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

Golden Handcuffs

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 274 posts

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#101

Post by andonisus »

voidfunc wrote: post #78
kemitche wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Amazon return to back-weighted comp? The offer I received two years ago had comp that shifted from "cash focused" to RSUs over 4 years, and had equivalent cash value over the 4 years. Obviously, by year 3/4 when comp was mostly/all RSUs, the stock could have gone up or down significantly. Given that the year 1 cash could be used to buy stock if I really wanted, it didn't seem an unreasonable approach to comp to m…

I definitely know some people on the 10/10/40/40 Amazon comp plan... also seems to be a common tactic to PIP people just before year 3 vests. Fuck Amazon. I'll never work for them.

They comp the difference in vesting schedule (against average) with a cash sign on bonus that pays out over the first 2 years. Your yearly comp is equal to getting 25% of the RSU value per year (plus the actual stock accrues value over this time).

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#102

Post by HWR_14 »

choppaface wrote: post #4

The C-level to IC comp ratio is still way too astronomical. If a VC is telling you he feels there’s a better way to comp, he has a financial interest in ensuring your loss. Do not support investor-focused comp models like backweighted vesting (Amazon) or outright fraud like a start-up giving you a stock offer with no percentage or no 409A. Employees deserve high-quality equity on par with investors. The OP’s suggesti…

Dumb question time: What's "IC". As you can imagine, the term is kind of overloaded in internet searches.

Also, does anyone know of a good primer on equity founders/early employees/later employees should expect/require so they don't get totally taken advantage of? It turns out experience is an expensive teacher.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#103

Post by joshuamorton »

logicslave wrote: post #44
nineplay wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me cynical, but they are supposed to be trying to recruit me. I say "That doesn't sound like more than I currently make, what about other forms of compensation?" If they say "well we're not sure...", I'm going to be pretty reluctant to jump in. For all I know they are "re-leveling" and those 400k paydays are going away.

Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. They have been paying this for a long time. Its great money remote. I really dont understand the issue

> Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior.

I wouldn't say this. It's solidly middle of the road for a Google or FB senior, and high/unreachable for an Amazon or Microsoft Senior. Its probably(?) on the lower side for Netflix.

This is all before stock growth. Someone who has been a Senior for 5 years at Google or Facebook will be vesting shares that doubled in value, so the take home pay will be higher.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#104

Post by deusex_ »

HWR_14 wrote: post #102
choppaface wrote: post #4

The C-level to IC comp ratio is still way too astronomical. If a VC is telling you he feels there’s a better way to comp, he has a financial interest in ensuring your loss. Do not support investor-focused comp models like backweighted vesting (Amazon) or outright fraud like a start-up giving you a stock offer with no percentage or no 409A. Employees deserve high-quality equity on par with investors. The OP’s suggesti…

Dumb question time: What's "IC". As you can imagine, the term is kind of overloaded in internet searches. Also, does anyone know of a good primer on equity founders/early employees/later employees should expect/require so they don't get totally taken advantage of? It turns out experience is an expensive teacher.

Individual Contributor, as opposed to Manager

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#105

Post by HWR_14 »

sokoloff wrote: post #15
ProAm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always ask for a non-diluatable percentage early on.

It’s reasonable to ask “what percentage does this represent on a fully-diluted basis?” It is entirely unreasonable to ask for a percentage of the company which can never be diluted by a future fund-raising round. Doing so just telegraphs that you don’t know how venture funding/corporate finance works.

How would they know what fully-diluted would be? Wouldn't there be unknown number of rounds at unknown valuation before liquidity? Or do you just mean based on current expectations. Because, if the latter, how do you hold them to that?

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#106

Post by 908B64B197 »

kelnos wrote: post #70
joshuamorton wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Say you live in or near Atlanta, the rate paid to (on site) employees in Atlanta is less than the rate paid to (on site) employees in SF (I think this is true for pretty much every FAANG). Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one?

> Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one? Not more, but why shouldn't they be paid the same if they're doing the same work?

Two reasons to open a satellite office. First is to cut costs, second is to grow the business and recruit from an untapped talent pool.

I'm not a cost cutting person, so I'm not interested by the former. Trying to play games with CoL signals that instead of putting money in growing the product, they would rather try to squeeze as much as they can.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#107

Post by 988747 »

cddotdotslash wrote: post #36

Can we just link directly to the Coinbase post [1] instead of this 8-sentence blog spam? [1] https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-is-rethinking-its-app...

Maybe I'm too cynical, but this "Eliminating negotiations from the hiring process" feels like they are saying "we are going to underpay you, severely"

Negotiations are normal part of the process, if they try to eliminate it, they will simply not receive applications from the top candidates.

Blaming it all on "women and minorities would end up underpaid" is a brilliant excuse.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#108

Post by sokoloff »

HWR_14 wrote: post #105
sokoloff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s reasonable to ask “what percentage does this represent on a fully-diluted basis?” It is entirely unreasonable to ask for a percentage of the company which can never be diluted by a future fund-raising round. Doing so just telegraphs that you don’t know how venture funding/corporate finance works.

How would they know what fully-diluted would be? Wouldn't there be unknown number of rounds at unknown valuation before liquidity? Or do you just mean based on current expectations. Because, if the latter, how do you hold them to that?

Fully diluted means if all currently issued options, warrants, convertible bonds, etc are converted to shares. It obviously can't account for future financing rounds which aren't even yet contemplated.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#109

Post by adamcstephens »

ghaff wrote: post #77
kelnos wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one? Not more, but why shouldn't they be paid the same if they're doing the same work?

Well, in the scenario you're responding to, you're actually asking why an onsite Atlanta employee should be making less than an onsite SF employee (based on the statement that remote should get main campus salary). And the answer is market rates but a lot of people don't like that answer.

If the hiring pool is remote, then the local market rates don’t matter. Perhaps an open cost of living difference could be ok, but there is no market rate justification.

Re: Golden Handcuffs

#110

Post by Rapzid »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #32
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #2

Coinbase is an interesting company. They're grossly underrated and laughed off as an online casino, but they invest all that money they make very wisely and strategically to grow the business. I find another paragraph from that press release interesting: > Traditionally people expect they need to negotiate for the best package after being hired in a new job. Those that do this well tend to be rewarded, and those that…

I’ve been told before by recruiters that they don’t negotiate and that policy suddenly disappeared the moment I said “no, my other offers are higher.”

The "no negotiation" policy ran off with the "COL adjustment" policy :D
Post reply on HN