3 ms·

So few people make bank from tech stock that everyone should literally ignore this anecdote and operate in life as if it is not true. This is like saying you're

by p4wnc6 11y ago

So few people make bank from tech stock that everyone should literally ignore this anecdote and operate in life as if it is not true. This is like saying you're not going to buy that $2.00 lottery ticket, then being mad when someone else wins the lottery. Do not buy the $2.00 lottery ticket.

WalterBright 11y ago
Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is. BTW, 20 years ago I read a statistic that Microsoft had made 10,000 millionaires just in the Seattle area alone. In the early 90s, an acquaintance would refer to his car as his "quarter million dollar Oldsmobile". I finally asked him what he meant. He laughed, and said that he'd cashed in his MSFT stock options to buy it, and that was what the options would have been worth when I asked him.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  > Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is. The employees should be receiving dividend-like cash bonuses and should be receiving salaries that actually afford the cost of living in their geographic location (in addition to legitimate retirement contributions, 40-hour work weeks, generous vacation, and legitimate insurance benefits, which all should simply be regarded as the absolute bare minimum conditions of employment period). Saying it's either stock or no stock is a false dilemma. The same amount of compensation should be shared with the employees, just not necessarily in stock format. I'm also not opposed to someone who chooses to take company stock instead of an equivalent cash bonus. If you weigh up those risks, you're a grown up and can choose for yourself. But for most people, taking a cash bonus and putting it into a simple low-fee index fund or ETF is going to be worth a ton more than their company stock, while also lowering their overall risk, since a market downturn won't affect their regular paycheck and since their regular employer won't affect their return to their outside investments. The point is they should have the choice. > BTW, 20 years ago I read a statistic that Microsoft had made 10,000 millionaires just in the Seattle area alone. BTW I read that someone somewhere won the lottery ... better go buy a ticket.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I agree it's a false dilemma. I like supporting alternatives by citing examples in low-margin industries. Publix keeps coming to mind as they've been giving employees paychecks + stock bonuses since the beginning: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/ Founding family got rich, too. Costco always did good pay and benefits with what HN would call a subscription model. Plenty companies referenced here have a subscription model.

by p4wnc6 11y ago

WalterBright 11y ago

Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is. BTW, 20 years ago I read a statistic that Microsoft had made 10,000 millionaires just in the Seattle area alone. In the early 90s, an acquaintance would refer to his car as his "quarter million dollar Oldsmobile". I finally asked him what he meant. He laughed, and said that he'd cashed in his MSFT stock options to buy it, and that was what the options would have been worth when I asked him.

p4wnc6 11y ago
> Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is. The employees should be receiving dividend-like cash bonuses and should be receiving salaries that actually afford the cost of living in their geographic location (in addition to legitimate retirement contributions, 40-hour work weeks, generous vacation, and legitimate insurance benefits, which all should simply be regarded as the absolute bare minimum conditions of employment period). Saying it's either stock or no stock is a false dilemma. The same amount of compensation should be shared with the employees, just not necessarily in stock format. I'm also not opposed to someone who chooses to take company stock instead of an equivalent cash bonus. If you weigh up those risks, you're a grown up and can choose for yourself. But for most people, taking a cash bonus and putting it into a simple low-fee index fund or ETF is going to be worth a ton more than their company stock, while also lowering their overall risk, since a market downturn won't affect their regular paycheck and since their regular employer won't affect their return to their outside investments. The point is they should have the choice. > BTW, 20 years ago I read a statistic that Microsoft had made 10,000 millionaires just in the Seattle area alone. BTW I read that someone somewhere won the lottery ... better go buy a ticket.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I agree it's a false dilemma. I like supporting alternatives by citing examples in low-margin industries. Publix keeps coming to mind as they've been giving employees paychecks + stock bonuses since the beginning: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/ Founding family got rich, too. Costco always did good pay and benefits with what HN would call a subscription model. Plenty companies referenced here have a subscription model.