[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hitch

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.

I'm not denigrating money. I was happy to be better paid. (Though the layoff I mentioned from prior employer was a case of "That's what I get for being good. They're laying me off because they don't want to pay me what they previously decided I was worth.")

But more money wasn't the only factor in the job satisfaction equation, and likely wasn't the most important. As I said, we want to be paid comparably with our peers, and get upset when someone supposedly a peer is making far more without an obvious good reason for the disparity.

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.

A friend in Boston got laid off after a dozen years. He was doing computer security for a big financial outfit. His employer disagreed with the state over taxes, and closed the facility he worked in. He chose not to relocate the family to TX to follow the job. His boss got the chop about a week after he did.

He made a mid-life career change, and became a rep for a family-owned outfit importing spirits from France, and sells armangac, cognac, and whiskey. He wasn't making a lot of money, but was having fun. Now he's also doing work for a consulting firm where the idea was he'd peer-program with a partner working nights and weekends. But the firm is getting more deeply embedded with thier principal client, and his part-time gig is approaching full time. I saw him at an SF con over the weeken in Boston, and he was technically on vacation but working because of various issues. He said about one vendor in the process "They claim to be in the cloud, but I've accused them of actually having the server under someone's desk in the office!" I told him the cloud was simply how the outside world reached the box, and it's physical location might just be under someone's desk...

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.

I suppose you can say it's sorted in the case I mentioned, though I do wonder about the current state of the other sister. The one I knew is on the West Coast and doing well. Her ex-husband is remarried and a father, but his wife understood what she was getting and knew how to deal with it.

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 agree. Her behavior made perfect sense, especially after the family stuff she'd been through, and I didn't blame her. (Part of the fun was that she and her husband were principles in an editorial services business that was having issues. She griped on a list we were on about various things publishers weren't doing like proofreading and copy editing. Another list member who was an editor at a trade house said "But those things are part of the book's budget and always done!" "Maybe they still are at your house" was the reply, "but I'm the one here dealing with publishers who used to pay us to do that and aren't anymore...")

I didn't see her husband as evil - just clueless. He was focused on what he was trying to do, and blissfully unaware of her feelings until hit by the divorce clue-by-four. (I take that back. He was aware she was unhappy. He didn't comprehend why well enough till after she left.)

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.

He expects his taxes to be ugly, but has established a separate account for this work and is socking the money to pay the taxes away.

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.

I worked for a start up for a short time. I got a salary, and had options. I did not expect the options to be worth anything, and was correct. The board told the CEO he needed to grow the business. He went out and rustled up investors and got lots of money put into the company, but was unable to convert that into increased business and revenue and profit. They wound up being acquired for pennies on the dollar by another firm after I left. I have no idea who is still there, but the guy who hired me isn't.

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.

The problem with family owned business and startups is similar. You must be a family member or a founding partner to share in any sudden riches. If you aren't one of those two classes, none of it will stick to you even if it does happen.

Aside from the idiocy of expecting people to work for equity, you have the need for a clear eyed view of reality. Too many startup founders have visions of dollar signs dancing through their heads, and dream of grabbing the brass ring - their startup will IPO and they'll be filthy rich. Save that most startups never reach the point of IPO, and many that do trade at a price that puts the options under water. No one involved gets rich.

I tell people "Do it because you love it. Do it because you can't imagine not doing it. Do it as though an IPO will never happen, and you'll be making an okay living doing what you love but never get rich. Don't do it because you expect to become rich, because you won't!" (Come to think of it, I give the same advice to aspiring writers... )
______
Dennis