81–90 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single person making 100k+ has a ~90% chance of saving enough in 10 years to retire in a cheap location. That is a life changing amount of money.
Not if you live in the Bay area. Definitely not if you have to support a family.
If you are single, living in the bay, and making 100+k and not saving like a bandit it's because that's your choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any IPO ultimately results in people earning money who don't "work" for that money - that means the actual workers lose out everytime. It is wrong to believe that people would invest large amounts of money randomly without spending significant amounts of their time to make sure the investment will create them some returns. Also they have the risk to actually loose 100% of their investment, which some guy employed a…
Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk. Not to mention conflating IPO with startup options/shares. There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful. There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place. Your argument also suggests that founders…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going the cash route has a higher expected value but a lower variance. Different people have different attitudes towards risk.
This. And things are not really comparable to big finance jobs as the bonus is more or less expected to some degree or people leave to places where they will get the bonus. Startups are a lottery to a large degree, and for employees without significant equity, the odds don't seem great.
Probably the least risky choice among high paying jobs that exist in reasonably large numbers is to become a doctor.
It's interesting to see the popular response to this thread being one where people think employees are better off with salary over options. This seems crazy to me as I have watched many close friends cash out options from companies including Google, Yelp, Apple and Pandora and buy houses (some with cash), start companies, become investors and/or take long sabbaticals with the proceeds from their options. With salary…
A single person making 100k+ has a ~90% chance of saving enough in 10 years to retire in a cheap location. That is a life changing amount of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Not all employees are paid above market value 2. Working somewhere that software engineering talent is highly respected is no measure of fiscal compensation 3. Those advantages of upward mobility are learnt, or acquired skills that people work at. There is no opportunity for them to be in the same position as a 1%er living off their parents money to invest and then continue to get rich(er) 4. You imply that employ…
You specifically called out Google in your comment. As a result your arguments feel odd, since Google has a reputation for high salaries and high quality of life. If you specifically mention Google as a problem, you must hate the vast majority of the industry that both doesn't compensate as well and doesn't offer comparable quality of life. In other words, if you aren't happy as a software engineer at Google, where w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you've had no close friends who've lost their options, or had their options become worthless when companies fail? You're one lucky person to know!
Of course I have seen people lose. I've personally lost on options as well. I didn't make the assertion that you can't lose. With options, you are betting that the company will not fail and that it will become much more valuable. Both are statistically unlikely. You are also betting that you won't leave or be otherwise eliminated before the exit. Mainly I'm framing this in comparison to additional salary which is als…
Let's say the salary difference is $50,000/year. Over 20 years, that's maybe half a million dollars, post tax, that you gain by ditching options. Maybe that's not significant to you, but it seems to me to be a pretty rational decision to prefer a relatively certain half million dollars over a low chance of some substantially higher payout.
They organized things and provided help to ensure that all US employees were able to make a Section 83(b) election for our stock in the new company as soon as it was created. (This means we paid taxes early based on the current value (zero) instead of potentially paying much larger taxes in the future.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk. Not to mention conflating IPO with startup options/shares. There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful. There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place. Your argument also suggests that founders…
I dunno man, if you don't like the offers at Google where do you think you'll do better? They pay pretty well...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know the simple solution to this is that companies withhold the amount of RSUs from you that would be taxed, when they vest. Its almost like so simple of a solution that reporters won't touch it. edit: nevermind. even the company cant pay the tax with their illiquid RSUs so its still a problem, and a bigger problem if the share valuation increases, pre-IPO
In this case they are still withholding, but the withholding doesn't cover enough because of AMT and other reasons.