Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#61

Post by maigret » Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 9:23 PM UTC

tomerico wrote: post #7

dschobel wrote: post #3

Crazy stuff, I wonder how long google's stockholders are going to tolerate overpaying (relative to market) for talent.

Google has never paid any dividend and has always gave big bonuses to its employees. So stockholders already tolerate these things. Microsoft on the other hand has been paying generous dividends, its profits has been rising at an impressive rate, yet its stock has remained steady for almost a decade.

Yes, because investors hope Google to pay (high) dividends soon. Without dividends, stocks are just a Ponzy scheme.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#62

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 9:32 PM UTC

I think it is a poor idea to put stock options in a startup at a high priority when job hunting because startup success is a long shot. It is a different situation for Facebook and other well established pre-IPO companies or older companies that have an established value to their stock (I stayed at SAIC for a long time because of stock bonuses, options, and the expectation that the value would continue to increase).

For small startups, it seems like you have founders who have taken a real risk vs. employees/consultants who are getting a salary and perhaps some equity. If you are working for hire, better really enjoy the work and/or the immediate compensation.

I have a childhood friend (actually, I also used to baby sit him when he was really young) who started 3 companies over a 20 year period, finally getting $300+ million when selling a large interest in his last company. My friend (and people like him) who take risks get most of the rewards - a fair system.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#63

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 9:43 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #52

pclark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this look like a new bubble? Why wouldn't Twitter raise billions in a public offering? Their growth prospects are every web or mobile phone user - in any country - to use their service. The amount of attention Twitter has from its users is really noteworthy.

There was a story not long ago on HN (can't seem to find it though) about a blogger who had a special Twitter pipeline to send tweets whenever he blogged, or something. The thing failed silently and stayed broken for two months, and NOBODY NOTICED: neither he nor any of his "followers" (he had more than a thousand). So, having found out about the situation, he decided to stop using Twitter altogether. On LinkedIn I n…

I up voted you because I agree that "People on Twitter are just copying and pasting news found elsewhere; there is an infinitely small proportion of original content..."

I find Twitter to be very useful because interesting people who I follow post links to interesting stuff. But, not too many fully formed ideas in 140 characters: just links or short funny things, etc.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#64

Post by jasonkester » Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 6:49 AM UTC

maigret wrote: post #59

jasonkester wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen it happen (Phase 3: fired), though fortunately not to me. - company scrambles to come up with a good counteroffer, with more money and a transfer onto a more exciting project. - company decides it needs to lay people off - "more exiting project" manager sees some new guy on his roster, making more than everybody else. Seems like a safe choice for the axe. So in a few months, you can go from having two reall…

Well you also have the risk of not fitting into the new company, risking the same.

Not so much. When you leave a job amicably, you keep lots of options open, including coming back at some point. You still have plenty of goodwill with everybody there.

When you go through the hiring process at a company to the point where they make you an offer, then give the impression that the only reason you put them through it all was to get yourself a raise at your current job, you piss a bunch of people off, and likely burn that bridge forever.

Finally, having made it in the door at company 2, you now have a bunch of new contacts that will be valuable next time you're on the market. And if that next time is only a couple months in the future, you'll have at least a couple people who were your advocates and now feel they owe you something for convincing you to leave a perfectly good job for whatever dysfunctional office politics caused you not to "fit in" at the new place.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#65

Post by Andys » Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 10:51 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #22

Andys wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phase III Boss: You're fired. We just offered you more $$ temporarily so we could have time to find a replacement because we no longer trust you after you quit the first time.

Boss: You're fired. Is this your experience, Andys, are you speculating, or is this just a joke? This has never happened to me or anyone I know. Loyalty doesn't mean shit anymore and everyone knows it. On the other hand, my experience has shown that having the balls to stand up for yourself and do whatever you have to do earns new respect. Phase III (what really happens) Boss treats you better than ever before.

Its never happened to me before, but I've seen it happen.

It isn't about loyalty, its about trust. Once you've quit and then flip-flopped once, the boss can't really trust you not to do it again and again. The boss wants stability.