12 ms·

I think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in t

I think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in that kind of effort only to watch your boss get rich while you get screwed? You take Pincus and company, tie their fates to that of the employees, and everyone loses together? Fine, whatever. Like you said, they played the lottery. But the mismatch of fates is, to me, what makes this story pretty damn sad.

coloneltcb 14y ago
Right, but again, heartbreaking is hyperbolic. Heartbreaking is when you are a coal miner and you have the mine collapse on you and you die like a trapped rat. This is just a raw deal.
- rationalbeats 14y ago
  Well to plays devil's advocate, the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education. You can argue about why, but I am willing to bet (I don't know anyone working at Zynga) that many of these employees still have tens of thousands of dollars in college loans and seeing the sacrifices they made to get into a position in order to pay them off, erased in a matter of weeks, makes them feel like trapped rats. I never really like these comparison though because why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? Both hold basically the same desires. Why should one's misfortune be less important than another? They both work just as hard?
  - jbooth 14y ago
    I think, regardless of socio-economic status, "severely injured/dead" is worse than "only made 120k and I'm in debt".
  - dmorgan 14y ago
    >Well to plays devil's advocate, the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education. Which is heartbreaking in itself, on top of the bloody mine crushing on him. You say it like this argument somehow makes the Zynga case more heartbreaking, instead of less... >I never really like these comparison though because why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? Both hold basically the same desires. Why should one's misfortune be less important than another? They both work just as hard? No, they don't. And they don't get the same compensation either. Or job satisfaction -- the ditch digger pretty much works that job because he has to support himself / his family and he doesn't have the means to get something different. The computer programmer could have been 10 other things if he wanted, from tech support to floor manager at a Costco. Really, try ditch digging for a year, and then we'll talk.
    - tluyben2 14y ago
      And, unlike ditch diggers and coalminers, programmers (and other educated folk) can work until they die if need be. This make it or break it silicon valley thing is kind of distorting people their brains. Most people in this world have a job to provide for their family; as a developer you are much better off doing that. You get paid more, it's easier to switch jobs, you can move mostly anywhere and you can work until you're old/dead and enjoy it. A lot of educated people (at least 2 devs) over 70 I know still work and are happy to do so. And gambling on equity when you get paid well over average with all the options you have for your future is not that bad all considered.
    - fakeer 14y ago
      >>Really, try ditch digging for a year, and then we'll talk. What's that? Is it like "First perform at the Opera House and then we'll talk Mozart"? Most of the times they do not have same desires. For whatever reasons. Be it the immediate need to support family or the ambition the fire of desire having been lost over the years or fight and struggle to look for a stable mean to live. Or maybe the kind of education/upbringing he received. Or the company he grew up with (well, this is very important). This is also has a lot to do with the genes you were born with. This is the nature of a capitalist society and other ones are even worse. In a capitalist people are supposed to be of uneven means so they are. In a society like communist societies people are not supposed to be of uneven means (in the usual sense) and still they are and the gap is a lot wider than that in the former society.
      - galactus 14y ago
        The genes? Like, if the kid of a miner is adopted by a couple of lawyers, his miner genes would still push him to a life of digging?
        acuozzo 14y ago
        Don't feed the troll, galactus.
  - fakeer 14y ago
    >the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education Now, this is heartbreaking. Given the fact that most probably not having superior education (or education at all) didn't have anything to do with neglecting studies but simply being born to poor parents. >why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? It's the society we live in. There are various places on this planet where you are an untouchable by caste the caste you were born in leave alone money and job.
- rhizome 14y ago
  The miner is not heartbroken in that scenario. He is dead.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    The story is heartbreaking.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Are we supposed to agree that only the worst can be heartbreaking?
dmorgan 14y ago
>I think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in that kind of effort only to watch your boss get rich while you get screwed? How is that different from 99% of jobs out there? People flipping burgers work crazy shifts with shitty compensation only to watch the franchise owners getting filthy rich.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  That's not really a good thing either...
- ori_b 14y ago
  The difference is in the expectations. In in a minimum wage job, there's no equity. You're not expecting to cash out in stock if an acquisition goes well, and there's no opportunity for the people at the top to manipulate things so that they can cash out and leave you with junk stock. If you get a minimum wage job, you know what the deal is. If you get equity, it's reasonable to expect that you won't get screwed over completely. Is it fair? That's a very different question.
  - greedo 14y ago
    It's 2012. Anyone who sincerely expects options to vest without dilution and other shenanigans is naive at best. Been there, done that in 2000 and 2004.
    - phishphood 14y ago
      been there done that. Had stock options not from one, not two, but three startups in dot coms. Worked 60 hrs week - to the bone. Came through with nothing, actually lost money because in one of the startup I had to buy out my options and it came with a large tax bill for some reason
      - vidarh 14y ago
