4 ms·
I don't understand why anyone would feel that the "Google Chef" scenario was a problem. By joining a young company, that probably can't pay you a market rate sa
by throwaway13qf85 13y ago
I don't understand why anyone would feel that the "Google Chef" scenario was a problem. By joining a young company, that probably can't pay you a market rate salary and that has a significant chance of failing, you are taking risks. You are compensated for those risks with equity.
It's an out of the money call option - you expect that 90% (95%? 99%?) of the time it won't pay out, but when it does pay out, the payoff could be anywhere from "pretty good" to "life changing".
Sure, the early Google employees are way out in the tails of the distribution (just like the early Facebook employees, early Twitter employees, early LinkedIn employees etc). But someone has to be in the tails of the distribution, and the fact that you see someone there certainly doesn't mean that they don't deserve their payout.
- mercurial 13y agoBecause respecting a bargain is for chumps. Why not break if it can net you more cash? You're clearly not enough of a sociopath.
- scarmig 13y agoHe's just a chef and a Lesser, after all. Not one of us engineering ubermenschen who make the world go 'round. Engineers work hard to deserve all of our hard-earned benefits like snacks and catered meals--after all, imagine how horrific the world would be without Zynga! But what did that moocher ever do for anyone?
- Amygaz 13y agoImagine how the world would be if people like MP where not like MP.
- crdoconnor 13y ago>I don't understand why anyone would feel that the "Google Chef" scenario was a problem This feels like classism to me. I think they'd have the same issue with a support worker or even QA making the same payday, no matter what their contribution was. Being compensated for taking risks is "for people like them".
- warfangle 13y agobi~ngo