[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm contrary on this. I've told people elsewhere salary may be a negative incentive. I once told a boss "I expect to be paid comparably to my peers. If I discover Joe in the cube down the hall who does what I do, has the same seniority, and the same skill set and performance evaluations as I do is getting a lot more than I am, we'll have words about why. But meanwhile, while more money is nice, it's not a game changer. If you double my salary, I won't magically become twice as productive. I'm already working as hard as I can. What I want is work I like to do, making a visible contribution, done with people I get along with and having the resources to do it right. Your job is to tell me what needs doing, see that I have what I need to do it, then step out of the way and fly top cover to keep others from interfering while I get it done." Do that and I'll be happy.

When I was an employee, to some extent, this was true of me. I'd work absurd hours, like a stakeholder, pretty much regardless of the pay. I was, however, motivated by more money. Not necessarily just for the lucre; but I was a woman in a man's field. I mean, so male that at the time, the only females, nationwide, were secretaries and admin assists, and, of course, the occasional "head" of HR, or "office manager." So, keeping up with the Johnses was important to me. When I learned that some lower-level employees in another division were being paid more than I was, I nearly blew a blood vessel--and the CEO raised my salary and perks significantly that same day. It mattered to me. This was at a time when CEO's, etc., would say "but, you don't need the money like Bob does; your husband works, doesn't he?" And, no--I'm not regurgitating someone else's story; that's been said to me.

(That employer later laid me off, and I had a grimly amusing exit interview with HR where they gave me a list of other eliminated positions and the ages of the affected employees. It was a CYA "We are documenting that we aren't laying you off because you are an older employee. We are laying you off because you are making more money than we want to pay." They were having problems, so it was no real surprise, but various of us noted that while IT was being cut to the bone, HR was expanding. Hmmm. The company has less people, but needs more HR employees to handle the remainder...")

Yes. I was laid off as well, during the '89 S&L financial crisis. I got a similar tap-dance, how all the OTHER Veeps were being nuked, as well. What he failed to mention, mind you, was that one of them got a significantly larger severance, and that came back to bite him in the ass. No, not some legal kerfuffle; he wanted to hire me to consult, some years later, and I made him pay the difference--plus interest--before I'd take the gig.

When the family business is "lender to kings and princes", you better not be kid-blind. You're very fussy about just which offspring are in position to make those loans.

Agreed. I rather admire their Klingon-style advancement policies.

A woman I know came from a family with kid-blind issues. Older brother was ... damaged ... and needed to be institutionalized. Dad couldn't admit his son's condition, and poured resources down the rat hole that should have done things like pay for her and her sister's college education. By the time dad was forced to face reality, she and her sister had been pretty well screwed over. And dad died with all sorts of unresolved issues between them that would now never get resolved.

Change some genders and roles around, and this is VERY much like our fam. It's all sorted now...so to speak--but mostly because the kid-blind parent and the kid who was the beneficiary of that blindness are both dead. No issues were ever resolved while they were alive.

She wound up divorcing her husband because an entrepreneurial venture of his failed, and she simply needed more financial security. It was not an amicable parting. The lines were drawn among their mutual friends, and many supported her and demonized him. I stayed out of it. I thought he was clueless, and should have understood her needs better than he did, but wasn't evil.

Meanwhile, her sister got stuck with caring for brother after dad died, and eventually got him declared a ward of the state, because she simply couldn't deal with it. She wound up in a messy parting of the ways with her sister, and now lives on the West Coast and seems determined to put her whole family behind her.

That's messy on a lot of fronts. Many women, biologically, can't live without security. It's not "gold-digging." It's a deep-seated, evolutionary biology, NEED. Hell, I understand it. I have endeavored not to be suppressed by it, because I certainly feel it, but my career path and other choices have been far from safe. I couldn't blame anyone--male or female--for divorce in a situation in which this fundamental need just isn't met, or even understood.

I had a conversation about that with a friend. He had founded a computer consulting business that was a defense contractor<SNIP> He said "$5 million!" They said "We'll have to think about that...", leaving him thinking "OMG! What do I do if they say yes? I don't want to stick around." Fortunately, they didn't make him the offer.

Now, THAT is a high-level problem to have.

More recently, <snip>He told them his rate was $500/hour. They said "When can you start?"

Ah, the good old days. {sob}.

One minor good point is that he can twit his former corporate lawyer who bills $450/hour and say "Nyah, nyah! I'm billing more than you!" But he said "There's no way I'm worth $500/hour!" I said "Sure you are. Something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. They are willing to pay you $500/hour. You are worth it to them Take the money!"

That's exactly right, like the oft-told Picasso story (w/the napkin). He's worth it to them, so--he's worth it. Take the ducats and run.

The problem with equity is whether it will in fact be worth anything. I've lost count of the number of folks I've encountered working ridiculous hours for startups in exchange for equity. The problem is, maybe 1% of those startups succeed, IPO, and make the founder rich. If you aren't a founder, forget getting rich even if it does IPO, and usually, you will wind up with equity that has no value.

There may actually be equity in family businesses, bet getting a piece of it if you aren't a family member presents challenges. Issuing more shares dilutes the equity of existing holders, who may not be happy.


So long as they all felt equally screwed and no one was getting singled out, it was proper compromise...
______
Dennis

I would never ask anyone to work for equity in a start-up. Not unless I'd gone over it with micro-toothed combs, and then some, and saw a REAL need or hunger for the product in the marketplace. Too many startups, too many "venture capitalists," too many crowd-funded half-assed adventures...nah.

There is a vast difference, in many ways, between a family owned biz that's been around for a hundred years or so, and a start-up. Now, having said that--the likelihood that the start-up will allow the participants to strike it rich, so to speak, is FAR greater with a start-up than a staid family-owned biz. Most of them are just that--staid. They are all sorts of companies, many still pumping out things that others forget even exist, from industrial widgets to construction to tailoring, to whatever. Nobody is likely to strike it right with widgets or bespoke suits. ;-) Construction? Possibly, but remote.

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is a world without David Bowie and Alan Rickman in it really one worth living in?

Bowie didn't have a massive influence on me, although I respected him; but I'm desolate about Rickman. I simply adored his work.

Hitch