It's always been that way. They're looking for a senior at the price of a junior. That kind of job listing has always been around, and it makes companies look good to have openings.
Where was this promise given? I am not aware of such a promise. :-(
Addendum: I am really surprises that you claim such a promise existed, since a seat in the ruling class requires a very different training and different qualifications (even completely ignoring "soft entry barriers" like habits).
>
The problem with educated youth who understand the game is that if there’s no room for them to join the ruling class they become very angry.
My experience/observation is that only few (university-)educated people really do understand the game. Only a subset of them actually make serious attempts to understand the rules of the game, and of those, most get to believe in often very dangerous falsehoods about what the rules are.
> The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners.
This is a great narrative for folks who want to be fatalistic.
From my view:
- Much of what you call “nobles” and “commoners” are more about values than blood. Yes, “noble” values are difficult to develop if you’re not born in that class. That said, these values are easier to learn and develop today for a wider group of people than has ever been true in the past.
- Some people think the “noble” side is all rainbows and unicorns. The noble class is shedding its weak non-stop. It may take a generation or two before a branch of a noble family becomes common, but it happens often, and it’s a source of great consternation to that branch when it does.
> What’s sophisticated are the layers of ideology and falsehood that made people believe that aristocracy was dead.
Did anyone actually think the aristocracy was dead?
The relative power of the aristocracy dipped a bit mid-20th century, but what they may have temporarily lost in economic power was gained in social and political power.
> The rules are simple and ancient: noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners.
This does not describe the current situation: even if we just consider net worth, there are at least 2-3 rather separated kinds of elites:
- the "aristocracy": what you name "noble blood"
- "old money": there is some partial overlap to "aristocracy", but not the same; for example think of family with a long pedigree, but not necessarily of aristocratic origin, think of family empires that have a standing in some industries over multiple generations.
- "new money": people who got rich in particular by building some internet company. Their values and attitudes are quite different from "old money".
These are three quite different groups of people. So, it's much more complicated than "noble blood breeds nobles; common blood breeds commoners".
--
And this is just the "already net worth rich".
For example there exist groups of intelligent people who are highly ambitious, but aren't given a chance, so they look for allies, and sometimes they succeed.
In some sense the classical hacker scene can be considered as an example. Some of them actually got rich by founding some internet startup.
It works in China because they have growth. In the west thousands of college kids thought they could land cushy management positions or at least highly paid expert jobs.
Then these kids realise these jobs don’t exist, that they should have gone to trade school instead, and that their student debt will cripple them for life.
Same thing will happen in China. For now their economy grows so fast it can absorb many intellectuals, but that won’t last forever.
We live in a globalized economy. Rapid transport of people, goods, and information necessitates it. The high paying STEM jobs will go to wherever there is an abundance of talent, and the network effects are quite significant.
You just wanted to jam in this conversation your dislike of DEI (which can be criticised but it’s not the subject).
Elite overproduction is about everybody wanting to be basically managers and nobody wanting to be production workers.
Except that without enough production workers it’s impossible to justify “elite” positions.
College graduates took on huge debt only to realise they’re not needed. That’s how you get a class of young, angry and unemployed intellectuals which is every government’s worst nightmare.
This is my model for Reddit. College educated individuals who are angry about their life, leading to a lot of well written posts about how everything is awful and everyone is evil.
In a tech/biz duo his role should be to raise money and find clients so you can focus 100% of your time on development. If for you both raising money and finding clients carries very little overhead then the rationale for splitting equity can indeed be harder to justify.
I'm not sure if ego is playing into it, and I dont think he is necessarily "underperforming", but its getting hard to accept the terms of the deal. Even with the money we have raised, I feel as though I am handing over my very hard won software skills to someone for free. Is this rational? Maybe its just this stage of the company that has this dynamic
For what is worth, I have seen first hand two instances of the same situation, where one cofounder was heavily technical and it was plainly obviously that the other one, who had an accomplished business pedigree, was not doing much in terms of leveraged activities. In both cases the cofounder got kicked out, via coordinated action/pressure from investor+technical cofounder.
