5 ms·

I wouldn't by default assume some sort of sinister ulterior motive here. There's a fairly good chance this is exactly how it appears: A CEO taking the rather ex

I wouldn't by default assume some sort of sinister ulterior motive here. There's a fairly good chance this is exactly how it appears: A CEO taking the rather exemplary step of donating an entire year's worth of comp to his employees, in an attempt to offset external impacts that are only nominally within his control. Sure, there's the possibility this act is purely for optics and employee retention. But if that's what drives people to be good human beings you won't catch me complaining. And the "worth noting" section in this article is curious as well. Why does any amount of personal wealth degrade the value of this act? It's like the writer is saying "don't be impressed folks, this guy is still rich." We should encourage and support acts like this, not couch our praise in snark and envy.

XxFurCornxX 11y ago
Agreed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Fede_V 11y ago
I think critically examining these actions can be useful, but cynicism only goes so far. Generosity is a good thing, and him sharing his compensation with employees is something that should be commended.
daurnimator 11y ago
> Why does any amount of personal wealth degrade the value of this act? It shows how much of his own lifestyle he is potentially sacrificing. To take it to the extreme: if he was giving up all his wealth to his employees, you would treat it differently to if he was giving 0.01%. Edit: I think this is the most controversial comment I've ever made on HN. It keeps going up and down between -2 and +8..... I wonder why it's so polarising?
- barsonme 11y ago
  Probably polarizing because people believe so differently about giving. Some believe that "good" giving means giving a large portion of what you have, not a small fraction. Others believe a gift is good gift, no matter how small. Others believe a $14mm gift is good because of how large it is, regardless of whether or not it's 0.01% or 100% of his net worth. Others take offense when people try to dictate theirs or others lives by claiming a kind or charitable act is insufficient because it doesn't put out the giver as much as they should like. And there are probably other ways to look at it as well. This sort of debate always crops up when rich people donate money.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    But up/downvoting isn't supposed to be based on how you feel about the comment but whether it adds value to the site.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Who says?
      - djhn 11y ago
        Common sense, convention, HN rules?
        DanBC 11y ago
        What HN rules?
        djhn 11y ago
        My bad, like Six Sigma above said, the guidelines do not include such rule. Since HN evolved /co-evolved with reddit and follows many of the conventions even more strictly, I thought this is also an HN rule. Intuitively, it also makes sense - 'upvoting', or irl aknowledging things you disagree with is how you would aknowledge that you see the opposing argument as valid, and will address the disagreement in a response. As opposed to downvoting, or irl ignoring, comments that fall so far out of scope of civil debate and are not constructive.
- rhizome 11y ago
  When you use the "royal 'you'," inevitably someone will take offense, that they aren't like that. These sentences can usually be rephrased with "I."
endlessvoid94 11y ago
The fact that he's already independently wealthy makes this act far less impressive. If it was a first time founder making a humble salary doing this, that would be completely different.
- yarou 11y ago
  The same logic as: donating a kidney is less charitable if you have an extra. When will the meme of moral relativism die?
  - pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
    why are you relating moral relativism to life? i'm pretty sure you're the problem.
  - bottled_poe 11y ago
    It shouldn't be surprising that we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world.
    - justinmk 11y ago
      > we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world. A perhaps unintentional critique of charity itself.
  - fredkingham 11y ago
    donating a kidney when you only have 1 is vastly more impressive
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      The point is the kidney isn't more or less useful. It's two different ways of looking at charity. "Glass half empty" type of thing.
hkmurakami 11y ago
I agree, and I think it's a win/win/win. Employees get a nice moral boost and get to pad their finances a bit, the CEO enables a long term bet on a future substantial gain of his preexisting position in $LNKD equity, and both sides get to feel that this was a nice gesture of good faith. Even with the potential personal gain, imo there isn't much to criticize here. It's not like a majority shareholder getting a one time special dividend (I'm looking at you, PE funds) or something obviously sinister like that.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  Surely "morale boost" ?
rmc 11y ago
Donating to help employee retention is still good. Employees leave when the job is bad. If less leave that means less people are working jobs that they don't like.

XxFurCornxX 11y ago

Agreed.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Fede_V 11y ago

I think critically examining these actions can be useful, but cynicism only goes so far. Generosity is a good thing, and him sharing his compensation with employees is something that should be commended.

daurnimator 11y ago

> Why does any amount of personal wealth degrade the value of this act? It shows how much of his own lifestyle he is potentially sacrificing. To take it to the extreme: if he was giving up all his wealth to his employees, you would treat it differently to if he was giving 0.01%. Edit: I think this is the most controversial comment I've ever made on HN. It keeps going up and down between -2 and +8..... I wonder why it's so polarising?

barsonme 11y ago
Probably polarizing because people believe so differently about giving. Some believe that "good" giving means giving a large portion of what you have, not a small fraction. Others believe a gift is good gift, no matter how small. Others believe a $14mm gift is good because of how large it is, regardless of whether or not it's 0.01% or 100% of his net worth. Others take offense when people try to dictate theirs or others lives by claiming a kind or charitable act is insufficient because it doesn't put out the giver as much as they should like. And there are probably other ways to look at it as well. This sort of debate always crops up when rich people donate money.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  But up/downvoting isn't supposed to be based on how you feel about the comment but whether it adds value to the site.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Who says?
    - djhn 11y ago
      Common sense, convention, HN rules?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        What HN rules?
        djhn 11y ago
        My bad, like Six Sigma above said, the guidelines do not include such rule. Since HN evolved /co-evolved with reddit and follows many of the conventions even more strictly, I thought this is also an HN rule. Intuitively, it also makes sense - 'upvoting', or irl aknowledging things you disagree with is how you would aknowledge that you see the opposing argument as valid, and will address the disagreement in a response. As opposed to downvoting, or irl ignoring, comments that fall so far out of scope of civil debate and are not constructive.
rhizome 11y ago
When you use the "royal 'you'," inevitably someone will take offense, that they aren't like that. These sentences can usually be rephrased with "I."

endlessvoid94 11y ago

The fact that he's already independently wealthy makes this act far less impressive. If it was a first time founder making a humble salary doing this, that would be completely different.

yarou 11y ago
The same logic as: donating a kidney is less charitable if you have an extra. When will the meme of moral relativism die?
- pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
  why are you relating moral relativism to life? i'm pretty sure you're the problem.
- bottled_poe 11y ago
  It shouldn't be surprising that we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world.
  - justinmk 11y ago
    > we tend to measure charity by the sacrifice a persons makes, rather than the impact they have on the world. A perhaps unintentional critique of charity itself.
- fredkingham 11y ago
  donating a kidney when you only have 1 is vastly more impressive
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    The point is the kidney isn't more or less useful. It's two different ways of looking at charity. "Glass half empty" type of thing.

hkmurakami 11y ago

I agree, and I think it's a win/win/win. Employees get a nice moral boost and get to pad their finances a bit, the CEO enables a long term bet on a future substantial gain of his preexisting position in $LNKD equity, and both sides get to feel that this was a nice gesture of good faith. Even with the potential personal gain, imo there isn't much to criticize here. It's not like a majority shareholder getting a one time special dividend (I'm looking at you, PE funds) or something obviously sinister like that.

SixSigma 11y ago
Surely "morale boost" ?

rmc 11y ago

Donating to help employee retention is still good. Employees leave when the job is bad. If less leave that means less people are working jobs that they don't like.