        > I had to buy out my options and it came with a large tax bill for some reason This usually happens if your option has a strike price lower than the market price at the time they're issued, in which case depending on jurisdiction they difference will usually be taxed as income on exercise. If you're really unlucky about where you are and how the options are arranged, you might even get taxed based on the market price on exercise. E.g. Norway at least used to be that way a while back unless you took specific precautions to get the options issued under an approved scheme. It's something to be aware of, as it means a lot of people might not be able to afford to exercise the options before they're ready to sell the shares, which means your total gains gets taxed as income most places (as opposed to if you see the company on a nice upwards trajectory and exercise and wait, in which case you may end up paying only capital gains and in some cases depending on where you are might end up paying reduced capital gains rates on the growth from your exercised onwards). The difference between a good and bad options plan can easily be 50%+ tax (e.g. UK, if you're careless you might pay 53.8% - top rate income tax + national insurance + employers national insurance contributions, vs. 10% if your company qualifies for certain incentive schemes for startups and the options plan is structured right..) It might seem great to have a really low strike price, but if you expect to be in it for the long haul and might contemplate exercising options before you're ready to sell your shares, talk to a tax lawyer before agreeing to options terms.
samstave 14y ago
As much as I am a Zynga hater, this happens ALL The time. Decide.com in 1999 - they farked over the employees and diluted the stock of everyone hoping to cash out in an acquisition - this caused a major meltdown and the company fell apart and nobody received anything. Savi Technology was acquired by Lockheed - they stated an option price internally which was wildly wrong, granted many many many options to execs and came out and said that anyone who joined in the last 12 months had options worth zero. People who did have common shares got farked over, newer employees even worse. and all employees got ZERO equity in lockheed. Then Lockheed stock tripled after the acquisition due to the War on Humanity and everyone was still stuck holding the bag. This is just two direct examples. Most companies will fuck over their employees. I don't trust ANYONE in the valley.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  In addition, and this should be obvious, don't trust ANY company executive or manager that makes oral promises or allusions to future windfall without it being in writing, signed and verified by a lawyer.
  - crag 14y ago
    I second this. Get everything in writing. But you know, even THAT isn't good enough sometimes. But don't fret, if (when) Zynga does collapse, it's execs (including the founder, who I hear is a piece of work) will be up to their eyeballs in lawsuits. Ahh the fun, writing checks to your lawyers.
    - malandrew 14y ago
      I remember this one part of the documentary Born Rich where one of the recently-turned-18 kids said that when you're born stupidly rich in the US, getting sued over something -- anything -- is basically a right a passage. He basically said it's not a matter of if you'll get sued, just when you'll get sued. Given how litigious the US is, if I were super rich I could not imagine keeping a significant portion of my assets in the country. If you have a lot of money it makes a lot of sense to not only diversify your investments but your jurisdictional exposure as well. If you know the lawsuits are going to take forever (time) and cost a bunch (money), not having many assets in the US makes it easy to accept a default judgement, declare bankruptcy and write off the loss entirely without ever paying any lawyers a cent. In this case, the people being sued seem like they totally deserve a lawsuit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is naive to not diversify jurisdictionally.
reitzensteinm 14y ago
A few years ago, I saw a documentary that broke my heart. A woman in China had an unnecessary, experimental operation done at a hospital, without her consent. It caused kidney failure, and she needed a transplant. There was a match with a family member, but the hospital refused to pay for it, even though it could have been sued into bankruptcy in the US. For the want of $7,000 USD, she was dying. Watching her sit with her young children on her lap, deathly sick with her husband by her side, the expression of finality and despair on their faces - I'm not ashamed to admit that it made me tear up. Now that, to me, is god damn heartbreaking. I don't disagree with the direction of your sentiment, just the magnitude of the word you are using. It's close to the strongest feelings you can have on a subject. Did you really feel a pang in your heart when you read the article? Because to me, those two stories aren't even on the same planet.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Now that is hyperbole..
- glhaynes 14y ago
  I totally agree with you, logically; but I also don't really have any problem with the earlier poster saying it was "heartbreaking", either. Certainly to the people involved at Zynga, the situation is heartbreaking — and our sympathy/empathy responses are based on our ability to "feel" (in some way) a similar experience to that which we imagine others are feeling.
- tylermenezes 14y ago
  Your comment is one of those which I so very much hate about HN, because you already know it's wrong, you're just writing it because you like to argue and insult others. By this stupid logic, you can never be happy, because there's always someone with more reasons to be happy, while the victims of a serial killer probably had it better off than a child who dies of starvation in Africa. (Of course, you're a smart person, so I'm sure you're aware of how stupid this line of arguing is.) You seem to be pretty strongly in support of someone who by all means cheated his employees. If that's the case, I certainly hope future employees have the foresight to do some research on who you are before agreeing to work for you.
eswangren 14y ago
I worked my ass off for a company that did very well. We were bought out and, due to certain reasons I won't go into, my stock wasn't worth very much. I make a good salary, I didn't cry about it. It's not "heartbreaking", it's disappointing. Let's not get dramatic. Zynga as a company doesn't even produce anything particularly interesting.

