3 ms·

4. You own shares in an exciting young company. You own your overtime, not the other way around.

jquery 16y ago
Really? Let's do the math: Let's be very generous, you own 2% of the company, so you are entitled to 2% of the company's profits. Let's be generous and assume you contribute 20% of the company's productivity. Your influence on your 2% is equity is 20% x 2% = 0.4%. For this extra 0.4% compensation, you work 50% more hours. 50% divided by 0.4% is about 125x. So you are on the losing end of this deal by a ratio of 125 to 1. Your "screwed factor" is 125. Tweak the variables to find out your screwed factor.
- jquery 16y ago
  If my calculation is wildly off base, please let me know why, I would appreciate it.
  - trominos 16y ago
    Even assuming that this "screwed factor" is something meaningful, you miscalculated it. I think you're trying to find (percentage increase in work over normal hours/percentage increase in pay over normal pay). If your pay is just a percentage of a company's profits, the amount of equity you hold has no impact on this number. If you working 50% more hours generates 10% more profits (or whatever) for the company, you get 10% more pay for 50% more work, so the screwed factor is 5. Again, this is assuming that the screwed factor is meaningful in the context of a startup, and it isn't. First of all, the different possible outcomes for an early employee of a small startup can mostly be boiled down to two, maybe three: the startup IPOs and you get rich, it gets sold and you get well-compensated, it fails and you get nothing. Treating your income as a very smooth function of the hours you work is misguided in this kind of scenario. Second, contributing to a culture of working really hard on the startup (by working overtime) might be more important than the work you actually do in your overtime. Startup employees don't work in a vacuum.
    - jquery 16y ago
      Appreciate it. Can't really understand you right now, running a high fever, but I'll check back later.
  - Androsynth 16y ago
    This is late and nobody will see this, but what the heck... You are wrong for two reasons: 1. If you want more than 2%, than you need to start the company yourself. The only way anyone can over come your screwed factor is if they are a founder. 2. 2% of a successful company should make you relatively wealthy, thus negating your screwed factor.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  I remember thinking in terms my "screwed factor" and how I could make the most money with the least work back when I was in college and my first post-college job. I found that it just wasn't worth it. I wasted more energy on micro-optimizing my time than I saved, and ended up being less successful. Plus it always just made me feel depressed, enervated, and vaguely guilty. I'm working for The Man now, a large tech corporation. My stock options are a miniscule fraction of the company's capitalization. My salary is decent, but probably less than I could earn elsewhere. I've already made the company more money than I'm likely to earn in my lifetime, and will likely see at most a few thousand of that in bonuses. I harbor no illusions about advancement or striking it rich through climbing the corporate ladder. And y'know what? I don't care. I'm happy now. I'm doing stuff that I'd want to be doing even if I were financially independent. Maybe that makes me screwed, but it seems to be working out fairly well for me so far. I find that it's worth figuring out the big things, and then not sweating the small stuff. If you have a great marketable technologically-feasible idea, go found a startup and do that. If you don't, join a company where you can feel good about however many hours you spend there. Don't sacrifice things you really care about for work, but don't keep score either.
  - jquery 16y ago
    I'm not sure who downvoted you, because you made a good point. Anyway, I think it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. When I started working post college, I worked a lot of hours, because everything I did was hard. Now I've learned that a "work-life" balance keeps me the happiest. I'm a much better engineer, so I'm more efficient in these 40 hours than I used to be in 60-80 hours. The key has been--when at work, always be productive. When at home, do not think about work. It helps that I now work at a mid-size company that encourages exactly this. :-) Now different strokes for different folks--a very ambitious person should probably work more than 40 hours.

Really? Let's do the math: Let's be very generous, you own 2% of the company, so you are entitled to 2% of the company's profits. Let's be generous and assume you contribute 20% of the company's productivity. Your influence on your 2% is equity is 20% x 2% = 0.4%. For this extra 0.4% compensation, you work 50% more hours. 50% divided by 0.4% is about 125x. So you are on the losing end of this deal by a ratio of 125 to 1. Your "screwed factor" is 125. Tweak the variables to find out your screwed factor.

jquery 16y ago
If my calculation is wildly off base, please let me know why, I would appreciate it.
- trominos 16y ago
  Even assuming that this "screwed factor" is something meaningful, you miscalculated it. I think you're trying to find (percentage increase in work over normal hours/percentage increase in pay over normal pay). If your pay is just a percentage of a company's profits, the amount of equity you hold has no impact on this number. If you working 50% more hours generates 10% more profits (or whatever) for the company, you get 10% more pay for 50% more work, so the screwed factor is 5. Again, this is assuming that the screwed factor is meaningful in the context of a startup, and it isn't. First of all, the different possible outcomes for an early employee of a small startup can mostly be boiled down to two, maybe three: the startup IPOs and you get rich, it gets sold and you get well-compensated, it fails and you get nothing. Treating your income as a very smooth function of the hours you work is misguided in this kind of scenario. Second, contributing to a culture of working really hard on the startup (by working overtime) might be more important than the work you actually do in your overtime. Startup employees don't work in a vacuum.
  - jquery 16y ago
    Appreciate it. Can't really understand you right now, running a high fever, but I'll check back later.
- Androsynth 16y ago
  This is late and nobody will see this, but what the heck... You are wrong for two reasons: 1. If you want more than 2%, than you need to start the company yourself. The only way anyone can over come your screwed factor is if they are a founder. 2. 2% of a successful company should make you relatively wealthy, thus negating your screwed factor.
nostrademons 16y ago
I remember thinking in terms my "screwed factor" and how I could make the most money with the least work back when I was in college and my first post-college job. I found that it just wasn't worth it. I wasted more energy on micro-optimizing my time than I saved, and ended up being less successful. Plus it always just made me feel depressed, enervated, and vaguely guilty. I'm working for The Man now, a large tech corporation. My stock options are a miniscule fraction of the company's capitalization. My salary is decent, but probably less than I could earn elsewhere. I've already made the company more money than I'm likely to earn in my lifetime, and will likely see at most a few thousand of that in bonuses. I harbor no illusions about advancement or striking it rich through climbing the corporate ladder. And y'know what? I don't care. I'm happy now. I'm doing stuff that I'd want to be doing even if I were financially independent. Maybe that makes me screwed, but it seems to be working out fairly well for me so far. I find that it's worth figuring out the big things, and then not sweating the small stuff. If you have a great marketable technologically-feasible idea, go found a startup and do that. If you don't, join a company where you can feel good about however many hours you spend there. Don't sacrifice things you really care about for work, but don't keep score either.
- jquery 16y ago
  I'm not sure who downvoted you, because you made a good point. Anyway, I think it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. When I started working post college, I worked a lot of hours, because everything I did was hard. Now I've learned that a "work-life" balance keeps me the happiest. I'm a much better engineer, so I'm more efficient in these 40 hours than I used to be in 60-80 hours. The key has been--when at work, always be productive. When at home, do not think about work. It helps that I now work at a mid-size company that encourages exactly this. :-) Now different strokes for different folks--a very ambitious person should probably work more than 40 hours.