3 ms·

Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about

by User23 4y ago

Just to play devil’s advocate why is that horrific? Presumably the lack of transparency? Would it be morally acceptable if the hiring manager were honest about the scenario and the prospective employee knew to discount equity comp and focus on cash comp and being ready to find a new role? Edit: Consider if you were offered 200k per annum plus some irrelevant RSUs a year to be fired in 6 months, would you really be offended to take that 100k if you knew up front that those were the terms of the deal? Point being that the arrangement is only immoral if it's dishonest, otherwise it's just basically a gift for reasons that are perhaps odd, but within the giver's rights.

eropple 4y ago
The devil really doesn't need more advocates.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.
  - eropple 4y ago
    That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves. "Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
    - freedomben 4y ago
      I'm sympathetic to your view, but I worry where it leads us too. Is it people never questioning whether they're "on the right side" or doing the right thing? Some of the worst things I've seen done were done by people who thought they were doing good.
      - eropple 4y ago
        Sorry, did I imply somewhere that criticism is bad? Because heck no, and if I apologize. Counter-analysis is important! Critical, even. And there are plenty of ways to do that. Like "if I were to steelman the opposition". Or, if you're going to put your chips down: "this feels incorrect, because X." That particular phrase is pretty much used for bad faith remarks when one wants to distance themselves from the blast radius. It's hiding the ball. Doubly so when one, as the person to whom I replied did, has to invent a situation where it'd be okay (so as to imply by transference that others are okay).
chillwaves 4y ago
You had to make up a scenario to justify your position. Instead of doing that, discuss the scenario at hand. There is no mention that people are being informed up front that they will be fired in 6 months, so your reply is not helpful.
lozenge 4y ago
If you can find one example of a hiring manager being honest about the scenario, I'll eat my RSUs
hawaiianbrah 4y ago
Amazon already discounts equity comp. You vest 5% the first year and 15% the second year, but you get paid in cash equivalents those first two years.
freedomben 4y ago
It's a shame you were down voted so heavily for your question. I think it's a good one to consider. Surely at some point it does become a worthwhile deal. Imagine if they offered you $2 Mil/year? I would work my ass off and be damn happy for it for a few months knowing I'll be fired for that kind of money. Even if it were only 3 months long and I pocketed $500k, that would be a good deal to me.

by User23 4y ago

eropple 4y ago

The devil really doesn't need more advocates.

cercatrova 4y ago
I hate this phrase and I'm not sure why it's getting so much more popular. It's just pithy because it concerns an unliked figure, a devil. We could easily say instead "looking at the other side of the coin" but no one would then say "the coin doesn't need more sides" because that wouldn't make any more sense.
- eropple 4y ago
  That isn't true, though. The phrase "devil's advocate" almost always refers to taking the other side of an issue where doing so is understood to be negative. When used to low-key argue in favor of the position because one believes in shitty things--and it's usually pretty obvious!--the user of the phrase is merely telling on themselves. "Well, maybe shitty people doing shitty things is good, actually??" does no one any favors.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    No, the phrase is most often used to simply mean, "the other side of this discussion." In fact I almost never see it to mean what you said, to take the side of the negative side of an issue where said negative side would condemn one to be a "shitty person." It seems again that the phrasing creates this pervasive idea that the person using the phrase is using it in a fully intended negative way when it's just said off hand without thought. That is to say, it is replaceable with a phrase like "looking at the other side of the coin," as I initially stated. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33544320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6315113#6315483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564385
  - freedomben 4y ago
    I'm sympathetic to your view, but I worry where it leads us too. Is it people never questioning whether they're "on the right side" or doing the right thing? Some of the worst things I've seen done were done by people who thought they were doing good.
    - eropple 4y ago
      Sorry, did I imply somewhere that criticism is bad? Because heck no, and if I apologize. Counter-analysis is important! Critical, even. And there are plenty of ways to do that. Like "if I were to steelman the opposition". Or, if you're going to put your chips down: "this feels incorrect, because X." That particular phrase is pretty much used for bad faith remarks when one wants to distance themselves from the blast radius. It's hiding the ball. Doubly so when one, as the person to whom I replied did, has to invent a situation where it'd be okay (so as to imply by transference that others are okay).

chillwaves 4y ago

You had to make up a scenario to justify your position. Instead of doing that, discuss the scenario at hand. There is no mention that people are being informed up front that they will be fired in 6 months, so your reply is not helpful.

lozenge 4y ago

If you can find one example of a hiring manager being honest about the scenario, I'll eat my RSUs

hawaiianbrah 4y ago

Amazon already discounts equity comp. You vest 5% the first year and 15% the second year, but you get paid in cash equivalents those first two years.

freedomben 4y ago

It's a shame you were down voted so heavily for your question. I think it's a good one to consider. Surely at some point it does become a worthwhile deal. Imagine if they offered you $2 Mil/year? I would work my ass off and be damn happy for it for a few months knowing I'll be fired for that kind of money. Even if it were only 3 months long and I pocketed $500k, that would be a good deal to me.