coloneltcb 14y ago

Right, but again, heartbreaking is hyperbolic. Heartbreaking is when you are a coal miner and you have the mine collapse on you and you die like a trapped rat. This is just a raw deal.

rationalbeats 14y ago
Well to plays devil's advocate, the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education. You can argue about why, but I am willing to bet (I don't know anyone working at Zynga) that many of these employees still have tens of thousands of dollars in college loans and seeing the sacrifices they made to get into a position in order to pay them off, erased in a matter of weeks, makes them feel like trapped rats. I never really like these comparison though because why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? Both hold basically the same desires. Why should one's misfortune be less important than another? They both work just as hard?
- jbooth 14y ago
  I think, regardless of socio-economic status, "severely injured/dead" is worse than "only made 120k and I'm in debt".
- dmorgan 14y ago
  >Well to plays devil's advocate, the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education. Which is heartbreaking in itself, on top of the bloody mine crushing on him. You say it like this argument somehow makes the Zynga case more heartbreaking, instead of less... >I never really like these comparison though because why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? Both hold basically the same desires. Why should one's misfortune be less important than another? They both work just as hard? No, they don't. And they don't get the same compensation either. Or job satisfaction -- the ditch digger pretty much works that job because he has to support himself / his family and he doesn't have the means to get something different. The computer programmer could have been 10 other things if he wanted, from tech support to floor manager at a Costco. Really, try ditch digging for a year, and then we'll talk.
  - tluyben2 14y ago
    And, unlike ditch diggers and coalminers, programmers (and other educated folk) can work until they die if need be. This make it or break it silicon valley thing is kind of distorting people their brains. Most people in this world have a job to provide for their family; as a developer you are much better off doing that. You get paid more, it's easier to switch jobs, you can move mostly anywhere and you can work until you're old/dead and enjoy it. A lot of educated people (at least 2 devs) over 70 I know still work and are happy to do so. And gambling on equity when you get paid well over average with all the options you have for your future is not that bad all considered.
  - fakeer 14y ago
    >>Really, try ditch digging for a year, and then we'll talk. What's that? Is it like "First perform at the Opera House and then we'll talk Mozart"? Most of the times they do not have same desires. For whatever reasons. Be it the immediate need to support family or the ambition the fire of desire having been lost over the years or fight and struggle to look for a stable mean to live. Or maybe the kind of education/upbringing he received. Or the company he grew up with (well, this is very important). This is also has a lot to do with the genes you were born with. This is the nature of a capitalist society and other ones are even worse. In a capitalist people are supposed to be of uneven means so they are. In a society like communist societies people are not supposed to be of uneven means (in the usual sense) and still they are and the gap is a lot wider than that in the former society.
    - galactus 14y ago
      The genes? Like, if the kid of a miner is adopted by a couple of lawyers, his miner genes would still push him to a life of digging?
      - acuozzo 14y ago
        Don't feed the troll, galactus.
- fakeer 14y ago
  >the coal miner is working in a coal mine because he did not get a superior education Now, this is heartbreaking. Given the fact that most probably not having superior education (or education at all) didn't have anything to do with neglecting studies but simply being born to poor parents. >why is a ditch digger better or worse than a computer programmer? It's the society we live in. There are various places on this planet where you are an untouchable by caste the caste you were born in leave alone money and job.
rhizome 14y ago
The miner is not heartbroken in that scenario. He is dead.
- Evbn 14y ago
  The story is heartbreaking.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Are we supposed to agree that only the worst can be heartbreaking?

