> If you look at companies that have made a lot of people rich, like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, almost none of the employees who became rich had an instrumental role in the company’s success.
Is this true? Dan seems to kind of skim over this point without much proof or thought (which is unlike him!)
I don't have any data on this either, but it seems like a pretty big assumption to take for granted. The implication is that the early employees added little value compared to investors/founders, but in my experience this is the opposite. The team is literally who built the vast majority of the product.
I think he means by count of people, not amount of money made. In other words, MSFT made Bill Gates very rich, plus thousands of others became part of the one percent (multi-millionaires) without making a really amazing contribution.
Is this true? Dan seems to kind of skim over this point without much proof or thought (which is unlike him!)
I don't have any data on this either, but it seems like a pretty big assumption to take for granted. The implication is that the early employees added little value compared to investors/founders, but in my experience this is the opposite. The team is literally who built the vast majority of the product.