Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Worst Perk at Google

coveragecat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#11

Post by maxerickson »

latchkey wrote: post #5
phsource wrote: post #3

Life insurance is actually surprisingly common a perk; I remember even Stripe had it! I guess it's nice to know that your employees' family will be well provided for regardless of their original financial situation. Maybe this is a healthy dose of paternalism? I feel like there would be more people who regret not buying life insurance in this case than people who regretted the minimal $250 outlay

Let's be real, it isn't a perk, it is a marketable asset for insurance companies to make more money. A lot of dental insurance falls under a similar category. It is often more expensive to pay for the insurance than it is to pay out of pocket. But then you wonder about what happens if something really bad occurs? Well, a lot of the dental insurance policies (especially for smaller companies) have yearly maximum limit…

It's (very likely) cheaper for the company to offer a fixed benefit than it is to pay that amount directly as compensation.

I certainly don't mind that people I work with and their families are getting dental care instead of me getting a modest annual raise.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#12

Post by mayneack »

nullcipher wrote: post #7
waynesonfire wrote: post #4

these benefits need to stop being tied to employers.

I read somewhere this is all tied to some arcane reasoning from the depression era. Does anyone know it's history?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United...

I've always heard it attributed to WWII era wage controls. You couldn't compete on salary so you had to come up with other benefits to tie to your job.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#13

Post by halifaxbeard »

wferrell wrote: post #9
dekhn wrote: post #2

The perk also includes: 10 years of salary to your spouse, and monies also for your children. Googlers typically aren't going to microptimize expenses this small.

I think this is the real perk -- I remember in ~2008 that sadly, a googler's family had to take advantage of this when they passed. It stood out as the company really taking care of the team. I have no clue if they still do this today but it was certainly a wow moment.

It would certainly help cushion the blow of the death of a team member.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#14

Post by btown »

I’ve heard from friends in finance that it’s very intentional that firms provide complementary car service (or now, Uber credits) if you’re staying in the office past a certain hour. Sure, they could just pass that to you as cash compensation; they have decades of data to predict how often you would stay late. But it’s one less tradeoff for the employee to need to worry about, which translates into that much more focus.

This is an extreme example - it’s Google saying “we don’t want you to even need to think about the tradeoff of ‘do I spend my comp on a more sunny living space with a quicker commute, or save it so my family can be taken care of if the worst should happen.’” They want that latter part to not be a consideration.

Elite firms invest in their employees’ focus. They’ll always do things like this. Call it paternalistic or morbid, but it’s logical and intentional and not at all about whether it’s efficient vs. additional cash comp.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#16

Post by xxpor »

mayneack wrote: post #12
nullcipher wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere this is all tied to some arcane reasoning from the depression era. Does anyone know it's history?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United... I've always heard it attributed to WWII era wage controls. You couldn't compete on salary so you had to come up with other benefits to tie to your job.

health insurance != life insurance

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#17

Post by yongjik »

> What it costs you

> The tax cost paid by the employee = $200 (additional tax)

> Google paid the insurer $450; without the policy, that cash could be directly paid to the employee = $350 (post-tax)

> Total cost for the insurance: $550

Wait, isn't it like saying "The lunch is free, but if the employer didn't provide lunch they could give me $20 dollars per day instead!"?

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#18

Post by golergka »

Insurance shouldn't be only valued by expected value, but also how do they affect the other part of distributions. Getting less expected value for knowledge that the chances of your family going completely broke, 0, are now much lower is worth it.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#19

Post by remotecar »

dekhn wrote: post #2

The perk also includes: 10 years of salary to your spouse, and monies also for your children. Googlers typically aren't going to microptimize expenses this small.

That perk is included along with this life insurance policy so you can evaluate them separately.

Re: The Worst Perk at Google

#20

Post by BruiseLee »

teachrdan wrote: post #8
bwy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my anecdotal experience with a few Googlers: many will micro-optimize expenses this small. I think (hope) they enjoy it.

I think a lot of Googlers can't even count this low.

Only the ones that use Hadoop cluster.
Post reply on HN