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

Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 553 posts

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#441

Post by zeroonetwothree »

AngryData wrote: post #425
kstrauser wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are greatly exaggerating. One tangible advantage to living somewhere expensive with higher salaries is that anything you can buy online is effectively that much cheaper. An iPhone costs the same in Arkansas as in San Jose, so you'd end up working many more hours to buy one in AR than in CA, on average. Yes, housing is more expensive. A lot more. Everything else is way cheaper.

Thank you, so many people like to go about cost-of-living and pretending things are equal because of that, but the vast majority of goods people buy are not priced that way, and in truly remote places the cost of goods actually go up. The land or housing might be cheap, but pretty much everything else costs the same, so the lower paying job still hurts.

I would say the vast majority of spending is affected by COL, since it’s all incorporating price of labor. Maybe not the majority of goods but that’s often a smaller part of spending.

I will say though that travel is the main one that’s obviously independent of where you live (at least mostly). So that’s kind of nice.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#442

Post by mathiaspoint »

loire280 wrote: post #79
bagels wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1m isn't enough to really retire in in silicon valley

Sure, but if you're 10+ years into your career and have been financially conservative (i.e. have a positive net worth), a lump sum of $1m could be enough to retire to a lower-cost location.

If you're willing to be fiscally conservative, go to a cheaper location, and continue working on side projects you don't need the payout at all.

The question everyone seems to be asking is "is the payout worth spending the first ten years of your career in the West Coast startup scene." Ten years is quite a lot of time to spend somewhere you don't actually want to live.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#443

Post by zeroonetwothree »

gammarator wrote: post #279
labster wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have bought in when Prop 13 went into effect, you’d only be paying $3k in property taxes today instead of $40k.

Or inherit the Prop 13 rate from your parents.

There’s some restrictions on this now though. It’s not as great as it was before.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#444

Post by zeroonetwothree »

0x00000000 wrote: post #233
kstrauser wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of house had you been dreaming of? I live in SF, and even here $3M goes an awfully freaking long way.

anything within 45 minutes of your office in palo alto (where you are mandated to show up 5 days a week). this will get you a 1300sqft piece of shit built in 1964 with asbestos and lead paint and lead pipes and a cracked foundation (also some dipshit realtor had them paint all the original wood beams and paneling inside gloss white and replace the original wood and slate floors with grey vinyl) from some baby boomer…

The median income in the Bay Area is around 120-180k. You aren’t buying a 3m house for that, so how is it all those people somehow survive?

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#445

Post by zeroonetwothree »

moritonal wrote: post #337
chasebank wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Santa Barbara, CA. Good friend of mine just bought a shithole 3-2 1300sqft for $2.2m. $3M doesn't go very far considering 30 years ago it was retirement status almost anywhere.

I have to ask, if they have access to get a loan of $2.2m then the friend could likely save for 5-7 years and just retire someplace cheap. Like, spending that much seems wild given the implied access to straight cash.

But you can always sell the house later if you want to retire somewhere cheaper. It’s not like you losing the money forever.

You do have to pay interest taxes and maintenance, whether that exceeds the rent for an equivalent property is another question.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#446

Post by gertlex »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #371
Thorrez wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a $2M 4-3 2279sqft very-nice-looking home in Santa Barbara: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5436-Agana-Dr-Santa-Barba...

offtopic, but I love comparing realtor glamour shots HDR'd out the wazoo with StreetView https://maps.app.goo.gl/2aEXsdH9hU3o4SZw5 (winter, March 2012)

Aside to the offtopic: I'm surprised the google street view footage is 13 years old.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#447

Post by zeroonetwothree »

vkou wrote: post #336
socalgal2 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3m cash will get you a house that you have to still pay $60k-$100k a year to stay in property tax and maintanence

Property tax rate in SF caps at 1.38%, which would be ~$40,000/year. How are you spending $60,000/year, every year, on maintenance and insurance? Are you saving up for a new solid gold roof for every decade?

My average has been around $30k/yr but my house is worth well under $3m so I could see it being closer to $60k. I do include some remodeling in that figure, but things wear out and you aren’t going to want to live with a decrepit interior in your $3m house…

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#448

Post by cutemonster »

dboreham wrote: post #223
dboreham wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They call it a "acquihire" Surely it needs to be called something else, because acquihire means "hire some employees by means of acquiring the company they currently work for" (it's in the name). Since Google did not acquire the company, it can't be an acquihire event. "bribehire" or something?

Replying to myself because I discovered someone coined the term "Bizhire"[1] [1] https://medium.com/@villispeaks/the-blitzhire-acquisition-e3...

Interesting article! "Blitzhire" he calls it

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#449

Post by MichaelZuo »

kentonv wrote: post #134
swyx wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry that happened to you. what taxes do you have to pay on a company making 0? just delaware franchise tax?

That and $800 CA franchise tax. But the money wasn't really significant. It was just annoying to have to prepare the returns every year.

Did your legal counsel at the time not mention that was a possibility?

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#450

Post by hamburglar »

crazygringo wrote: post #125
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can just refuse to hire you if you don't

I've literally never heard of a company demanding you give up shares in another company as a precondition of being hired, for an engineering role. At the executive level they may not want you holding shares in a direct competitor because it presents a conflict of interest. But even then you generally have a period to divest. Can nobody explain what the actual demand was here? What did Google offer vs. what did they d…

How would they even know if you were still holding those shares in another company? This scenario is pure fantasy.
Post reply on HN