interest rather than a broad one.
> which you seem to be implying are the only two places where they can work.
No, they can work as leverage on any issue; labor and environmental issues are just the critical ones where they would have broad benefits to the Sheridan public because they would address the problem of the choice between making local conditions worse and losing jobs.
The allocation of profits in startups, at least, feels... problematic. I was the #2 engineer hire when I was hired five years ago. Since then, we haven't become super successful -- yet -- but we're at least at breakeven. We have three engineers and we're working on a huge new project that hopefully will really grow the company. I have 1.8% equity. Sometimes when I'm working late or working on the weekend, which is of…
Early employees really got the worst deal. The amount of risks is similar to founders but the equity share is much less.
My daughter is going into the Air Force, getting her degree at night for nothing in 2.5 years, going back in as an officer, effectively doubling her income all the while not paying for food, lodging, medical/dental. She plans on doing 20. She'll likely marry an Air Force officer, and two people retiring at 39/40 YO will have a combined retirement of just under 100k (today's money), all the while not wasting precious…
I knew quite a few officers who planned on doing the 20 year office career and then retirement. None of them made it. I knew plenty of officers who wanted to be stationed in Hawaii. They got a taste and then were redeployed elsewhere. The Air Force you think you know does not exist. They are as cut throat as any corporation. And like a corporation the closer you get to retirement the harder they try and spin you loose.
Your daughter may do all 20 years of service. But do know that one day she will plateau career wise and when she does that is when the sharks circle. [0]
[0] https://taskandpurpose.com/military-needs-abandon-promotion-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common discussion item here at HN. Really it only makes sense to work at a startup in the following scenarios: you are founder, you are new and need experience, you are getting paid very well, or you don't care about money and love the work. Trying to get rich as a non founder is a fools game.
Well, this isn't completely true. Founders are much more likely to make ten or a hundred million than first hires, but first hires are at least as likely to make $500k to $3m as founders, especially in net present value accounting terms, and not even adjusting for risk adjusted returns or opportunity cost differences. Most startups don't get to first hire. Most startups have founders that don't just make nothing, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what the Fed chair is talking about. Nobody is concerned about wages in tech. Tech is one of the few industries that has the opposite of a stagnant wage growth problem.
Yeah, I mean you're absolutely right. I'm in an incredible position, and yet, it still feels unfair. I'm 90% sure that it's just that I'm petty and greedy. And yet, like, at the end of the day the engine that drives the economy forward -- and humanity forward -- isn't cash. It's individual human beings sitting down and putting in the hard work in creating something new and nurturing it for years. It feels like our ec…
However overall, the economy is a mechanism for rewarding risk, not hours spent in front of a keyboard. "Hard work" in general is a meaningless concept. What drives humanity forward is risk taking.
The system is designed to encourage holders of capital to risk losing it for the potential reward of even greater wealth. Without incentives for owners of capital to take risk, our society and technology doesn't progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had 5 occasions where the president lost the popular vote but won't the election and 2 of them were in the past 18 years. Do you think most people look at that situation and go "if only I had voted, then things would be different". Between that and a few court rulings that have turned the major elections into an event only the rich and their friends can partake in, I don't see how it's not people bring systemat…
That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. Of course if you are in the majority that lost you hate it, while the minority like it.
No, it doesn't. It lowers the threshold for dictating policy, and biases it to particular interests; that makes tyranny of those interests more likely, including when they command a bare majority (or even large minority) of support.
You don't fight tyranny of the majority by unequal representation; you fight tyranny of the majority with constitutional limits on what government can do at all, or by requirements for supermajorities or (as some state constitutions do) multiple time-separated votes (or both!) for particular kinds of action.