4 ms·

I doubt it's related, but today NVIDIA's stock price is down 2.4%. I don't remember it falling down that much in intraday for a while. I don't know who took t

I doubt it's related, but today NVIDIA's stock price is down 2.4%. I don't remember it falling down that much in intraday for a while. I don't know who took this decision to just give away money and free time to employees, and maybe it's good PR after all, but I do hope this is not announcing a trend.

godzillabrennus 10y ago
Short term costs mean attracting and retaining top talent longer. I've found it costs an employer an average of $3000 to hire someone for $8/hour and it costs an average of $26k to hire someone for $80/year. If you can pay someone a few weeks of salary and buy goodwill during a life event like this you keep your company competitive in the competitive tech space. TL;DR This will probably save them money in recruiter fees.
EliRivers 10y ago
I applaud it very much. When a company has money to give to someone, they can give it to shareholders or employees (or just the bosses who set their own remuneration). It's nice to see it going to employees. It's not just good PR; it's good. I hope it is a trend, and I'm speaking as someone who currently makes more money as a shareholder than from my job.
- grondilu 10y ago
  Employees are supposed to receive a salary in exchange for their work. The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders. Maybe they decided to give some to employees in order to improve morale or something. If so, that's OK. If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    "The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders" I disagree strongly. When shareholders purchase their shares, the rights they get with it are clear. Very, very commonly, they do not include the right to set renumeration. Not theoretically. Not practically. Not at all. Non-voting stock very deliberately gives shareholders no power. "If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong." I disagree very strongly. It is the job of the executives to make these decisions. Their first duty is not to shareholders, despite the pernicious myth that there's some kind of legal obligation to do the best for shareholders. Shareholders do not need to be consulted.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they may certainly be pissed off. Shareholders literally own the company. They have influence on everything, at least indirectly. They vote the board of directors, so if they are not happy with the way employees are thrown money at, they will sack the directors and elect a board that will not do the same thing.
      - EliRivers 10y ago
        "They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they will certainly be pissed off." Not only are shareholders not supposed to make such decisions, they also actually don't make those decisions. Literally owning the company doesn't actually mean they can do what they like it, and that's how it should be. It's not as if they're liable for anything the company does wrong, so even calling it "ownership" is a leap. Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm not pissed off. I take a long term view and I find the attitude of shareholder value above all to be backwards and damaging. I also know that the best shareholders could do is put up their own nominations for directorship positions. It would damage the company and should be done, frankly, only if the company was already a slow motion car crash. Sometimes you see activists doing this as a prelude to getting as much money as they can out of a healthy company. Here's a company doing its job, looking after its employees and investing in its future.
  - c0nducktr 10y ago
    Won't somebody think of the capitalists?
- Joky 10y ago
  Well, it is not really "money given to employees" unconditionally. First it is time-off given, the employee couldn't take only half of the time-off and cash the rest for example. Second it is only subsidizing some employees. Not saying it is a bad thing, but in the end such decision are likely made to attract talents and/or limit turn-over more than anything else.
- gaius 10y ago
  Not all employees tho'.
ghughes 10y ago
It's good PR because it's the right thing to do. I certainly hope it's a trend. It's fairly well-established that humans make babies and need time off work to properly care for them.
- grondilu 10y ago
  There are laws written to account for that. This article suggests that NVIDIA went beyond the existing laws. What exactly can justify this?
  - adanto6840 10y ago
    Goodwill? The likely fact that this is better for Nvidia's long term finances (retention, cost of hiring, PR, easier recruiting, etc)...?
  - msbarnett 10y ago
    > What exactly can justify this? Basic Humanity. Belief that existing laws in the US are pathetic and don't go nearly far enough. Or staff retention, if you insist on degrading human relationships to purely economic terms.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      > Belief that existing laws in the US are pathetic and don't go nearly far enough. As you put it, it's a "Belief". I'd rather call it a point of view or even a political opinion.
      - givinguflac 10y ago
        Well when compared to almost every other major nation on the planet, it becomes much less of a belief (or "political opinion" -what?) and more of an objective fact.
        DasIch 10y ago

