7 ms·

Worth remembering that Google paid this guy over $120 Million in compensation. He is a tech "1%"er, which really is saying a lot. That is hedge fund money. I'm

Worth remembering that Google paid this guy over $120 Million in compensation. He is a tech "1%"er, which really is saying a lot. That is hedge fund money. I'm not certain, but I think the average engineer would feel more loyalty to a company that has given them multi-generational wealth. I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market.

tsurantino 10y ago
I think his exceptionalism can be accounted for based on the lawsuit.
WillyOnWheels 10y ago
> I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market. Anthony's efforts led to Streetview and Maps improvements. Waymo is still using his LIDAR research. I think Anthony is totally screwed with this lawsuit, but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments.
- encoderer 10y ago
  Oh, I'm not. But I don't think the other Maps engineers took home $100 Million. Google clearly thought it was in their best interest, but I stand by what I said: As an engineer, the most well beaten path to wealth is building something that sells. To get paid and not even have to do that is itself something of an accomplishment, though not one I'd be very proud of.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    According to The Verge article on Levandowski, that is why he left GoogleX/Waymo: they wouldn't ship. And he was too outspoken to be in charge of Google X self-driving.
  - jstandard 10y ago
    Just curious, do you have an inside scoop on what value he's brought to Google and other companies? In these types of situations where a lot of money is involved, I've noticed folks are pretty quick to vilify someone with little information aside from the heavily biased info that leaks into the news. While $120MM in a vacuum does sound ridiculous, it's hard to know (or even put a price on) his true value without understanding his contributions in depth. This criticism doesn't extend to you, but in general I've seen a lot of the same folks make snap judgements about someone's ability based on what they've read from news and then vehemently decry how job interviews (which yield far more information) aren't effective at judging someone's worth.
    - encoderer 10y ago
      I think I've not made myself clear. I don't vilify $100mm pay days. Honestly engineering doesn't usually take home what I think it deserves. But to get $120 mill and be building competing startups the entire time seems pretty sleazy. I don't know where I'd draw the line of "you are being fully compensated for your time" but I'd say $10+ mill a year clears it. Also, if they valued his equity grants at $120mm and he held much, he likely netted far more. Not many words would be written about his pay day if he made a clean break from google before building a competing product.
- GalacticCmdr 10y ago
  The problem is that if this is proven against him then this is all people will remember of him. It is a real fall from his accomplishments.
- Schwolop 10y ago
  The guy built a self-driving motorcycle. I laughed at the first DARPA Grand Challenge when it travelled 30cm before falling over. I ate my words the next year when it made it most of the way. By comparison, after a year of learning to ride a motorbike I barely make it to work each day without shitting myself.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thesmallestcat 10y ago
    Why does he get all of the credit for this? He was part of a team.
    - Schwolop 10y ago
      Sure, but he was the team leader. I was part of a team that built autonomous vehicles too, but the fact that there were others involved doesn't stop me writing "built an autonomous vehicle" on my CV.
      - org3432 10y ago
        There was no team without him, period.
        bryanrasmussen 10y ago
        on the other hand there was no stolen intellectual property without him either.
        thowaway60 10y ago
        haha
        thesmallestcat 10y ago
        Why do you say that?
- _pmf_ 10y ago
  > but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments. It's not belittling engineering efforts if one states that rewarding a non-production research project with 120 million would be adequate in a lot of cases.
QuinnyPig 10y ago
Sure, but whatever he was or wasn't able to negotiate in compensation shouldn't drive the outcome here. He and his (former) employer came to a mutually agreeable deal; how much or how little that number was doesn't change the facts in this case unless I'm missing something?
- kbenson 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure they were making a moral argument, not a legal one.
artursapek 10y ago
I really don't understand how people get greedy after earning that much money. Is it just the high/excitement the comes from it? Seems like money would no longer be motivating.
- bwilliams18 10y ago
  If you're motivated by money, you're really motivated by having the most of it. And in that sphere, $120MM isn't actually that much.
- dsacco 10y ago
  Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our incomes that way. The average American does not need to live in the home size that has become desirable; they do it because they can. You can't set an arbitrary limit on when money ceases to be motivating. At $100M in net worth, you no longer need to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $1M net worth have to. But at a $1M net worth, you also do not have to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $100k net worth have to, and so on and so forth. If I had a net worth of over $100M, I'd probably still do things that increase it. That doesn't seem any more inherently greedy than my seeking to increase my net worth now, when it's orders of magnitude lower. I'd do it because it's what I know to do, and because more resources is rationally better than fewer resources.
  - tps5 10y ago
    Here's Keynes with another perspective: > When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

tsurantino 10y ago

I think his exceptionalism can be accounted for based on the lawsuit.

