Slashdot Mirror


Google Faces Employee Retention Challenge

prakslash writes "60% of Google's 1900 employees now hold stock options worth at least one million dollars. According to experts in this Reuters article, it is now imperative for Google to maintain its sense of mission. If it fails to do so, a whole slew of employees facing post-IPO burnout and boredom will leave the company to go back to school, start a new company, or join the ranks of high-tech early retirees. Such a mass cashing-out could lead to a decline in Google stock price and intellectual brain-drain. Oh how I wish I worked for Google."

81 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. You wish you worked for google? by HappyClown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well send in your CV! It sounds like they might have a few job openings shortly...

    1. Re:You wish you worked for google? by pdx_joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At what point does Google go from hip, cool company to overbearing, monopolistic, Microsoft company? It seems public opinion is a bit fickle.

    2. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      google is an american company, it's called a 'resume', not a 'CV', (OT, but just thought i would let you know).

      Americans use the term CVs as well. Americans with advanced degrees. If you want a seriously nerdy position at google (instead of clerical), you'd do better with a CV instead of a resume.

      Feel free to use a dictionary and note the difference between the two terms. I have both a CV and a resume and I'm still an American.

    3. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "It seems public opinion is a bit fickle."

      Right, we must not waffle or send mexed missages even if presented with new facts.

      Google is now a public company. Many /.ers will be sure to point out that it is now their obligation to maximize ROI. That's not quite correct. The board of Google is responsible for doing whatever the prospectus said they would do.

      Let's hope that Google continues to change the way things are done. If they become myopic about short-term profits, they will be screwed in the long run.

    4. Re:You wish you worked for google? by gorbachev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You don't want to work in a company where almost all your coworkers are millionaires, and you're not, because you happened to join the company after the IPO date.

      Maybe in 3 - 5 years, when most of the millionaires have left, but I would certainly NOT join Google right now, unless my stock options strike price was at pre-IPO levels (which it won't).

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    5. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Misinformed · · Score: 4, Funny

      As an American patriot you may wish to not use the French word resume and defer to the Latin CV.

      That is, if you love your country.

      --
      --

      Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
    6. Re:You wish you worked for google? by 0racle · · Score: 3, Funny

      All depends on how they flaunt them, I can see it being a sore point in the porn industry, but do you really have a problem with people whipping it out at your office?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    7. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Uber+Banker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've really never understood this difference, usually cited by Americans, between CVs and resumes.

      Yeah, I can look in a dictionary for a difference, but this is one of those cases where 'one language, two meanings' really comes into play for the English language. Both words, of course, are not English, but French (resume - OK I can't be bothered to get acutes into slashcode) and Latin (CV ). Both words have been adopted by English common usage, but English does not have an acute on 'e' in its scope so 'resume' [raesumae] cannot be an 'English' word, and CV is just a couple of letters, not a word.

      Curriculum Vitae: Loosely translated, this means "course of one's life" [Latin does not translate directly].
      Resume: Summary [more or less]
      BTW I'm not a great one for direct translation of languages as nuances and subtleties are often lost

      But lanaguage is functional. A CV could be a one page document, if one were succinct, a resume could be a summary, but a summary of what (resume with no context means nothing), a document entitled 'John Doe - Resume' surely means a summary of John Doe (if one were to interpret in English), so what is the difference of 'John Doe - CV'?! Defining the difference between the terms is looking for a difference for a difference's sake.

      A CV refers to what someone would submit for a job application, as would a resume. Someone would be mad to write a 10 page essay about their life [common interpretation of 'CV'] equally someone would be mad to submit a 2 line summary of their skills and previous position titles [possible interpretation of 'resume']. Drawing a distinction between the two, or saying one is better than the other is folly. I would be interested in what others think, but in the US a resume seems to be a 1-2 page document, a CV a long document, in the UK a CV is a 1-2 page document, the term resume is rarely used, what about Canada, Australia, countries for which English ios a second language?

      Basically, adapt your resume/CV/description to what you apply for: list in descending chronological order (with some potential variation of importance), add some 'summary paragraph' that sells yourself near the top, stay relevant. Always include a covering letter.

