This is the part where we wave our hands and drop a smoke bomb.
You're theoretically right, but it never works out that way. For all intents and purposes, in the current state of the tech economy, there is no inherent risk to working for a startup. If my company went belly-up today I'll bounce off the floor juuuust fine.
Equity at this point is not being given in exchange for the risk of the company failing, it's given as a tool to decrease other forms of compensation.
And it's a shitty trade. Founders know it and experienced employees know it. The only people who are falling for this are the fresh-faced college grads who think 0.1% pre-dilution of your startup will make them rich.
But lots of engineers get convinced to take huge pay cuts in exchange for a pittance in equity, and to forego huge amounts of benefits that are worth real cash.
"Compensated with appropriate equity" is bullshit. If this was standard operating procedure we wouldn't be walking around acting like sub-1% pre-dilution is worth anything whatsoever.
Companies I've worked for in the past would never dole out more than 1% to engineers, but dropped anywhere from 2-5% on sales / biz-dev / managers. In one case, the engineers had actually been with the company for years and working at half-market wages prior to the non-technical hires.
I'm a current founder and my first 10 employees are going to get a hell of a lot more than .5%
But, founders obviously cannot have anti-dilution prevention. When a company is founded, by definition the founders have 100% of it, and the only way they can raise money is by diluting.
If two founders and three VC reps are sitting around the board table discussing the next round of funding, if there is heavy dilution it will often include stock grants to all the people sitting around the table to reduce their pain. An employee doesn't have a seat sitting around that table, so he is more likely to be pinched by dilution that the founders or the VCs.
Potentially later stage startups that retain founders as C level executives grant stock but that's a separate distinction I would think.
If you aren't around that board room table, you are SOL.
I've learned that founders have a much greater risk/reward ratio than employees. The ratio is really not even close. The assumption that founders risk it "all" is a fallacy. The assumption that employees have less risk is also inaccurate. It depends on the situation, sure -- but I know plenty of startups founded by people who can crash and burn and not have their livelihood affected.
As for "risk compensated with appropriate equity", I'd have to say that most early-stage employees get screwed. The only case where early-stage pans out with commensurate reward at the employee level is when a company goes public. Given that most successful exits nowadays are through acquisition, most early employees are simply hosed.
In my own case, I've been working for 18 months with no salary and I don't consider myself unique. Most founders go down the same long long road before they bring on their first employee. I've learned that most employees (if they haven't gone through the process of founding a company) dismiss the amount of risk founders take on to get a company to the point of even being able to make their first hire.
The whole question seems like we should create a standard model for the risk reward and set equity appropriately.
I don't think this is really the issue. The issue is that the economics of startups don't really work if you expect below-market salaries to be a thing.
Founders shoulder tremendous risk and (the smart ones) live on starvation-level salaries for months, if not years, before they bring on their first employee. Sure - and they deserve to be compensated appropriately via equity.
Employees, having taken on only minimal risk, don't deserve much equity at all - equity at this point is a bonus and a motivator to act in the company's best interests.
This works great. The problem comes along when we bring in sub-market salaries. The reduction in salary or benefits demands an increase in equity - equity coming directly out of the founders.
And here's where it all falls apart: to make up for below-market compensation, the amount of equity that would be rationally required would mean too little equity to account for founder risk. The numbers simply do not add up.
Yes. We should also note that IPOs are much more rare than they once were, the entire world economy is flat or failing, and the flurry of $1M/employee acqu-hires from last year by Apple, Google and Facebook was an aberration and not an economic principle that is likely to be repeated, and even then didn't benefit the actual engineers.
The reward upside on yet-another-startup doing the same thing is quite poor.
On the other hand, creating your own business and avoiding VC's entirely is still a good bet compared to these other alternatives. For those who want risk, it's a great way to go. For risk avoiders, there's tons of well compensated employment working for mature and reasonable companies.
What is the value proposition of these startups that have low compensation, completely retarded so-called products, and almost no chance whatsoever of going public? None.
True(er) a decade or so ago, but definitely not true today. Founders currently, if they're doing it right, risk a bruised ego and a submarket salary for a few years. Employee risk is about the same.
Some of you may be too young to remember the good old, bad old days of the Cold War, but one thing that was supposed to be anathema to Americans were "planned economies". It was proposed, mostly by corporate types and their supporters, that the US should not be a planned economy, it should be an economy like how the US is run - the majority stockholders of corporations make decisions about capital and production.
What happens when production decisions are not planned? There is a risk capital can be spent to create a product no one wants. Isn't that half the discussion on HN - minimal viable products, agile development, and other methods to try to avoid this? Why do the angels, VCs, and now blessed founders deserve so much money? Because they took on risk.
So the VCs tell us we should avoid planned economies and have an economy with risk - where capital is wasted on products no one wants. Then we're told they deserve all of this money because our economy has so much risk. It's a great tautology if you're willing to swallow it.