johnrob

19 ms·

211.
by johnrob 12y ago
I think RSUs are universally better for employees because your downside risk is zero. You'd have to be extremely confidant to be willing to risk money for the sake of tax savings (I suppose if the exercise price is low enough it'
212.
by johnrob 12y ago
After some googling, I agree with you. RSU's are much better than options. So... The solution to the problem of better compensating employees could simply be giving RSU's in place of options.
213.
by johnrob 12y ago
It's a quid-pro-quo. Right now, if a company gives you private stock you have to treat it as income and pay taxes for it. It's not real income yet, since you can't sell it, but you pay taxes. Later on (hopefully), the stoc
214.
by johnrob 12y ago
They want to assure you that their amateur drivers are very professional.
215.
by johnrob 12y ago
Great point. In dollar terms within the respective vesting years, 10%/20%/30%/40% might look something like 5k/100k/200k/500k, which is extremely back loaded (and could help explain the Zynga 'scandal&#x2
216.
by johnrob 12y ago
The easiest would be if the IRS would agree to not tax illiquid private stock until it gets sold, and then tax the gain from the basis as long-term capital gains and the original value as ordinary income. I think employees would be more t
217.
by johnrob 12y ago
Much of the author's analysis is lacking economic perspective. In particular, I'd argue that a large contributor to 20 somethings with 'dead end' jobs is the obvious lack of 'real' jobs. Additionally, giving
218.
by johnrob 12y ago
This is out of left field, but I'd use it to start a huge home cleaning business. All those homeowners need to clean rooms between guests, why let some other company take that business? As for other ideas - what else do hotels spend m
219.
by johnrob 12y ago
For most companies, the value hits zero when the share price hits zero. When a stock drops from $10 to $5, investors see this as "halfway to zero" and adjust. For yahoo, given its valuable holdings, the zero line happens to be s
220.
by johnrob 12y ago
I'd give yourself a gift for getting the company off the ground. 5% seems right, but I suppose 10% is not out of the question. Then split the remainder with your co-founder. This process would lead to 52.5/47.5 and 55/45 s
221.
by johnrob 12y ago
I think the rule of thumb for assuring your ownership is: 1) don't use company time or equipment, 2) don't make something that could compete with your employer's products.
222.
by johnrob 12y ago
Unfortunately, if you use a 401k you can't touch it for quite a while. Time is an important variable. There's no point in becoming a millionaire at the very end of your life (to use an extreme example).
223.
by johnrob 12y ago
The article actually missed one angle: increasing cost of living. It's not just that prices are dropping for services like food/trasportation/etc, but that it's happening while rent prices are going up. If anything, lo
224.
by johnrob 12y ago
If they don't pay the drivers enough, there won't be any drivers. 20% is probably not a hard rule.
225.
by johnrob 12y ago
Why is it ok discuss the legality of Uber or Airbnb? Aren't those political issues? We all claim that HN is not a political forum, but in the end we have a subjective standard. That standard is probably just the gut feeling of the m
226.
by johnrob 13y ago
If you are subtly pointing fingers, please point at "big company" and not the VC. They are the ones offering that engineer X today and 100X in the case of an acquisition.
227.
by johnrob 13y ago
There are probably very few founders over 50. Given that there is at least one success in that bracket, I'll bet that founders over 50 have the best odds of any age group.
228.
by johnrob 13y ago
The architecture of the digital ad industry was created with computers in mind; it was only ported to touchscreens out of convenience. You just can't assume clicks imply intent on such inaccurate devices.
229.
by johnrob 13y ago
You might be correct, but I've seen a lot of smart people fall into this trap: "X is not proven to be true, there for X is false". The study might not prove any hard facts, but it doesn't mean the point of the study isn
230.
by johnrob 13y ago
I think these poaching agreements had more to do with IP than salary escalation. The interaction here makes it clear - the employees were no longer with apple, hence there was no hypothetical counter offer to give.
231.
by johnrob 13y ago
How would you know your technology worked? Maybe a good test would be to build a plastic box for mac users.
232.
by johnrob 13y ago
The sharing economy now provides a predictable playbook here: 1) get popular 2) get hassled by local government 3) make deal with local government I don't see why this idea is different.
233.
by johnrob 13y ago
Why do you think our creators made the simulated universe we live in? There's an infinite-loop bug, however: each simulation tries to solve the real problem by creating a sub-simulation.
234.
by johnrob 13y ago
I would think they need to sort out the lingering legal issues. You don't want to get into the area of "I raised money from public investors to run an illegal business". That's a jail time kind of offense. I'm no
235.
by johnrob 13y ago
I understand why everyone gets upset at this - there are rarely enough cabs, especially when I need one now . But the law is and has been very clear about paid transportation. Why don't we focus more on updating the law instead of a
236.
by johnrob 13y ago
Why does sama talk about job creation instead of wealth creation?
237.
by johnrob 13y ago
Here is a counter proposal: the government should approve this request, but stipulate that the immigrants relocate to somewhere other than silicon valley (so all of the created jobs don't end up in the once place where they aren't
238.
by johnrob 13y ago
Don't forget the most important skill for any startup employee: learn to pick the right companies to work for. It pains me to say this, but choosing the best company will pay off more than any other skill on that list (of course, you
239.
by johnrob 13y ago
It's surprising hard to explain why it's ok for google to do this, but not other sites. The best I can come up with is "their search engine, their rules". Doesn't sound very ethical.
240.
by johnrob 13y ago
The bit about recruiting is definitely on to something. Management and culture are significantly more important than hiring the absolute best people. I've had the (mis) fortune to witness individuals flounder in a poorly manage compa

More ›