1. There would still have to be some right to back out (with payment of the original option premium, for sure, and penalties for people who do that often, like being blocked from the market, and being sued for breach if they did it in bad faith.)
2. People would be expected to disclose what kind of work they would and would not do. Obviously, nothing illegal can go down; but normal tech work (building websites) is, I think, fine for most people.
3. Indentured servitude is different because a servant's obligations are 24/7. This is a contract over a certain, limited amount of time. The only difference between it and a regular consulting contract is the transferability among buyers (or future buyers who'd exercise the option).
Regarding the moral hazard / ethics problem, I believe that if the market were well-structured, people would comply (i.e. work at the strike price, even if their market rates improved far beyond it) just to have continuing access to the market, and also for social networking purposes. You may have underpriced yourself 5 years ago at $100/hour when you're now worth $300, but you only obligated yourself for 200 hours and it might just be worth it to work at that rate. for a short amount of time and, possibly, get a client you can charge a higher rate in the future.
There would still have to be some right to back out
Ok, that changes things. I'm not quite sure why anyone would pay for the opportunity to offer someone a job, though.
I believe that if the market were well-structured, people would comply (i.e. work at the strike price, even if their market rates improved far beyond it) just to have continuing access to the market, and also for social networking purposes.
There'd be a serious back-out penalty. You'd either have to buy the options back at a fair price, and you'd lose access to the site if you were acting in bad faith.
Yes, people would have the right to refuse work, but if they abused it, they'd lose access to that market. As with any other contract, people who backed out would face penalties as agreed-upon (at the very minimum, repayment of what they earned in the original sale).
1. There would still have to be some right to back out (with payment of the original option premium, for sure, and penalties for people who do that often, like being blocked from the market, and being sued for breach if they did it in bad faith.)
2. People would be expected to disclose what kind of work they would and would not do. Obviously, nothing illegal can go down; but normal tech work (building websites) is, I think, fine for most people.
3. Indentured servitude is different because a servant's obligations are 24/7. This is a contract over a certain, limited amount of time. The only difference between it and a regular consulting contract is the transferability among buyers (or future buyers who'd exercise the option).
Regarding the moral hazard / ethics problem, I believe that if the market were well-structured, people would comply (i.e. work at the strike price, even if their market rates improved far beyond it) just to have continuing access to the market, and also for social networking purposes. You may have underpriced yourself 5 years ago at $100/hour when you're now worth $300, but you only obligated yourself for 200 hours and it might just be worth it to work at that rate. for a short amount of time and, possibly, get a client you can charge a higher rate in the future.