551–560 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know how to deal with this in the technical domain - we break things on purpose in a controlled way so that people don't rely on an SLO that is there by mere chance. Maybe companies should do "bonus tolerance breaks" for the same purpose.
Considering typical turnover that's not possible unless you pay out the bonuses on a much more frequent than annual schedule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m not staying at a job past 5 unless I have a share of the company. Screw that. Every startup owner thinks they are unique and that’s why 90% of them fail. Not all companies are the same, and not all companies are startups. I'm back working at the same company which was my first job in tech. Not for the second time, not the third either, but the fourth time now. I was first hired there over 22 years ago in tech s…
> even if it can't pay a huge amount for some positions, there's always a lot of recognition that everyone is needed to make it work, and everyone is appreciated I can't pay my rent in recognition or appreciation though.
There's nothing wrong at all with just seeking maximum income at all times, but that's normally to some end (happiness, security etc): if what you're seeking is partially served by a given job, then you often aren't really gaining much by sacking that job off for one that pays more
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is sort of the deal on Wall Street. You get a "discretionary bonus" and its more mysteriously tied to the performance of the firm. This is the secret, you can't give people too much of a formula. Bonuses have to be conjured up in a nonsensical way, otherwise stuff like this happens.
It seems odd to me why bonuses are tied to the performance of the company rather than the employee's performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super-early employee here. Pay for your options your first day of employment. They should be inexpensive; and your employer should be willing to give you a signing bonus to cover it (after all, the money just goes right back to them). Then when you leave, you get to keep all vested shares with no tax consequence, no need to pony up any cash, and no need to sell right away. Worked out great for me.
How does this work when they haven't vested yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but your example is a little different than the OP's - I think part of this though is that the company is using the 'bonus' effectively as salary but with the idea that they don't have to guarantee its future. The company treats it like salary, the employees treat it like salary, recruiters probably mention it as part of comp like it's salary, etc. Then one day they decide not to do it, of course people are pis…
> you can't have 'bonuses' that are not tied to something real But many successful companies and employees do, including everywhere I've worked.
This reminds me of a story back around that time about a guy who was, like, employee 200 at Amazon. He goes to the can, and sees a vestment sheet for the early employees, and realizes that he’s been hired just after people were getting stock grants. Just just prior to him are shortly to become millionaires, and he’s sitting there with a regular job. He quit because of the inequity, and did a tour with this story as a…
> company, with nothing but bright days ahead, and he can’t
> enjoy it because he knows other people are getting a lot
> more.
That's only partially true. You might have just realized that you're worth more, and that you could do about the same job at a different company and get better remuneration.
I can offer an anecdotal example: back in my first job I had reached quite a happy point. I was able to do my job without much problems, I was competent for my tasks, and my compensation was okay-ish. Not great, but I could sustain myself and get me something nice every now and then.
Then I started seeing people as competent as me leave and get waaaay better remuneration, doing jobs maybe different but still interesting/engaging, still rewarding.
Anyway, I stayed there for about two more years, then I left. My next job was a ton of fun, got competent at it again after some initial ramp-up, and was making waaay more than my first job.
"One of our things is that money follows; it does not lead." --Dan Gilbert In my experience, successful people go work hard and are excited about "the right things" and incur financial benefits along the way. If you are working on the right stuff in the right way, on average you should get good comp/bonuses. On the flip side, if your only connection to your work is the bonus then you're probably unhappy anyways. "Som…
Is this true, or a form or survival biais ? I am most of us agree that working hard is somewhat a requirement for meaningful success. What is in question here is whether it's sufficient. We all know a lot of hard working people who aren't successful
From my experience, in the business world, unless one if very lucky or incredibly talented incuring financial benefits doesn't just happen from hard work. And the first step is the ability to ask a fair share of the value one is generating.
> "Sometimes people mistake generosity for not being fair. Generosity is good, entitlement is bad, and they can easily be confused, so be crystal clear on which is which. Decisions should be based on what you believe is warranted" -- Ray Salio
I think one can be unfair in the way one is generous.
I actually think bonuses and equity grants are terrible for comapany morale. I've seen it many times, and heard many more stories. On top of the issue in this story, there are others too. For example, if someone wants to leave, but the bonus or vesting is coming up, they will stay, and you don't want people on a project who don't want to be there. As another example I know people who work at companies that are going…
If you pay a high salary, you create an incentive to just mark time and maximize the number of paychecks collected as well. If you pay in part in equity (or performance-based bonuses), you can balance that somewhat. No pay structure is a substitute for strong leadership, but each system provides pulls in certain directions.
that reminds me of a post i read some time ago...
Basically anon was in the middle of a job interview with this startup. the founder/ceo was willing to pay an important part of the salary in stocks, arguing that the stocks grantet for first year alone would have meant anon would get at least one million dollar.
Anon asks if the boss/ceo would be willing to pay no stock but sign an agreement to just pay out one million dollar in one year. After all, it should be the same amout of money, if not less, since the ceo was talking about "at least one million".
Needless to say, the CEO did not agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A co-operative model of ownership would solve that problem. Then if the company succeeds, the workers see the rewards.
Once the company is more than a handful of people that's all pretty theoretical.
Technically it's a Public Limited Company (albeit one wholly owned by a trust for the benefit of its employees), but it does run an internal democratic system.
Profits are distributed to employees as bonus, which is a uniform percentage of their salary. 2021 is the first year they won't distribute a bonus (because of Covid), but historically it's been between 5% and 20%.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
I have basically come to see any kind of potential money as never going to see it money.