5 ms·

A problem with making declarative statements about the future is you may change your mind and then be criticised. A problem with accepting below market pay is y

A problem with making declarative statements about the future is you may change your mind and then be criticised. A problem with accepting below market pay is you may later regret it. There’s a clear fix to both and I don’t see any villains here.

xbar 5y ago
What's the fix for the victims here?
- enjo 5y ago
  Who are the victims?
  - chii 5y ago
    i assume they are labeling the employees that did not get a big payout as a victim because of the lack of equity in the compensation. But presumably, the employees are told that they won't get equity, and their cash compensation is high enough to make up for it.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      If you tell me you won't give me equity it's one thing. If you tell me not to worry my little noggin about it because we're never selling :) and then you turn around sell for $12B, I'm going to feel a little shafted... - But looks like they accounted for this with the 500m pool, so in this case they ended up "fixing" the problem. I think in the end this will just be a cautionary tale on the other side of the "equity is worth TP" stories. I've always felt equity is a lottery ticket, but a lottery ticket isn't completely worthless... ps: It is a little funny watching all the people rush to defend this, like Mailchimp's founders obviously saw the issue here and negotiated that pool into the deal, but random HNs are so quick to defend it with "that's business folks!" like human emotion is something to throw in the garbage when talking about $$$. Mailchimp wouldn't have worked out with that mentality, it shows reading their story.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        >If you tell me not to worry my little noggin about it because we're never selling :) and then you turn around sell for $12B, I'm going to feel a little shafted... The thing I don't understand - why would someone 'never selling' influence someone else to work for less than market rate? OK maybe I can think of some reason for a company producing something that saves peoples lives that you're afraid a big company wants to buy to shut down and push their inferior product but this ain't that scenario - so why?!?
        chii 5y ago
        > The thing I don't understand - why would someone 'never selling' influence someone else to work for less than market rate? sour-grapes. They see the equity payout, and imagined that they'd get a piece of it had they been compensated with equity. What they don't see is the loss if the company went bust - like most startups do - because hindsight is 20/20 so realistically, it makes little difference if a company paid in equity or cash - as long as you calculate the discount for the equity compensation appropriately.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        This is a very uncharitable view of how most people would feel in this situation. - Imagine a lottery/raffle/etc. where the state says "we're probably not going to be drawing the results for this, so instead of giving you a ticket with an expected value of $0.05 we'll give you a guaranteed $10 right now" Mathematically that's a very generous offer! But then the state turns around and runs the lottery after everyone takes them up on that offer with the understanding the ticket would be worth $0 if there's no draw. The state paid you more than the expected value of your ticket, by the math you got compensated more than a fair amount and the odds are you would have made a lot less than $10... but do you think most people will be upset? More upset than if they had just lost a normal drawing?
