i've counted 3 separate conclusions you've projected onto me based on zero confirmed information about my situation. even if i refuted your points, you wouldn't believe me, so i guess you're right just because you say you are.
which is sort of what i was alluding to in my last comment.
Lazy, try again.
Your last paragraph of "no context, no skin in game" is the same projection you accuse me of. How many workers have to deal with the fallout of arrogant founder decisions? They've got skin in the game too, just no agency. They probably have even more context than you, if they've been paying attention to numbers or if they have their own experience as founders.
If you think I paint an unfair or incorrect picture, by all means try to make a case.
> How many workers have to deal with the fallout of arrogant founder decisions?
well, so far, zero.
i think this thread is just you venting at me for having an opinion, because there's this image in your head of a mustache twirling asshole.
Having a business puts you in a good position to get funding or customers for a new venture. The same labor market for your employees benefits you if you yourself have any technical skills worth mentioning.
And your employees might care if they actually had a profit share in how the company did, or saw some direct upside when they did their job better or worse--which is usually not the case. Why break their back for an entitled owner resents them for knowing the value of their labor?
You sound like somebody with the typical founder hubris.