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

Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

oxide.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 202 posts

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#41

Post by [deleted] »

mroche wrote: post #24

I only spent 6 months in the Bay Area in 2019 for an internship, so I don't have a strong understanding of the cost of living other than "it's expensive". For a family of 5 (two adults, three kids) what do folks perceive to be the minimum base annual salary (with no other compensation) to support such an environment in the Bay Area comfortably and without, as put by the author, financial distress?

[deleted]

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#42

Post by toomuchtodo »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #36
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #27

"Everyone paid same as CEO" seems great as a morale boost at a startup of 23 employees. Even if it's not a lot, startups are often not flush with extra cash and equity is the main incentive to join one rather than a tech giant. I like the mature "this may not scale and it doesn't have to for now" admission.

If everyone was paid the same as the CEO, at many startups everyone would quit.

Fair, but perhaps they’d also work as hard as the CEO if they were paid the same and had equal preferred founder shares instead of common shares. Also, when was the last time you heard of employees with equity getting a secondary to take money off the table vs founders getting to do so? It’s not the disparity per se (because at some point, there is a demarc between the population willing to sleep on the floor and eat ramen for org success vs those not and a corresponding comp delta), but the disconnect between the disparity and the output expectations.

Edit: I’m aware of the VC backed share structure. My thesis is if you want more ownership in your dream from your employees, give them more equitable ownership in the enterprise.

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#43

Post by ivraatiems »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #27

"Everyone paid same as CEO" seems great as a morale boost at a startup of 23 employees. Even if it's not a lot, startups are often not flush with extra cash and equity is the main incentive to join one rather than a tech giant. I like the mature "this may not scale and it doesn't have to for now" admission.

"Everyone gets the same amount of equity as the CEO" would be a morale booster. "Everyone gets paid the same as the CEO" is at best a nice-to-have.

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#46

Post by nebula8804 »

Looking at the careers page once again it seems like I am behind the curve. They are probably hoovering up the best engineers Google laid off: people who rode the ZIRP wave and are probably already wealthy as heck and are now jumping onto the next big thing that normie techies will latch onto after it too becomes cliche. It seem like reading HN is only if you want to know what has happened not what is currently happening or going to happen. Where do you go to find out those things?

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#48

Post by firstlink »

> Oxide not only offers the best healthcare plans we could find, but we also pay 100% of monthly premiums – a significant benefit for those with dependents.

I confess I read TFA just to see when the other shoe would drop, and there it is: compensation varies depending on number of dependents. Yes it's hidden from the paycheck but insurance premiums are absolutely part of compensation. Yet the author openly praises this discriminatory compensation decision.

Re: Oxide pays all employees $191,227 (Bay Area startup)

#49

Post by mstipetic »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #17

> The truth is that companies pay people less in other geographies for a simple reason: because they can. We at Oxide just don’t agree with this; we pay people the same regardless of where they pick up their mail. So, look. I completely agree with this, and it’s an admirable ideal. If I were in a position to make this kind of decision, I’d make the same decision or one that looks a lot like it. But if you’re anticipa…

I’m trying to understand - what’s your point here?
Post reply on HN