It's sad that the engineer that made everything happen, Lester Kielsmeier, only got a tiny fraction of the overall wealth. Maybe this can change someday? I'm not hopeful though...
Having ideas does not constitute "making everything happen". Actually implementing the idea is what makes it happen, and in many cases it's the hardest part.
Being on a board of an angel-investment group we see this regularly. Its many times humorous - to the point of absurdity. You would be surprised at how many "inventors" want to ask for money, yet are scared of revealing how their invention works to their own investors. They honestly believe building a better mousetrap is all thats needed - and fame and fortune follow as a given. Thus, they are so guarded of their precious ideas that they never get past the garage-level design phase. They really expect someone to turn over 500k in angel-funding on no due-dillegence. Its a sort of hubris run wild.
The truth is, the engineer in this case no doubt provided value. But that value was effectively of a commodity nature. If he refused to deliver, any number of other competent engineers would've stepped up and done work-for-hire for an hourly rate.
No doubt the success in this case was like nearly all success: Unsexy, year-after-year persistence, building industry connections, meeting deadlines and delivering products. Overall being a good company to do business with.
However, its understandable that this concept of the "ripped off engineer" would be popular on a place like HN, since engineer types tend to overestimate the importance of clever ideas on success.
I think you've laid the facts out clearly. As an engineer, I have seen well-engineered solutions fail (due to business incompetence) and poorly-engineered solutions succeed (due to business acumen). Humans, almost unilaterally, overestimate the value of their efforts. There's a name for the fallacy, but I can't remember it.
Anyway, having said that, I suspect that the "ripped off engineers" that you mention are disillusioned with Capitalism. They may not realize it explicitly, and may even object to what I'm saying, but I think that's the underlying truth.
And I'm with them on it. I question any economic system that yields salary imbalances of 262:1 at a single company.[1]
More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less?
The criticism boggles my mind. If someone thinks they deserve more, they should make steps towards that (ex: leave for another company) instead of expecting for the money to drop in their lap.
Who is "expecting" anything? Who mentioned mere "deserving more"? Questioning something and seeking to change it is a long shot from what you're conveniently and predictably framing it as, and in context "leaving for another company" isn't even a joke, it's a tired old chestnut beginning to become offensive.
Don't expect sympathy saying your mind is boggled while spending more effort to misconstrue than to understand.
> More fairness... by earning more or having others earn less?
You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right? If you don't, your mind is boggled for sure, but not because of anything anyone else is saying. If you do, why pretend you don't?
Apparently the people who are complaining about fairness are expecting something (unless they are just complaining for its own sake).
>You know there is a fixed amount of money in circulation at any given moment, making these alternatives the same thing, right?
It seems you're being purposefully obtuse. There are plenty of people who would love to use force (or the State) to ensure that some group of the "underserving" earns less than they do now and some group of the "deserving" earns more. Maybe this isn't what the GP intended, but their post smacked of communist/socialist collectivism thinking to me.
I don't expect you to reply constructively since you're likely hiding behind a new account, but am always curious if you do.
We'll discourage risk taking if everyone who chooses the relatively secure path of an employee gets to share the upside but never the downside.
Yeah he can lose his job if entrepreneur fails... if the job is in demand he'll easily get a new one, if it's not in demand it's his poor carrier choice irrelevant of the entrepreneur.
Plus most entrepreneurs put way more on the line and go through several rounds of failures... if you're not there when entrepreneur fails and have part in the downside why should you take a cut larger than you deserve as an employee from the success.
But here's the thing... the chef is replaceable... that guy who built that company, he's #1 in the industry and probably in the world.
Yeah you say you owe him success because that's what leaders say... but he'll do it with or without there's no doubt about it.
Lastly, as an employee he was likely paid more than anyone in his position and achieved higher success than he could ever hope as a chef who voluntarily chooses to stay employed.
EDIT: if you're downvoting, at least counter with an argument... don't be hypocrite.
OK, I'll bite: I upvoted your original comment, then downvoted this one: It doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand, and I don't have much interest in promoting the viewpoint of someone so entitled that they think it makes sense to unilaterally dictate the terms of a discussion they're having with total strangers, then call people cowards when they don't obey. Being ignored is not being silenced.
fair enough... but... down-voting isn't to ignore. To ignore is the right way if you have nothing to say.
I like your comment. In my defence, I responded within the context and referred to original rules by PG rather than trying to dictate the terms myself. Thanks for the upvote and the response.
if you read the story it is all about knowing how to put the knowledge you have yourself but more importantly the knowledge others have to good use. Being good at something, have a skill set it, is only part of the picture. Using it effectively is an art.
I think the best part is that his company basically gave the ability to upstarts who entered the pizza business because of a consistent well developed product. That they went the distance to not toss much of their ingredients into the river speaks volumes about a man who grew up poor. You learn from that style of life that everything has value and you need to find it
so instead of concentrating on the possible loss for the engineer celebrate that someone from such an upbringing could create an industry and give work to many more engineers.
It's important for scientists, engineers and inventors to also understand how business works to not get short-changed and how to negotiate an equal equity stake. Ignorance is no excuse.
Anyone whom offers to go into business with someone (at a less than equal footing) or tries to make them their employee when they're the primary technologist is likely cheating them a-priori.
That was what civilization was founded on. Capitalism came many iterative ticks later. It's actually way less exploitative than the regime it replaced, feudalism.
"Farm this land, and make as much as you can, and give us the surplus, or we'll kill you and find someone who will."
"You mean I don't have to wander around the land responding to threats, you'll do that for me? If someone else comes around and threatens me, I can just point them to you? I can sit here and just figure out how to increase my YoY crop? Buddy, you don't have to coerce me, just swing by every month and we'll wine and dine the fuck out of you! I sure hope you brought all your horses because you're gonna need em!"
Warlords were like helicopter bosses. Annoying, but they don't stick around long enough to really mess with anything. It's those with misplaced senses of justice that really got a bee under their bonnet over it. Same as today.
yes... voluntary exploitation. the whole point of capitalism is that any transaction requires both parties to enter voluntarily.
it's not always pretty (and needs regulation to prevent monopoly formation, which the US currently lacks) but the alternative systems with involuntary transactions are demonstrably worse.
If there are only two parties in the market, sure. That is rarely the case in any economic system, and can be argued that it is the least likely to occur in a capitalist-style system.
Oh boy...so what do you tell your kids an adult is? Someone who does whatever it takes, no matter if they need to, no matter who it hurts right?
It's a highly misguided view that breaks down as soon as you hit life's roadblocks and require someone else to help you out.