dmorgan 14y ago

>I think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in that kind of effort only to watch your boss get rich while you get screwed? How is that different from 99% of jobs out there? People flipping burgers work crazy shifts with shitty compensation only to watch the franchise owners getting filthy rich.

nostrademons 14y ago
That's not really a good thing either...
ori_b 14y ago
The difference is in the expectations. In in a minimum wage job, there's no equity. You're not expecting to cash out in stock if an acquisition goes well, and there's no opportunity for the people at the top to manipulate things so that they can cash out and leave you with junk stock. If you get a minimum wage job, you know what the deal is. If you get equity, it's reasonable to expect that you won't get screwed over completely. Is it fair? That's a very different question.
- greedo 14y ago
  It's 2012. Anyone who sincerely expects options to vest without dilution and other shenanigans is naive at best. Been there, done that in 2000 and 2004.
  - phishphood 14y ago
    been there done that. Had stock options not from one, not two, but three startups in dot coms. Worked 60 hrs week - to the bone. Came through with nothing, actually lost money because in one of the startup I had to buy out my options and it came with a large tax bill for some reason
    - vidarh 14y ago
      > I had to buy out my options and it came with a large tax bill for some reason This usually happens if your option has a strike price lower than the market price at the time they're issued, in which case depending on jurisdiction they difference will usually be taxed as income on exercise. If you're really unlucky about where you are and how the options are arranged, you might even get taxed based on the market price on exercise. E.g. Norway at least used to be that way a while back unless you took specific precautions to get the options issued under an approved scheme. It's something to be aware of, as it means a lot of people might not be able to afford to exercise the options before they're ready to sell the shares, which means your total gains gets taxed as income most places (as opposed to if you see the company on a nice upwards trajectory and exercise and wait, in which case you may end up paying only capital gains and in some cases depending on where you are might end up paying reduced capital gains rates on the growth from your exercised onwards). The difference between a good and bad options plan can easily be 50%+ tax (e.g. UK, if you're careless you might pay 53.8% - top rate income tax + national insurance + employers national insurance contributions, vs. 10% if your company qualifies for certain incentive schemes for startups and the options plan is structured right..) It might seem great to have a really low strike price, but if you expect to be in it for the long haul and might contemplate exercising options before you're ready to sell your shares, talk to a tax lawyer before agreeing to options terms.

