I'm sorry but this entitled attitude just grates at me. If you are in SV getting paid 3-5 times the median household income you already are in the 1% and you already have all the advantages in terms of upward mobility. If you want to earn millions go out and start your own company, it is ridiculous to demand a high salary and a high equity payout. You are not entitled to anything except what you can negotiate.
There is nothing inherent in software engineering that makes it worth $100k minimum per head, it is only worth that much if it supports a business that can earn that much. The fact that SV is one of the bright spots in the economy of the last decade has really started to go to software engineers heads. If you believe you are worth more than what you are being offered, the only way to prove it is to go out and build a business yourself. You can't look at the 1% of the 1% who got a lucky windfall from being in the right place at the right time, and use that as your baseline for "fairness". Try facing the economic struggles that 50% of the country is dealing with, and then tell me how bad Google is screwing its employees.
2. Working somewhere that software engineering talent is highly respected is no measure of fiscal compensation
3. Those advantages of upward mobility are learnt, or acquired skills that people work at. There is no opportunity for them to be in the same position as a 1%er living off their parents money to invest and then continue to get rich(er)
4. You imply that employees have the ability to negotiate on-par with any investor
5. Your last point about $100k is odd, that's just supply and demand in a free market - and the sentiment is doubley-odd given that employee salaries have stagnated since the 70's, SV salaries have been proven to be (somewhat) rigged, also it is in any companies corporate interests to pay the lowest possible amount for any resource.
Lastly, your point about the 1% of the 1% is off-topic - and I agree that they're not necessarily to blame for the widening gap between rich and poor - but without proper incentives for the 99% to go to work, then that 1% of wealth could become worthless if society revolts because of the disproportionate distribution.
My point is simply that alternative vehicles for employee remuneration need to exist beyond the status-quo that's legally existed for decades.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
It is wrong to believe that people would invest large amounts of money randomly without spending significant amounts of their time to make sure the investment will create them some returns.
Also they have the risk to actually loose 100% of their investment, which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have.
Of course they'll need more profit to cover for the risk.
Think about it this way: If there were no investors there wouldn't be a Google or Facebook as we know it today as these companies didn't make a dime for the first 5 or 6 years of their existence.
You can be critical of these two companies (I am) but there are thousands of other companies in the IT sector that just wouldn't exists if they had to make profit right from the start and grow organically.
I wrote "which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have." -> you are free to work at an established company and have no risk, I didn't say that startup employees have no risks.
Otherwise they wouldn't get equity, wouldn't they? So please don't twist my words.
> There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful
Great, but how is this related to anything I wrote? My comment was about investors and companies that accept investors money, nothing else.
> There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place.
Isn't Google or Facebook highly profitable? It's hard to imagine that a company can reach such a scale in such a short period of time without outside investment.
No society can have private property rights and freedoms without the right to private investment. If I am not allowed to decide for myself where I will invest the money I have earned then I have no money, the state owns it instead.
> Your argument also suggests that founders must go "cap in hand" to investors to beg for startup capital
No, not at all. I didn't suggest anything like that.
> In all scenarios I do not see a positive outcome for the employee, and it seems only more and more difficult to attract new talent
Sorry, but software development is one of the most privileged and highest paid professions. You make it sound as if we are all working in coal mines.
Your last point is the most interesting, though, coal-miners were paid very well and by contrast I know (good) developers that earn less than the national average. I am not arguing (in this case) about software developers, but all employees from all backgrounds.
Fully agree.
This is an utopian Socialist phantasy. It has often been tried and has never worked.
I came from a Socialist country where every company was employee owned. The only exit we received is fleeing as refugees from a civil war.
Look, I understand that you mean well but the only reality that exists is the market and that people are most productive when they have freedom.
Socialism tries to undermine both, first through ideology and when it later inevitably doesn't work through use of force.
Stock which is highly liquid and very valuable. I don't think they're having any trouble attracting talent.