(I know you're not arguing for this view, but) I just don't understand this perspective. The whole point about compensation is that it is explicitly a transfer of wealth, and through any transfer some people are going to "lose" money (on gross, but perhaps not lose money on net).
That is, can't I make the same argument about being paid at all above the legal minimum? "Taking a higher-than-minimum salary is really a direct wealth transfer from the employees who choose to remain at the company to former employees who are no longer contributing to building the business/its ultimate value."
The logic being that if a current employee takes a higher salary, then that reduces the valuation of the current (and future) company, which is a wealth transfer from future employees (who own some small share) to the current employee who may leave? From this argument a16z's position seems absurd...
That is, can't I make the same argument about being paid at all above the legal minimum? "Taking a higher-than-minimum salary is really a direct wealth transfer from the employees who choose to remain at the company to former employees who are no longer contributing to building the business/its ultimate value."
The logic being that if a current employee takes a higher salary, then that reduces the valuation of the current (and future) company, which is a wealth transfer from future employees (who own some small share) to the current employee who may leave? From this argument a16z's position seems absurd...