Live data from Hacker News

Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

venturehacks.com

81–90 of 124 posts

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#81
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know your mom, and I don't know what she is or isn't capable of doing. I also don't think it's helpful to believe that the word is out to get you, regardless of personal situation. But that said, you're absolutely delusional if you think that everyone in this country who wants to become a lawyer or a doctor or a better-paid whatever is capable of doing it. There are a million different reasons why most people…

Certainly not everyone has the opportunity to be a lawyer. However, any software engineers with the skill to be employee #1 at a startup has the ability to start a company (perhaps a more modest one than the one they are joining).

It takes much more than software engineering skills to start a startup. You need ambition and determination more than you need any particular engineering skills. And you need to be charismatic enough to convince other people that you are not one of the 90% of entrepreneurs who will fail, that you are exceptional.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#82
This article completely glosses over the class of bootstrapped startups where the founders leave their day jobs, invests their time and money in the startup, and then start hiring people.

That's a lot of risk, so yes, for that class of startups founders should have higher ownership in the company and thus are worth more if the company is worth something.

On top of that, these boot strapped startups often pay their employees more than themselves, so on the income front, employees are worth more.

This article really underscores the weirdness of incentives that can crop up at venture backed companies. It almost makes no sense.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#83
post #41
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many founders invest their savings into the business at inception. They certainly invest a massive cut in salary (usually all the way down to $0). The opportunity cost for founders is much more than a "25% haircut". Imho, for most, the financial risk and opportunity cost is why they deserve those shares, if you're going to do calculations. But, even more fundamentally, the founders deserve the shares because if they…

HN is seriously degraded if this is being downvoted. If this doesn't ring true, then you haven't been a startup founder.

[deleted]

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#84
post #67

People are over-moralizing this. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Why are salesmen often better paid than engineers? Does a ditch-digger deserve less money than a lawyer? The market is basically amoral. People get what they can get, not what they 'deserve'. Founders get more money because they have ownership, and in a capitalistic system profits accrue to capital. There's no point in constructing an elaborate moral arch…

I agree you get what you can get based on the market and it has nothing to do with anything else. It doesn't matter how "smart" you are, or how "hard" you work, that really doesn't correlate directly with what you get paid. But I think your second point (Founder get more money because they have more ownership) is tautological. The article is really asking, should the founders get such a great proportion of ownership?…

I basically agree with you. My response was more directed at the comments in this thread glorifying the intestinal fortitude of founders. Founders don't give much equity to employees because the successful ones don't have to, and the failures never have the chance. It doesn't have much to do with founders bravely trading risk for an equivalent measure of reward.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#85
post #41
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many founders invest their savings into the business at inception. They certainly invest a massive cut in salary (usually all the way down to $0). The opportunity cost for founders is much more than a "25% haircut". Imho, for most, the financial risk and opportunity cost is why they deserve those shares, if you're going to do calculations. But, even more fundamentally, the founders deserve the shares because if they…

HN is seriously degraded if this is being downvoted. If this doesn't ring true, then you haven't been a startup founder.

How so? OP said employees at a startup get 25% lower salary than they would at someplace more mainstream. He didn't mention founders making 25% less than they would at a day job.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#86

This isn't about who is more valuable, this about who took the risk . Employees take little or no risk in 99% of cases. You are not taking a risk making 75% of your max pay at Google/Facebook/Zynga/Twitter by going to a startup. You are taking a 25% haircut to be part of something new/small/etc. However, starting something from scratch, incorporating and putting your reputation on the line is a major risk. If you are…

This seems a weak argument, it's only applicable once you've actually got a reputation to protect. The vast majority of founders aren't celebrities. Given that many entrepreneurs just keep failing and then trying again and again and again it doesn't make much sense to me at all. There is no risk. Maybe it will be embarrassing if Malhalo fails, but I'm sure that won't stop you trying again. Personally I think there's…

Given that many entrepreneurs just keep failing and then trying again and again and again it doesn't make much sense to me at all. There is no risk.

I used to work for a web design shop. My fellow programmers and I hated the fact that our bosses were making money on our backs. They would bill clients these huge fees for our hours and pay us 10% of that amount. What did we do about it? We complained to each other during lunch hours. Until one day when I threw in the idea, "lets start our own company". Then the truth came out, all those brave soldiers started backpedaling. I was in awe. I quit my job soon after, became a freelancer and 3 years later partnered up with another programmer to start a development company. We went through ups and downs at the beginning, not garnering much support, even from our own social circles. It's been a year and only now are some of our clients finally realizing the appeal of our offer. We have more work than we can handle and have had to moved into a larger office in a downtown area. I'm literally starting to hire next week. The same people we tried to get help from at the beginning, who were instead doing nothing but discourage us, are now more than willing volunteers.