WillyOnWheels 10y ago

> I'm all for engineers getting paid, but in this case the guy didn't even have to do what most wealthy engineers do: deliver an actual successful product to market. Anthony's efforts led to Streetview and Maps improvements. Waymo is still using his LIDAR research. I think Anthony is totally screwed with this lawsuit, but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments.

encoderer 10y ago
Oh, I'm not. But I don't think the other Maps engineers took home $100 Million. Google clearly thought it was in their best interest, but I stand by what I said: As an engineer, the most well beaten path to wealth is building something that sells. To get paid and not even have to do that is itself something of an accomplishment, though not one I'd be very proud of.
- linkregister 10y ago
  According to The Verge article on Levandowski, that is why he left GoogleX/Waymo: they wouldn't ship. And he was too outspoken to be in charge of Google X self-driving.
- jstandard 10y ago
  Just curious, do you have an inside scoop on what value he's brought to Google and other companies? In these types of situations where a lot of money is involved, I've noticed folks are pretty quick to vilify someone with little information aside from the heavily biased info that leaks into the news. While $120MM in a vacuum does sound ridiculous, it's hard to know (or even put a price on) his true value without understanding his contributions in depth. This criticism doesn't extend to you, but in general I've seen a lot of the same folks make snap judgements about someone's ability based on what they've read from news and then vehemently decry how job interviews (which yield far more information) aren't effective at judging someone's worth.
  - encoderer 10y ago
    I think I've not made myself clear. I don't vilify $100mm pay days. Honestly engineering doesn't usually take home what I think it deserves. But to get $120 mill and be building competing startups the entire time seems pretty sleazy. I don't know where I'd draw the line of "you are being fully compensated for your time" but I'd say $10+ mill a year clears it. Also, if they valued his equity grants at $120mm and he held much, he likely netted far more. Not many words would be written about his pay day if he made a clean break from google before building a competing product.
GalacticCmdr 10y ago
The problem is that if this is proven against him then this is all people will remember of him. It is a real fall from his accomplishments.
Schwolop 10y ago
The guy built a self-driving motorcycle. I laughed at the first DARPA Grand Challenge when it travelled 30cm before falling over. I ate my words the next year when it made it most of the way. By comparison, after a year of learning to ride a motorbike I barely make it to work each day without shitting myself.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  Why does he get all of the credit for this? He was part of a team.
  - Schwolop 10y ago
    Sure, but he was the team leader. I was part of a team that built autonomous vehicles too, but the fact that there were others involved doesn't stop me writing "built an autonomous vehicle" on my CV.
    - org3432 10y ago
      There was no team without him, period.
      - bryanrasmussen 10y ago
        on the other hand there was no stolen intellectual property without him either.
        thowaway60 10y ago
        haha
      - thesmallestcat 10y ago
        Why do you say that?
_pmf_ 10y ago
> but I wouldn't belittle his engineering accomplishments. It's not belittling engineering efforts if one states that rewarding a non-production research project with 120 million would be adequate in a lot of cases.

QuinnyPig 10y ago

Sure, but whatever he was or wasn't able to negotiate in compensation shouldn't drive the outcome here. He and his (former) employer came to a mutually agreeable deal; how much or how little that number was doesn't change the facts in this case unless I'm missing something?

kbenson 10y ago
I'm pretty sure they were making a moral argument, not a legal one.

artursapek 10y ago

I really don't understand how people get greedy after earning that much money. Is it just the high/excitement the comes from it? Seems like money would no longer be motivating.

bwilliams18 10y ago
If you're motivated by money, you're really motivated by having the most of it. And in that sphere, $120MM isn't actually that much.
dsacco 10y ago
Many people around the world would say the same thing about the lifestyle enjoyed by the average commenter on this forum, but most of us don't think of our incomes that way. The average American does not need to live in the home size that has become desirable; they do it because they can. You can't set an arbitrary limit on when money ceases to be motivating. At $100M in net worth, you no longer need to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $1M net worth have to. But at a $1M net worth, you also do not have to compromise on a lot of things that people with a $100k net worth have to, and so on and so forth. If I had a net worth of over $100M, I'd probably still do things that increase it. That doesn't seem any more inherently greedy than my seeking to increase my net worth now, when it's orders of magnitude lower. I'd do it because it's what I know to do, and because more resources is rationally better than fewer resources.
- tps5 10y ago
  Here's Keynes with another perspective: > When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.