We need more Arlan Hamilton’s. We need more people dedicated to finding and funding the talented, underserved founders. Not for charity or as part of silly PR campaigns, but because there is massive unrealized potential. We need people from all backgrounds to participate in the equity-generating game. And more startups should give equity to the people who make their successes possible.
Good job Tobi, I thought this was insightful and I learned a lot. Two points below:
1. I think given the fact that VC’s are motivated primarily by their profit margin, I tend to take a more pessimistic view with respect to how they deal with their obligations to the public. But I do think that the wind is changing, because VC’s are becoming prominent players in a variety of industries, (like you highlight above) from pharma, to journalism and even privately run group homes for at risk youth. As a result, people in the tech accountability space, from engineers to sociologists are holding them accountable and asking all the right questions, in terms of what their obligations are to the public. So, there is definitely room for some optimism.
2. I totally agree with you that giving equity to their labor force [if this applies] should be the ethical and moral obligation of any company. I do think that this is where regulators come in as well as having stronger labor protections. Given the asymmetric power relationship between “employer" and “employee" as well as the fact that most businesses are oriented around profit, unfortunately, I just don’t have faith in the fact that companies will do the right thing without being compelled. So, I definitely think that it’s time for regulators to pick up where the accountability folx left off.
1. Yeah the tide is slowly turning. The public reckoning is louder, and the "that's just how we do things" attitude is changing because we learned a lot from the 2010s. And like you said, people are starting to socially hold VCs accountable. Plus, your fave Lina Khan is going to ruffle some feathers.
2. Oh yeah, companies will not naturally give a lot of equity to all stakeholders. I mean, in some ways the tech world might be a leader in this space. In their heyday, did oil companies give hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock to thousands of engineers? The big tech companies do this today. Now, of course, engineers get the benefit here, but say, content moderators (as far as I know) don't get equity, or not a lot of it.
Nice just seen new format like it. I read the TLDRs. Insightful and I pretty much align.
My theory is that we have one problem....our current design of “capitalism” and if we solve:
“Grotesquely Overrewarding proVIDERS of capital and painfully underrewarding proDUCERS of capital...” the rest of the desired behaviors have a chance of occurring organically.
thanks! Everyone seems to love the new format. So I'm keeping it.
Definitely agree that the scale is heavily tipped in the favor of execs and investors, and little goes to the producers. Have you watched the WeWork documentary? It's an incredible portrait of the excesses of the system
Good job Tobi, I thought this was insightful and I learned a lot. Two points below:
1. I think given the fact that VC’s are motivated primarily by their profit margin, I tend to take a more pessimistic view with respect to how they deal with their obligations to the public. But I do think that the wind is changing, because VC’s are becoming prominent players in a variety of industries, (like you highlight above) from pharma, to journalism and even privately run group homes for at risk youth. As a result, people in the tech accountability space, from engineers to sociologists are holding them accountable and asking all the right questions, in terms of what their obligations are to the public. So, there is definitely room for some optimism.
2. I totally agree with you that giving equity to their labor force [if this applies] should be the ethical and moral obligation of any company. I do think that this is where regulators come in as well as having stronger labor protections. Given the asymmetric power relationship between “employer" and “employee" as well as the fact that most businesses are oriented around profit, unfortunately, I just don’t have faith in the fact that companies will do the right thing without being compelled. So, I definitely think that it’s time for regulators to pick up where the accountability folx left off.
glad you enjoyed this!
1. Yeah the tide is slowly turning. The public reckoning is louder, and the "that's just how we do things" attitude is changing because we learned a lot from the 2010s. And like you said, people are starting to socially hold VCs accountable. Plus, your fave Lina Khan is going to ruffle some feathers.
2. Oh yeah, companies will not naturally give a lot of equity to all stakeholders. I mean, in some ways the tech world might be a leader in this space. In their heyday, did oil companies give hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock to thousands of engineers? The big tech companies do this today. Now, of course, engineers get the benefit here, but say, content moderators (as far as I know) don't get equity, or not a lot of it.
What would you want regulators to compel?
Nice just seen new format like it. I read the TLDRs. Insightful and I pretty much align.
My theory is that we have one problem....our current design of “capitalism” and if we solve:
“Grotesquely Overrewarding proVIDERS of capital and painfully underrewarding proDUCERS of capital...” the rest of the desired behaviors have a chance of occurring organically.
thanks! Everyone seems to love the new format. So I'm keeping it.
Definitely agree that the scale is heavily tipped in the favor of execs and investors, and little goes to the producers. Have you watched the WeWork documentary? It's an incredible portrait of the excesses of the system