4 ms·

Controversial opinion, but I find it hard to feel too angry at Adam for this pay off. In spite of his mistakes and failings, the guy founded and grew a huge gl

Controversial opinion, but I find it hard to feel too angry at Adam for this pay off. In spite of his mistakes and failings, the guy founded and grew a huge global company which is still valued in the billions, and kept voting control all the way through. If investors want him out, it's only right that they write him a big cheque.

rpmcmurdo 7y ago
While shitting all over those "little people" with their annoying obligations like mortgages, children and aging parents and whatnot, who wake up one morning to find out they have a huge tax bill on money they never made while the "visionary founder" gets 1.7 billion dollars for power driving the company into the dirt. WeWork is an office subletting business. That is _all_ it is.
- BrandoElFollito 7y ago
  Wasn't it their choice to get volatile shares instead of a normal salary? I am asking seriously because this is something I do not understand. Were they fooled by someone? If I get part of my salary in variable then I cannot be that surprised if that variable is zero.
  - derision 7y ago
    Everyone knows going into a startup your equity may end up being worthless. Anything else is ignorance.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Sounds like your issue is with capitalism
  - derision 7y ago
    That has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with our tax laws, but more importantly if you have a mortgage, kids, aging parents, etc you should probably get a job with a stable salary instead of gambling with startup equity. At the end of the day it comes down to responsible choices.
  - rpmcmurdo 7y ago
    Capitalism is fine. WeWork is Trump scale criminal financial fraud. Adam Neumann should have gotten exactly zero dollars for leaving the company. The company is so broke it can't afford severance for regular workers, and this crook gets 1.7 billion dollars to go away?
    - kelnos 7y ago
      > WeWork is Trump scale criminal financial fraud. That's unjustifiable hyperbole. WeWork is (was) certainly a very strange company, with a very strange founder, and a very strange mission, but I don't see any actual fraud involved (if there's further investigation, fraud may certainly turn up, but I don't think that's a reasonable accusation given what we know now). Neumann built a real estate company, convinced some surprisingly-gullible investors that it was a world-changing tech company, and for the most part did what he advertised: built up a ton of owned or leased office space and then re-leased it to small businesses. > The company is so broke it can't afford severance for regular workers That's unfortunately common with growth companies who don't give themselves enough runway in the assumption that funding events will be frequent and reliable, and then find that assumption to be false. That's the failure story of many, many startups. WeWork has just gotten a ton of press owing to its size, eccentric founder, and investors. Regardless, laid-off workers are not owed severance; it's a nice thing to do, but as a worker, expecting that safety net as guaranteed in a place with at-will employment is foolish.
kelnos 7y ago
I don't agree that it's right that they write him a big check, but I, too, have trouble feeling too angry at Neumann. He played the game remarkably well: he managed to get a prominent investor to believe the company was worth a ton of money. The public markets disagreed quite vehemently on that value, and yet he still managed to retain a huge amount of leverage to the point where he's being paid quite a hefty sum to give up control. It absolutely sucks that many of the regular rank-and-file are getting shafted, but that is one of the many risks you take on when you join a startup where you have a low salary, compensated by private-company stock options funny-money. If you (for example) have a family and no other source of income, you should not take that deal. If you take it anyway, and it blows up in your face, that's on you. Humans are unfortunately remarkably bad at risk assessment sometimes.

rpmcmurdo 7y ago

While shitting all over those "little people" with their annoying obligations like mortgages, children and aging parents and whatnot, who wake up one morning to find out they have a huge tax bill on money they never made while the "visionary founder" gets 1.7 billion dollars for power driving the company into the dirt. WeWork is an office subletting business. That is _all_ it is.

BrandoElFollito 7y ago
Wasn't it their choice to get volatile shares instead of a normal salary? I am asking seriously because this is something I do not understand. Were they fooled by someone? If I get part of my salary in variable then I cannot be that surprised if that variable is zero.
- derision 7y ago
  Everyone knows going into a startup your equity may end up being worthless. Anything else is ignorance.
whamlastxmas 7y ago
Sounds like your issue is with capitalism
- derision 7y ago
  That has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with our tax laws, but more importantly if you have a mortgage, kids, aging parents, etc you should probably get a job with a stable salary instead of gambling with startup equity. At the end of the day it comes down to responsible choices.
- rpmcmurdo 7y ago
  Capitalism is fine. WeWork is Trump scale criminal financial fraud. Adam Neumann should have gotten exactly zero dollars for leaving the company. The company is so broke it can't afford severance for regular workers, and this crook gets 1.7 billion dollars to go away?
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > WeWork is Trump scale criminal financial fraud. That's unjustifiable hyperbole. WeWork is (was) certainly a very strange company, with a very strange founder, and a very strange mission, but I don't see any actual fraud involved (if there's further investigation, fraud may certainly turn up, but I don't think that's a reasonable accusation given what we know now). Neumann built a real estate company, convinced some surprisingly-gullible investors that it was a world-changing tech company, and for the most part did what he advertised: built up a ton of owned or leased office space and then re-leased it to small businesses. > The company is so broke it can't afford severance for regular workers That's unfortunately common with growth companies who don't give themselves enough runway in the assumption that funding events will be frequent and reliable, and then find that assumption to be false. That's the failure story of many, many startups. WeWork has just gotten a ton of press owing to its size, eccentric founder, and investors. Regardless, laid-off workers are not owed severance; it's a nice thing to do, but as a worker, expecting that safety net as guaranteed in a place with at-will employment is foolish.

kelnos 7y ago

I don't agree that it's right that they write him a big check, but I, too, have trouble feeling too angry at Neumann. He played the game remarkably well: he managed to get a prominent investor to believe the company was worth a ton of money. The public markets disagreed quite vehemently on that value, and yet he still managed to retain a huge amount of leverage to the point where he's being paid quite a hefty sum to give up control. It absolutely sucks that many of the regular rank-and-file are getting shafted, but that is one of the many risks you take on when you join a startup where you have a low salary, compensated by private-company stock options funny-money. If you (for example) have a family and no other source of income, you should not take that deal. If you take it anyway, and it blows up in your face, that's on you. Humans are unfortunately remarkably bad at risk assessment sometimes.