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        Where was it implied that never selling made someone work for less than market rate... Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen and X thing happens? - The rebuttal everyone in this thread is parroting is a tautology. Saying "things change". Yes by the very act of existing over a period of time a company will indeed have changed even if it's just age. It's not a helpful response to how people feel, and again, you're always free to throw feelings in the trash in business... but at the very least have the courage to admit you're doing it. There's no reason to pretend you don't see why people don't like it (And again Mailchimp's founders seemed to have that courage, hence the fund)
- ISL 5y ago
  I assume GP's fix is, "Don't accept below-market pay."
  - pempem 5y ago
    I would go further and say "don't believe that your below market-pay is due to true commitment to a mission. more than likely your leadership isn't taking that same below-market approach for themselves." I'm not sure why, in most comments not just this one, the idea that you need to be cynical and not trust someone's stated good intentions isn't included.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      Most humans prefer to exhibit trust towards other’s stated intentions. Cynicism is perfectly valid, but not a solution to the breaking of trust. The idea of a world where I must be cynical about everything and trust nothing, is dystopian. And quite simply, would fail incredibly quickly.
      - pempem 5y ago
        Oh hm.. I have a pretty different view of the world we currently live in. That pizza? Not actually 10.99. That 120,000 paycheck, not actually 120,000. The list goes on.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    It's not a good solution. Cynicism hurts.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Nition 5y ago
  Owners pay a small percentage of the sale to the employees as a gesture of goodwill.
yunohn 5y ago
> you may change your mind and then be criticised Yes, that’s exactly what is happening here - and the criticism is from the employees who were lied to. > accepting below market pay is you may later regret it While they might’ve been paid market value, it is still quite disingenuous to deny equity and preach an independent vision. And then using the work done by employees to sellout for a massive payday.
- curiousgal 5y ago
  Today I learned that billionaires can be disingenuous lol Backstabbing and lying are the cornerstone of the startup system. People shouldn't be shocked when there's money on the line. Sad but true.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > People shouldn't be shocked when there's money on the line. Well, I guess that’s that then. We might as well get rid of human ethics and morals, trust based systems, and justice. Apparently, capitalism and the love of money is all we need!
    - dcow 5y ago
      Welcome to 21st century globalism. When you build an entire society around fundamental economic power, what do you think you'll get? Not that?
      - yunohn 5y ago
        We can always ask/demand more of others. And in cases of ethical or moral uncertainty, we can introduce rules/laws, as society has done for millennia. The answer is not always to give up and support unethical behavior.
    - vishnugupta 5y ago
      > We might as well get rid of human ethics and morals, trust based systems, and justice. In my experience these values are invoked when sums involved are not life altering. As the saying goes if you owe $5000 to a bank then the bank owns you but if you owe $500MM then you own the bank.
dcow 5y ago
Did anyone even accept below market pay in this case? The comp packages included profit sharing…
- mrgordon 5y ago
  Sounds like they were talked into profit sharing instead of equity and now the profit sharing won’t apply at Intuit so they likely got almost nothing from it
  - hef19898 5y ago
    If you cannot live on base pay alone, take different job. Everything above that is just a bet on the future, one that can go well or not.
    - mrgordon 5y ago
      Sure but it doesn’t mean your employer should lie to you to keep all the shares for themselves

