You don't get ahead by keeping those around you in the dark with respect to the rules of the game you are all playing.

Doing that consciously is pretty low. What you want is for everybody to have as thorough an understanding of these issues as time and resources allow so that everybody will be on exactly the same page. Only by maximum alignment of your interests will you maximize your chance of success.

Most startup engineers think the equity is a signing bonus, almost like a gift-- say, a teaser-- and that they're going to get an order of magnitude more as long as they perform. The fact that it vests over 4 years (with cliff!) and that initial employee allotments are almost never improved is glossed over until they actually join the company.

Oh, please. You're overselling your hand. Programmers aren't victorian textile workers -- they have their pick of jobs, all with fantastic perks, great working conditions and greener grass just around the corner. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to work at a startup. If you don't think a particular job is a fair deal, then go do something else. Unlike most people, you have lots of great choices.

There are many real problems with software as an industry (e.g. age and gender discrimination), but if your worst complaint is that you're not getting as rich as you thought you might from your day job thinking hard thoughts and typing, then you need a perspective adjustment.

The comment you replied to refers to the perceived difference between what "the startup mythology" promises and the reality that many software engineers at startups are given in hard benefits.

Some software engineers at startups work 100-hour weeks because they think they will receive massive compensation in the form of stock. They perceive the stock they have already received to provide a much larger amount of raw wealth than it would if they crunched the numbers. They perceive that their company might provide them with much larger grants of stock if they perform exceedingly well in building the product. Sometimes their bosses guarantee them that they will receive a massive cut of the company, if they just work a little bit harder for a little bit longer.

I don't know how common situations similar to the above are, but they do exist. I imagine many folks reading Hacker News have been on one or both sides of the table in that situation (stock-granting and stock-receiving). I believe that is what the comment you responded to is criticizing.

Nowhere was there a comparison made to victorian textile workers.

Nowhere was there a claim that '(not) getting as rich as you thought' was the worst complaint about the software industry.

You made the latter two arguments up, and then knocked them down.

Yeah, no kidding. I'm the one who made the comparison, because everything he's complaining about depends on an assumption of victimization that just doesn't apply to software engineers. You're exactly right that modern workers are nothing like victorian textile workers -- and that's my point. You're empowered to do whatever you like with your career, but the complaint is...that other people are exploiting you? No. If you're being exploited, it's because you made a bad decision.

Are there naive people who make bad bets and work hard for little gain? Sure. But as in all things, caveat emptor -- it's not your employer's job to second-guess your motivations, and make sure that you're always acting in your own rational best interest. And while we all make bad bets from time to time, I've never experienced the sort of Machiavellian scheming from employers that the rest of you are complaining about.

And of course because they are software engineers they will always act like perfectly logical proof machines and if they don't know laundry list of startup terminology and financial details of stocks and options well yeah sucks to be them. /s

> You're empowered to do whatever you like with your career, but the complaint is...that other people are exploiting you?

Yes employers exploit employees. Is this that surprising? This perfect balance of power between the two exists in simplified models of the world we like to build in our heads.

Yes they should know better, they should know the financial details. They don't seem to act rational working 100 hours a week for a %0.01 of equity. Good, we've got that squared away. Now how come so many of the supposed rather rational individuals end up in that situation? That's where it is interesting. Survivorship bias and hanging out on HN might help reinforce it as well. Maybe there are other factors? Are some idealists and like to believe in a cause? Ok, now, does the CEO also know that and is exploiting it?

Meh/. This is a weak argument. Most people in nearly every company from the PA to the CEO sits at a desk with a screen and makes clicking sounds 95% of the time. With the minor process of of 'talking' added, this is the basic description of ~all jobs. It helps to critique the argument at a level of resolution that matters.

Huh? Even if we restrict things to the civilian sector, there are a LOT of jobs that don't involve that-- police, firefighters, EMS, doctors, nurses, farmers, manufacturers, construction, etc.

I did, and I'm not sorry I did, but I can say with confidence that this shit is not for everybody. AND I paid a heavy financial toll for 'equity', which is nonsense, but I got agency, which is priceless.