samstave 14y ago

As much as I am a Zynga hater, this happens ALL The time. Decide.com in 1999 - they farked over the employees and diluted the stock of everyone hoping to cash out in an acquisition - this caused a major meltdown and the company fell apart and nobody received anything. Savi Technology was acquired by Lockheed - they stated an option price internally which was wildly wrong, granted many many many options to execs and came out and said that anyone who joined in the last 12 months had options worth zero. People who did have common shares got farked over, newer employees even worse. and all employees got ZERO equity in lockheed. Then Lockheed stock tripled after the acquisition due to the War on Humanity and everyone was still stuck holding the bag. This is just two direct examples. Most companies will fuck over their employees. I don't trust ANYONE in the valley.

rdtsc 14y ago
In addition, and this should be obvious, don't trust ANY company executive or manager that makes oral promises or allusions to future windfall without it being in writing, signed and verified by a lawyer.
- crag 14y ago
  I second this. Get everything in writing. But you know, even THAT isn't good enough sometimes. But don't fret, if (when) Zynga does collapse, it's execs (including the founder, who I hear is a piece of work) will be up to their eyeballs in lawsuits. Ahh the fun, writing checks to your lawyers.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    I remember this one part of the documentary Born Rich where one of the recently-turned-18 kids said that when you're born stupidly rich in the US, getting sued over something -- anything -- is basically a right a passage. He basically said it's not a matter of if you'll get sued, just when you'll get sued. Given how litigious the US is, if I were super rich I could not imagine keeping a significant portion of my assets in the country. If you have a lot of money it makes a lot of sense to not only diversify your investments but your jurisdictional exposure as well. If you know the lawsuits are going to take forever (time) and cost a bunch (money), not having many assets in the US makes it easy to accept a default judgement, declare bankruptcy and write off the loss entirely without ever paying any lawyers a cent. In this case, the people being sued seem like they totally deserve a lawsuit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is naive to not diversify jurisdictionally.

reitzensteinm 14y ago

A few years ago, I saw a documentary that broke my heart. A woman in China had an unnecessary, experimental operation done at a hospital, without her consent. It caused kidney failure, and she needed a transplant. There was a match with a family member, but the hospital refused to pay for it, even though it could have been sued into bankruptcy in the US. For the want of $7,000 USD, she was dying. Watching her sit with her young children on her lap, deathly sick with her husband by her side, the expression of finality and despair on their faces - I'm not ashamed to admit that it made me tear up. Now that, to me, is god damn heartbreaking. I don't disagree with the direction of your sentiment, just the magnitude of the word you are using. It's close to the strongest feelings you can have on a subject. Did you really feel a pang in your heart when you read the article? Because to me, those two stories aren't even on the same planet.

rhizome 14y ago
Now that is hyperbole..
glhaynes 14y ago
I totally agree with you, logically; but I also don't really have any problem with the earlier poster saying it was "heartbreaking", either. Certainly to the people involved at Zynga, the situation is heartbreaking — and our sympathy/empathy responses are based on our ability to "feel" (in some way) a similar experience to that which we imagine others are feeling.
tylermenezes 14y ago
Your comment is one of those which I so very much hate about HN, because you already know it's wrong, you're just writing it because you like to argue and insult others. By this stupid logic, you can never be happy, because there's always someone with more reasons to be happy, while the victims of a serial killer probably had it better off than a child who dies of starvation in Africa. (Of course, you're a smart person, so I'm sure you're aware of how stupid this line of arguing is.) You seem to be pretty strongly in support of someone who by all means cheated his employees. If that's the case, I certainly hope future employees have the foresight to do some research on who you are before agreeing to work for you.

eswangren 14y ago

I worked my ass off for a company that did very well. We were bought out and, due to certain reasons I won't go into, my stock wasn't worth very much. I make a good salary, I didn't cry about it. It's not "heartbreaking", it's disappointing. Let's not get dramatic. Zynga as a company doesn't even produce anything particularly interesting.