351–357 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple also sucks at using user data to make better products compared to Google, so it's perfect for them to claim concern for privacy as a business strategy.
Refusing to do something isn't the same as being bad at doing something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite understand the idea of tax dodging a smaller tax bill by donating a larger amount of money? She had $150mm in stock, and donated it all, avoiding a tax bill of $30mm? If she had paid the tax bill, she would have had net $120mm, but after donating it, she had net $0mm? There must be something I'm missing here. I've seen these kinds of schemes discussed before, but don't understand how they would work.
TL;DR It looks like she donated $150MM when in actuality she only donated $37.5MM Can you imagine the optics of an active board member, of a multi-billion dollar company, profiting from said company -- she's on the board of -- buying the company she runs? Good grief that reeks. She understood she couldn't take that money in good conscience. So, she got out in front of the optics for a small fee by "donating to charit…
A simplified example, assuming one year of income from the shares, and one year of $150mm income from Google.
### Keep the shares:
Year1 = $150 - ($150 * 0.2) => $120
Year2 = $150 - ($150 * 0.55) => $67.5
Year1 + Year2 => $187.5
### Donate the shares:
Year1 = $150 - $150 - $0 => $0
Year2 = $150 - $0 => $150
Year1 + Year2 => $150
The first law of tax is that it is always better to have more money than less money. I could be wrong here, but I can't seem to find a way that you come out with more money by giving it away (ignoring donations to your own dodgy charity). I'm a big proponent of charity giving, but I don't see a way to make it turn a profit.
- https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-09/deutsche-... - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-27/texas-bil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see this competing with enterprise ATS providers. It's an SMB product meant for GSuite customers.
I'm sure that's what Google hopes the enterprise vendors think too. GSuite has already successfully traversed from SMBs to enterprise and if Hire is successful it will likely follow a similar path.
E-mail is a technical problem. Replacing Outlook with GMail is doable.
Recruiting is a complex business process. Enterprise recruiting has significant regulatory hurdles as well as business specific requirements. There is a huge implemementation and service component to an enterprise ATS implementation, there is no "plug and play" here.
I don't even see Google wanting to play that game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that recruiting is and has always been a strategic issue at Google.
If you follow this line of thinking, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, SpaceX, Amazon and many others will also start to compete on the hiring software market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR It looks like she donated $150MM when in actuality she only donated $37.5MM Can you imagine the optics of an active board member, of a multi-billion dollar company, profiting from said company -- she's on the board of -- buying the company she runs? Good grief that reeks. She understood she couldn't take that money in good conscience. So, she got out in front of the optics for a small fee by "donating to charit…
Certainly it was better optics for her to donate the stock to charity, but she didn't come out ahead from it AFAICT. A simplified example, assuming one year of income from the shares, and one year of $150mm income from Google. ### Keep the shares: Year1 = $150 - ($150 * 0.2) => $120 Year2 = $150 - ($150 * 0.55) => $67.5 Year1 + Year2 => $187.5 ### Donate the shares: Year1 = $150 - $150 - $0 => $0 Year2 = $150 - $0 =>…
The point was never for her to come out ahead, just less behind.
Why does this matter?
I was simply pointing out that she achieved exactly what she wanted. Better optics. :)
People commending her and commenting how amazing, how selfless, how fantastic it is that she donated all her proceeds to charity.
Understand that her primary motivation in donating was the write-off, not charity.
Otherwise, if she was feeling so chummy, why didn't she instead divide her almost 50% share among the employees that helped build her company? Hint: there's no write-off for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR It looks like she donated $150MM when in actuality she only donated $37.5MM Can you imagine the optics of an active board member, of a multi-billion dollar company, profiting from said company -- she's on the board of -- buying the company she runs? Good grief that reeks. She understood she couldn't take that money in good conscience. So, she got out in front of the optics for a small fee by "donating to charit…
Certainly it was better optics for her to donate the stock to charity, but she didn't come out ahead from it AFAICT. A simplified example, assuming one year of income from the shares, and one year of $150mm income from Google. ### Keep the shares: Year1 = $150 - ($150 * 0.2) => $120 Year2 = $150 - ($150 * 0.55) => $67.5 Year1 + Year2 => $187.5 ### Donate the shares: Year1 = $150 - $150 - $0 => $0 Year2 = $150 - $0 =>…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooof, I've always had the privilege of getting these up front with my offer. I don't think I'd agree to an offer without knowing what all of these were up front.
Was that just luck or did you have to negotiate for that privilege? If so I'm curious how that conversation goes…
Ever since then, I've told companies that in order to consider their offer, I also need details about their benefits and copies of anything that I would need to sign as a condition of my employment.
I haven't had that many jobs, but so far no one has said no.