godzillabrennus 10y ago

Short term costs mean attracting and retaining top talent longer. I've found it costs an employer an average of $3000 to hire someone for $8/hour and it costs an average of $26k to hire someone for $80/year. If you can pay someone a few weeks of salary and buy goodwill during a life event like this you keep your company competitive in the competitive tech space. TL;DR This will probably save them money in recruiter fees.

EliRivers 10y ago

I applaud it very much. When a company has money to give to someone, they can give it to shareholders or employees (or just the bosses who set their own remuneration). It's nice to see it going to employees. It's not just good PR; it's good. I hope it is a trend, and I'm speaking as someone who currently makes more money as a shareholder than from my job.

grondilu 10y ago
Employees are supposed to receive a salary in exchange for their work. The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders. Maybe they decided to give some to employees in order to improve morale or something. If so, that's OK. If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 10y ago
  "The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders" I disagree strongly. When shareholders purchase their shares, the rights they get with it are clear. Very, very commonly, they do not include the right to set renumeration. Not theoretically. Not practically. Not at all. Non-voting stock very deliberately gives shareholders no power. "If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong." I disagree very strongly. It is the job of the executives to make these decisions. Their first duty is not to shareholders, despite the pernicious myth that there's some kind of legal obligation to do the best for shareholders. Shareholders do not need to be consulted.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they may certainly be pissed off. Shareholders literally own the company. They have influence on everything, at least indirectly. They vote the board of directors, so if they are not happy with the way employees are thrown money at, they will sack the directors and elect a board that will not do the same thing.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      "They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they will certainly be pissed off." Not only are shareholders not supposed to make such decisions, they also actually don't make those decisions. Literally owning the company doesn't actually mean they can do what they like it, and that's how it should be. It's not as if they're liable for anything the company does wrong, so even calling it "ownership" is a leap. Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm not pissed off. I take a long term view and I find the attitude of shareholder value above all to be backwards and damaging. I also know that the best shareholders could do is put up their own nominations for directorship positions. It would damage the company and should be done, frankly, only if the company was already a slow motion car crash. Sometimes you see activists doing this as a prelude to getting as much money as they can out of a healthy company. Here's a company doing its job, looking after its employees and investing in its future.
- c0nducktr 10y ago
  Won't somebody think of the capitalists?
Joky 10y ago
Well, it is not really "money given to employees" unconditionally. First it is time-off given, the employee couldn't take only half of the time-off and cash the rest for example. Second it is only subsidizing some employees. Not saying it is a bad thing, but in the end such decision are likely made to attract talents and/or limit turn-over more than anything else.
gaius 10y ago
Not all employees tho'.

ghughes 10y ago

It's good PR because it's the right thing to do. I certainly hope it's a trend. It's fairly well-established that humans make babies and need time off work to properly care for them.

grondilu 10y ago
There are laws written to account for that. This article suggests that NVIDIA went beyond the existing laws. What exactly can justify this?
- adanto6840 10y ago
  Goodwill? The likely fact that this is better for Nvidia's long term finances (retention, cost of hiring, PR, easier recruiting, etc)...?
- msbarnett 10y ago
  > What exactly can justify this? Basic Humanity. Belief that existing laws in the US are pathetic and don't go nearly far enough. Or staff retention, if you insist on degrading human relationships to purely economic terms.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    > Belief that existing laws in the US are pathetic and don't go nearly far enough. As you put it, it's a "Belief". I'd rather call it a point of view or even a political opinion.
    - givinguflac 10y ago
      Well when compared to almost every other major nation on the planet, it becomes much less of a belief (or "political opinion" -what?) and more of an objective fact.
      - DasIch 10y ago