xbar 5y ago

What's the fix for the victims here?

enjo 5y ago
Who are the victims?
- chii 5y ago
  i assume they are labeling the employees that did not get a big payout as a victim because of the lack of equity in the compensation. But presumably, the employees are told that they won't get equity, and their cash compensation is high enough to make up for it.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    If you tell me you won't give me equity it's one thing. If you tell me not to worry my little noggin about it because we're never selling :) and then you turn around sell for $12B, I'm going to feel a little shafted... - But looks like they accounted for this with the 500m pool, so in this case they ended up "fixing" the problem. I think in the end this will just be a cautionary tale on the other side of the "equity is worth TP" stories. I've always felt equity is a lottery ticket, but a lottery ticket isn't completely worthless... ps: It is a little funny watching all the people rush to defend this, like Mailchimp's founders obviously saw the issue here and negotiated that pool into the deal, but random HNs are so quick to defend it with "that's business folks!" like human emotion is something to throw in the garbage when talking about $$$. Mailchimp wouldn't have worked out with that mentality, it shows reading their story.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      >If you tell me not to worry my little noggin about it because we're never selling :) and then you turn around sell for $12B, I'm going to feel a little shafted... The thing I don't understand - why would someone 'never selling' influence someone else to work for less than market rate? OK maybe I can think of some reason for a company producing something that saves peoples lives that you're afraid a big company wants to buy to shut down and push their inferior product but this ain't that scenario - so why?!?
      - chii 5y ago
        > The thing I don't understand - why would someone 'never selling' influence someone else to work for less than market rate? sour-grapes. They see the equity payout, and imagined that they'd get a piece of it had they been compensated with equity. What they don't see is the loss if the company went bust - like most startups do - because hindsight is 20/20 so realistically, it makes little difference if a company paid in equity or cash - as long as you calculate the discount for the equity compensation appropriately.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        This is a very uncharitable view of how most people would feel in this situation. - Imagine a lottery/raffle/etc. where the state says "we're probably not going to be drawing the results for this, so instead of giving you a ticket with an expected value of $0.05 we'll give you a guaranteed $10 right now" Mathematically that's a very generous offer! But then the state turns around and runs the lottery after everyone takes them up on that offer with the understanding the ticket would be worth $0 if there's no draw. The state paid you more than the expected value of your ticket, by the math you got compensated more than a fair amount and the odds are you would have made a lot less than $10... but do you think most people will be upset? More upset than if they had just lost a normal drawing?
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        Where was it implied that never selling made someone work for less than market rate... Do you not see how someone can feel mislead if told X will not happen and X thing happens? - The rebuttal everyone in this thread is parroting is a tautology. Saying "things change". Yes by the very act of existing over a period of time a company will indeed have changed even if it's just age. It's not a helpful response to how people feel, and again, you're always free to throw feelings in the trash in business... but at the very least have the courage to admit you're doing it. There's no reason to pretend you don't see why people don't like it (And again Mailchimp's founders seemed to have that courage, hence the fund)
ISL 5y ago
I assume GP's fix is, "Don't accept below-market pay."
- pempem 5y ago
  I would go further and say "don't believe that your below market-pay is due to true commitment to a mission. more than likely your leadership isn't taking that same below-market approach for themselves." I'm not sure why, in most comments not just this one, the idea that you need to be cynical and not trust someone's stated good intentions isn't included.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Most humans prefer to exhibit trust towards other’s stated intentions. Cynicism is perfectly valid, but not a solution to the breaking of trust. The idea of a world where I must be cynical about everything and trust nothing, is dystopian. And quite simply, would fail incredibly quickly.
    - pempem 5y ago
      Oh hm.. I have a pretty different view of the world we currently live in. That pizza? Not actually 10.99. That 120,000 paycheck, not actually 120,000. The list goes on.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  It's not a good solution. Cynicism hurts.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nition 5y ago
Owners pay a small percentage of the sale to the employees as a gesture of goodwill.

yunohn 5y ago

> you may change your mind and then be criticised Yes, that’s exactly what is happening here - and the criticism is from the employees who were lied to. > accepting below market pay is you may later regret it While they might’ve been paid market value, it is still quite disingenuous to deny equity and preach an independent vision. And then using the work done by employees to sellout for a massive payday.

curiousgal 5y ago
Today I learned that billionaires can be disingenuous lol Backstabbing and lying are the cornerstone of the startup system. People shouldn't be shocked when there's money on the line. Sad but true.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > People shouldn't be shocked when there's money on the line. Well, I guess that’s that then. We might as well get rid of human ethics and morals, trust based systems, and justice. Apparently, capitalism and the love of money is all we need!
  - dcow 5y ago
    Welcome to 21st century globalism. When you build an entire society around fundamental economic power, what do you think you'll get? Not that?
    - yunohn 5y ago
      We can always ask/demand more of others. And in cases of ethical or moral uncertainty, we can introduce rules/laws, as society has done for millennia. The answer is not always to give up and support unethical behavior.
  - vishnugupta 5y ago
    > We might as well get rid of human ethics and morals, trust based systems, and justice. In my experience these values are invoked when sums involved are not life altering. As the saying goes if you owe $5000 to a bank then the bank owns you but if you owe $500MM then you own the bank.

dcow 5y ago

Did anyone even accept below market pay in this case? The comp packages included profit sharing…

mrgordon 5y ago
Sounds like they were talked into profit sharing instead of equity and now the profit sharing won’t apply at Intuit so they likely got almost nothing from it
- hef19898 5y ago
  If you cannot live on base pay alone, take different job. Everything above that is just a bet on the future, one that can go well or not.
  - mrgordon 5y ago
    Sure but it doesn’t mean your employer should lie to you to keep all the shares for themselves