Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They aren’t win-wins

It’s a ruse - it’s a con - it’s an accounting trick. It’s the foundation of capitalism

If I start a bowling pin production company and own 100% of it, then whatever pins I sell all of the results go to me

Now let say I want to expand my thing (that’s its own moral dilemma we won’t get into), so I promise a person with more money than they need to support their own life, to give me money in exchange for some of the future revenue produced, let’s say 10%

So now you have two people requiring payment - a producer and an “investor” so you’re already in the hole and now it’s 90% and 10%

You use that money to hire people to work in your potemkin dictatorship, with demands on proceeds now on some timeline (note conversion date, next board meeting etc)

So now you hire 10 people, how much of the company do they own? Well that’s totally up to whatever the two owners want including 0%

But let’s say it’s a typical venture deal, so 10% option pool for employees (and don’t forget the 4 year vest, cause we can’t have them mobile can we) which you fill up.

At the end of the four years you now have:

1 80% owner 1 10% owner 10 1% owners

Did the 2 people create 90% of the value of the company?

Only in capitalist math does that hold and in fact the only math capitalists do is the following:

“Well they were free to sign or not sign the contract”

Ignoring the reality of the world based on a worldview of greed that dominated the world to such an extent that it was considered “normal”

Luckily we’re starting to see the tide change




Putting aside your labor theory of value nonsense (I'm very familiar with the classic leftist syllogisms on this), who did someone like JK Rowling screw to make her billion?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: