It sounds more like values of tribalism to me. They're benefiting the in-group (employees of their company) but they're still existing in a society where not everyone gets paid the same as them. And unless they're a perfect reflection of society (is this possible?) then they're still perpetuating whichever inequalities they tend to hire for.

Unions are more like, everyone gets paid based on how many times your body has been around the sun.

Socialism would be more like every employee getting the same share of ownership of the company as every other employee.

These folks are explicitly looking for mid to late career, highly skilled people. Those they don't hire they're not arguing need to be paid the same. I'm pretty sure they don't have a pool of receptionists and custodial staff making the same as the founders. Those positions, if they exist, are likely done by temps or contractors.

When they mention that the pay may not stay uniform, they might be talking about creating junior positions and operational positions like technical support at a lower rung, even if the ladder stays to very few rungs.

While "everyone gets paid the same" is a thing that some people say about socialism and/or union jobs, and while socialists are often concerned with the effects of pay disparity, it is not really a foundational characteristic of any form of socialism I can think of, no.

I think successfully arguing that any venture-capital backed enterprise is socialist is difficult, to be honest.

Seems a bit more like collectivism to me. Remember, everyone is choosing to and agreeing to be paid the same by choosing to work at this firm. If they disagreed, they'd be voting with their feet.

Socialism is a society level compact that cannot be unwound the same way if at all.

I don’t think that’s an accurate description of socialism.

It’s more recruiting and marketing tactic, the company is saying how fair they treat everyone by paying same salary.

It may work in short term, when everyone is part of product and tech team, and building product and valuation.

It will become a problem when junior people are paid same as senior level people that’s delivering more impact. And, when the company grows and have to hire support staff. Will they pay same salary to the receptionist?

But why then even write an article on it, if your experiment is only valid for a very specific set of people, and the minute you start hiring more people or different skillsets or age groups or experience or pretty much anything else, it fails?

Like literally anyone can start a team of few people that are all paid the same. It's not really that hard, nor does it require that much attention. You only need to write about it, if it successfully stays that way for a long period of time or if it scales when parameters change.

It’s way to get noticed. It landed on front page of HN, so it worked somewhat.