101–110 of 243 posts
The assumption that every employee leaves after 3 years and keeps none of their equity is absurd. I don't see any value in that example at all.
> 3 year employee tenure
> 100% loss of potential equity when employees leave the company ...
...
> You can also see that only the employees hired in year 8, 9, 10
> (the final 855) have any shares at the end of year 10. Quite bizarre!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno man, if you don't like the offers at Google where do you think you'll do better? They pay pretty well...
See my previous comment to you (above) - also play out the proposal in the article over, say, 100 years, ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company.
This is an utopian Socialist phantasy. It has often been tried and has never worked.
I came from a Socialist country where every company was employee owned. The only exit we received is fleeing as refugees from a civil war.
Look, I understand that you mean well but the only reality that exists is the market and that people are most productive when they have freedom.
Socialism tries to undermine both, first through ideology and when it later inevitably doesn't work through use of force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you talking about options being the entirety of one's financial compensation? Because I wonder how people who work without a salary manage to pay the bills every month. > the tax on W2 income is simply the worst As opposed to getting taxed on what you eventually make from your options?
The maximum federal tax rate on what "you eventually make from your options" is likely 23.8%, whereas on the equivalent salary it'd be 43.4%.
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…
> Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk I wrote "which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have." -> you are free to work at an established company and have no risk, I didn't say that startup employees have no risks. Otherwise they wouldn't get equity, wouldn't they? So please don't twist my words. > There are many companies out there that have n…
Your last point is the most interesting, though, coal-miners were paid very well and by contrast I know (good) developers that earn less than the national average. I am not arguing (in this case) about software developers, but all employees from all backgrounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk I wrote "which some guy employed at Google with a 6 figure income doesn't have." -> you are free to work at an established company and have no risk, I didn't say that startup employees have no risks. Otherwise they wouldn't get equity, wouldn't they? So please don't twist my words. > There are many companies out there that have n…
I think we're taking the extremes as the norm, and it is clouding the argument. Let's just say there is risk on both sides, nobody is entitled to anything except the chance to receive remuneration that is deemed fair, whether that's through investment or salary. Your last point is the most interesting, though, coal-miners were paid very well and by contrast I know (good) developers that earn less than the national av…
Fully agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my previous comment to you (above) - also play out the proposal in the article over, say, 100 years, ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company.
> ... ultimately it could end up as an employee owned company This is an utopian Socialist phantasy. It has often been tried and has never worked. I came from a Socialist country where every company was employee owned. The only exit we received is fleeing as refugees from a civil war. Look, I understand that you mean well but the only reality that exists is the market and that people are most productive when they hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much is needed for something to qualify as "significant wealth"? You seem to be dismissing differences in salary as unimportant, so it's fine to take a pay cut in exchange for even a small chance at significant wealth, because that's all that matters. 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 s…
In my experience the salary difference isn't usually that large. Sometimes it is, and some companies do pay unusually low salaries in exchange for options, obviously increasing risk, perhaps to an undesirable level. I'm CEO and co-founder of a funded company. We pay competitive salaries + options. I don't begrudge someone who isn't interested in options. Options are actually expensive to me. We are still fairly early…
Equity is one area where I would encourage YC to get more involved. We need someone to step in and lobby the government for tax treatment of options that reflects their economic reality to early stage employees. We also need to encourage companies to use a 'standard' stock option agreement which is well known by everyone so that equity offers can be compared across companies. If you take equity from an early stage co…
I would think enough data now exists to allow such an analysis to have some idea of those numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you live in the Bay area. Definitely not if you have to support a family.
Many "single people" in the Bay area make less than 40k/year. They don't starve. 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.