I've had many similar experiences all throughout my life. I have once tried to organize a class action lawsuit against a company orchestrating an organized scam. I knew many of the clients personally. So I tried to gather them and the same thing happened, there was fud and people chose to wait and see what would happen as they left me to handle the initial steps on my own. I eventually reached an agreement with the company and got somewhat compensated. Later on when people heard, they tried to join in on the action, but by then it was too late, I had moved on with my life.

Another example, about 2 years ago, I had dealings with an agency that wanted to build this really ambitious website for one of their clients. I was hired as a developer along with other professionals from various fields (design, ux, marketing, etc). The agency ended up not paying any of us and while everybody were emailing each other trying to figure out what to do? I threw in a couple of bold ideas, such as bypassing the agency and dealing directly with the client, suing the agency. As expected the brave mouths didn't feel so tough anymore. I ended up hiring my own lawyer and a few months ago, I obtained a court decision. When people heard, I started receiving emails about "maybe ganging up to get our money".

All 3 stories have the same pattern. There is a problem, a risky proposal gets thrown in, people react to the idea, someone does something about it. I've come to the conclusion that being an entrepreneur is a character trait. You either have it or you don't.

Soon after I quit my job 4 years ago, I read or heard something somewhere, I don't remember the source, but it basically said, you get paid what you deserve. It's only now that I have a small and growing enterprise and that I have to explore the compensation question that I understand this. My coworkers from 4 years ago still work for the same boss. Maybe they got salary bumps, maybe they didn't, maybe they're still complaining during lunch, but one thing is sure we all got what we deserved.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#87
A founder is just twice as valuable than a employee, and this just at the beginning. If you measure value by the actual profit a founder or an employee generates at a project, enterprise or whatever, you'll surely find that in long term is the employee that generates most of your earnings. That's a plain truth, if you have employees is because your business is growing and you can't deal with it just by yourself, so you need someone to work by your side at this point. Every earning from then now should be almost equally split on you and your employees. And I say almost, because your employees do owe you something, a place to work with less risk.

And that last part is the why I think a founder is 2x more valuable than employees. I love to see enterprises where they left a percentage of their actions to split that amount of earnings over their employees.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#88
post #67

People are over-moralizing this. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Why are salesmen often better paid than engineers? Does a ditch-digger deserve less money than a lawyer? The market is basically amoral. People get what they can get, not what they 'deserve'. Founders get more money because they have ownership, and in a capitalistic system profits accrue to capital. There's no point in constructing an elaborate moral arch…

Word, it's all about bringing in the money. If you can convince people to give you more money, you get that money, and if you can't, you don't. Sales guys are well-respected in most corporate hierarchies because the sales guys are the people going out there and actually getting customers that bring in cash. It doesn't matter if you write the most beautiful program ever, the reality is there has to be a way to monetize that program if you want to run a business off of it (and obviously, your employer does). If an engineer can't do it and a sales guy can, the sales guy deserves a bigger cut of the pie.

You can see great examples of this by looking at basically any celebrity. Do Oprah and Brad Pitt really deserve billions of dollars for their contributions? Most people would say that morally their contribution to society is minor (or even negative), but the market doesn't seem to agree, and they are rewarded with money far exceeding the income of many business leaders. They get this money because they chose to do something people are willing to spend money on.

Why do thugs that play football, whose moral contributions are, again, minor or often negative, make millions of dollars each year? Because millions of average people pay $30/wk to watch them run into each other, $100/yr in team merchandise, etc. If you don't like that, convince people to stop spending money on football.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#89
The reason founders get more is because they are less willing to accept a bad deal, and more able to turn a bad deal into a good one. An employee who brings strategic assets to a company will make a lot of money, neither Eric Schmidt or Tim Cook are founders of their respective companies but they do VERY well for themselves.

The best explanation is found on Ribbon Farm in The Gervais Principle.

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...

And yes, Founders are 1000x more valuable to the market than their employees. They may not be more valuable according to any other logic but the market is the person who cuts the cheques.

Re: Are founders really 1000x more valuable than their employees?

#90
post #67

People are over-moralizing this. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Why are salesmen often better paid than engineers? Does a ditch-digger deserve less money than a lawyer? The market is basically amoral. People get what they can get, not what they 'deserve'. Founders get more money because they have ownership, and in a capitalistic system profits accrue to capital. There's no point in constructing an elaborate moral arch…

Couldn't agree more. If you think you're getting a crap deal as an employee, quit and start your own company. If you can't find 340 bucks (incorporation fees) to drastically change the rewards of your contributions then I don't have any problem with that person making 1/1000th of the returns.
Post reply on HN