It did feel rather tacked on and poorly considered. Human beings are not slaves to employers but to our own needs. We take out our frustration at this upon our employers even though it isn't really their fault (most of the time) that the only safe and efficient way to satisfy these needs is through tedious employment.

(Well, it's not the only way, but it is the way most people chose, which is primarily their fault.)

I very much liked the comparison of management of people to management of computers. We each understand our own field and how, generally, to utilize the resources we are meant to manage, but we don't understand each other's so well. This is a problem when we have to cooperate and each have a good understanding of what the other needs and does, as it is in the employer/techie relationship. Division of labor has its advantages, but it's no excuse for not knowing what your neighbor does.

Criticism taken. I was thinking more along the lines of what umjames is saying, but that's besides the point. I want to improve my writing as much as any other skill, so this kind of feedback is much appreciated.

The reason I tacked the whole Questions section on was to:

1) Stimulate the feelings deep down inside those who want to start a startup, but for one reason or another, aren't.

2) Ask the question, how can we compensate people for what they actually contribute in a way that scales better?

Any ideas?

I think part of what he is saying is right. You can only work "profitably" if you have "resources" available to you. Take farming. Guess what, no matter how good at it you are, no matter how hard a worker, no matter how much you deserve to succeed, without land\seeds\water\ect, you can't get a start to prove yourself with and make a profit. So you get pushed into share cropping instead, which goes nowhere, at least for you...

Trapped by "commitments" you "freely" entered into... true on one level in a way but it's just not that simple. And who has\doesn't have resources in life? Who share crops and who owns the plantation? Is it a meritocracy? Do those who are most deserving get allocated more? Somewhat, hence the idea of profiting\bankruptcy. But also most of the people who can rise up in such a system have resources given to them to invest, probably by their parents. Invest in themselves (a chance at education), in a business, in many different ways. The opposite, those who are given little, give you the term "crushing poverty", were upon you will almost certainly share crop (and remain crushingly poor) or perish.

There's no easy magic solution, but at the same time trapping people into a world where they must submit to a life of drudgery (whether through physical labor, mental anguish, or both) in order to access resources held by those who were just given them... seems wrong. Perhaps instead we should work to push up the "bottom class"? Say, use technology and progress to bring us to a productive and equitable enough state everyone can have a great education, at least so far as they can prove themselves worthy of. I think it is clear that given human nature this will never happen... but that doesn't mean we can't dream that no one has to become a drone, nor decry the perpetuation of the share cropping system, in all it's forms.

I don't think he meant that all employment is evil or akin to slavery. What sucks about work from the employee's perspective usually has roots in the employee's belief that he/she is not properly appreciated/respected/compensated for his/her personal contributions to the job.

It's not like working for a startup or starting one yourself frees you from your personal financial commitments, but it can (and often does) make you feel more appreciated/respected/compensated for the work you do.

Here here! I've a friend who lives very, very cheaply, has no debt, and makes bank. As a result, he simply doesn't make work decisions based on money -- pretty amazing to see the freedom that his lifestyle choices afford him.