4 ms·

He took no risk any other person going to work everyday didn't. He obviously took enough risk that Google was willing to give him stock options. Google didn't

He took no risk any other person going to work everyday didn't. He obviously took enough risk that Google was willing to give him stock options. Google didn't make that offer to be nice. It was a business decision. I'm siding with Google (and the chef) here. Because it didn't have the money at the time to pay him enough to fully offset the negatives (which may have been opportunity cost or long hours, not necessarily company-wide risk) it offered him stock. It wasn't being nice. That paid off handsomely for him. You'd be right to argue that most working people are undercompensated for the suffering and the risk that they take on in their jobs. That, however, goes far beyond the Google chef. It's a systemic problem. As a society, we've failed to find anything within even a factor of 5 of a fair balance between capital and labor.

ThomPete 13y ago
You mean he took a paycut so they compensated by giving him stocks. Again I have nothing against him making 20. Just don't claim that he somehow made a risk. He didn't and if that is the reason why someone should get stock then most people going to work every day should get stock.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  How is taking a pay cut not taking a risk? He put capital (his time, not fully compensated) at risk. then most people going to work every day should get stock. Personally, I'd rather have it in salary. 0.05% of a 40-person company isn't going to motivate me worth shit. It has the opposite effect (uncanny valley). I'd much rather work for a hedge fund and be reasonably paid for my skills. Unless it's substantial, equity is a bad sign for me. Why? Because 0.05% of a 40-person company ("checkbox equity") won't motivate me in the least, but it will motivate other people, which means I'm going to be competing (on hours, indignity, and suffering) against people who haven't done the math on their pathetic shares and are delusional and clueless. That's like wrestling a guy on PCP; it's better not to.
- mlieberman85 13y ago
  How so? He definitely took a risk. He is taking an elevated risk because the company might not be there in 6 months. Especially with a young startup. It's one thing if the guy is becoming a chef at lets say Mastercard or Bank of America or some major company that there's a reasonable expectation that the company isn't going to go out of business tomorrow. With that said I actually think stock options are a good incentive for all employees. It provides some reasonable guarantees on both parties. On the one hand the employee is given incentive to work hard because the more productive they are the better the company does and the better the stock does. Also it gives them something nice in case they get laid off and the stock goes up. Also the company sees those same benefits. The employee will probably work harder and more productive because they have more incentive to.

ThomPete 13y ago

You mean he took a paycut so they compensated by giving him stocks. Again I have nothing against him making 20. Just don't claim that he somehow made a risk. He didn't and if that is the reason why someone should get stock then most people going to work every day should get stock.

michaelochurch 13y ago
How is taking a pay cut not taking a risk? He put capital (his time, not fully compensated) at risk. then most people going to work every day should get stock. Personally, I'd rather have it in salary. 0.05% of a 40-person company isn't going to motivate me worth shit. It has the opposite effect (uncanny valley). I'd much rather work for a hedge fund and be reasonably paid for my skills. Unless it's substantial, equity is a bad sign for me. Why? Because 0.05% of a 40-person company ("checkbox equity") won't motivate me in the least, but it will motivate other people, which means I'm going to be competing (on hours, indignity, and suffering) against people who haven't done the math on their pathetic shares and are delusional and clueless. That's like wrestling a guy on PCP; it's better not to.
mlieberman85 13y ago
How so? He definitely took a risk. He is taking an elevated risk because the company might not be there in 6 months. Especially with a young startup. It's one thing if the guy is becoming a chef at lets say Mastercard or Bank of America or some major company that there's a reasonable expectation that the company isn't going to go out of business tomorrow. With that said I actually think stock options are a good incentive for all employees. It provides some reasonable guarantees on both parties. On the one hand the employee is given incentive to work hard because the more productive they are the better the company does and the better the stock does. Also it gives them something nice in case they get laid off and the stock goes up. Also the company sees those same benefits. The employee will probably work harder and more productive because they have more incentive to.