Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Where in sokoloff's answer did they specify that the margin went to an individual? I interpret "employer" to mean the employing company, composed of many individuals who, like sokoloff, also want stability.


Ok. Why should the company be subject to nonworker ownership and exploitation?


I'll address the ownership angle as that's simple (at least in my mind): because someone (or several someones) put up the capital to start the business. They own it.

If they want to exchange some ownership for some cash, they can sell all or part of their ownership stake. If they want to exchange some ownership for labor or other services, they can create a stock or option grant program, typically with vesting. There doesn't seem to be anything unnatural to me about someone putting capital at risk to form a business owning the resulting business. No different than putting my capital at risk/committed to buy a house or a car. I pay for them and I own them.

If you want to avoid that situation that you find exploitive, you are free to start your own (individually or as a collective) and keep/share as you judge best.




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

Search: