Your points are well thought out, but I'd like to play devil's advocate to get you to expand on them, if I may...
1. Isn't this why large companies target the inexperienced, the recent college grad who is scrambling to make rent, or exploit people who can only live and work in the US if they get that job?
2. Some would say once you're a successful startup founder, you're "one of them" and the incentives become reversed. Do you think hackers who become founders still retain the hacker ethos? Why?
3. Because acquihires aren't fully disclosed, wouldn't the market function more efficiently if the compensation came through more normal means (salary and stock grants)?
4. Do you really feel like an academic path has competitive compensation to industry?
1. Isn't this why large companies target the inexperienced, the recent college grad who is scrambling to make rent, or exploit people who can only live and work in the US if they get that job?
2. Some would say once you're a successful startup founder, you're "one of them" and the incentives become reversed. Do you think hackers who become founders still retain the hacker ethos? Why?
3. Because acquihires aren't fully disclosed, wouldn't the market function more efficiently if the compensation came through more normal means (salary and stock grants)?
4. Do you really feel like an academic path has competitive compensation to industry?