    8. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Whygee · · Score: 2, Informative

      The funny thing about this is that French-speakers actually use the word CV (curiculum vitea). The word "résumé" has a totaly different meaning in French...

    9. Re:You wish you worked for google? by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You cut my sentence off taking it copletely out of context.

      To take the analogy into the porn industry...I wouldn't want to work for a porn movie studio where all the other porn stars got penis enlargement treatment, and I did not, because you joined the studio after the "Enlarge Your Penis Day".

      Not that I would need one, of course *grin*

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    10. Re:You wish you worked for google? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      At what point does Google go from hip, cool company to overbearing, monopolistic, Microsoft company?
      At the point where they stop relying on superior tech and start relying on underhanded tactics to smother possible competition.
    11. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Jeff+Mahoney · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right, we must not waffle or send mexed missages even if presented with new facts.

      What, are you running as an incumbent US president?

    12. Re:You wish you worked for google? by sicking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe in 3 - 5 years, when most of the millionaires have left, but I would certainly NOT join Google right now

      So the fact that there's a lot of millionaires there is the main reason you're not working there?

      Yeah, right ;-)

      --
      Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
    13. Re:You wish you worked for google? by fbg111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, when you claim to be good yet position your IPO to rape buyers of as much cash as possible

      They weren't trying to rape their IPO buyers. They were trying to prevent Google from being raped buy the investment banks who traditionally lowball the IPO price knowing there will be a huge first day appreciation as the market prices the stock closer to what it's worth (to the market, that is), and the ibanks and their large institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, etc.) can pocket the float. But that float doesn't belong to the iBanks, it is value created by Google and no one else, and it should rightfully be pocketed by Google. The ibanks get it only because they control the financial system - they're the gatekeepers, and the toll has been massive, until Google executed the first Dutch Auction with a high float price. So I have no problem with what Google has done, which is basically to ensure they get roughly what they have earned.

      IMHO it will be a great day when open electronic IPO networks make the market more freely accessible to new companies looking to go public, and they'll no longer have to go through the ibanks in the manner they do now. A similar paradigm shift happened when stock trading went online in the 90s, and then went to no/low-fee trades. Banks hated it, but consumers loved it, and some banks adapted and learned to profit from it. I think other areas of finance, IPO's for one, are ripe for such a change. I don't expect to see it soon, and don't pretend it will be technologically or politically easy, but hopefully it will happen one day, and I think Google may have taken the first small step in that direction.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    14. Re:You wish you worked for google? by mikeage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Americans generally use the term resume to sum up ones professional achievements, and CV to sum up ones educational or research achievements.

      --
      -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
    15. Re:You wish you worked for google? by Blue23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't want to work in a company where almost all your coworkers are millionaires, and you're not, because you happened to join the company after the IPO date.

      Maybe in 3 - 5 years, when most of the millionaires have left, but I would certainly NOT join Google right now, unless my stock options strike price was at pre-IPO levels (which it won't).


      I've got to second this. Joining google right now:

      1. Get Options at current price.
      2. 500-1000 millionairs leave during the 5 years it takes to become vested.
      3. In leaving, stock price drops.
      4. Your options, at old, high price, are under water and worth nothing.
      5. New employees coming on get stock options at the new, lower rate, and make fun of you when they apperciate from there, but yours are still worthless.

      Cheers,
      =Blue(23)

      --
      LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
  2. Free lunch? by miroth · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess Google is finally realizing that there's no such thing as a free lunch (even if they provide their employees with one).

    1. Re:Free lunch? by Kinkify · · Score: 2, Funny

      But when I say TANSTAFFL I mean TANSTAAFL. And anytime I post I mean I'm an idiot.

  3. It's a problem, but it's already solved. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google seems to already be a step ahead of this problem, creating a billboard puzzle in the Boston area and publishing a test for potential applicats to fill out.

    Not only do they have the problem of suddenly having a few hundred jobs to fill, but they also have the problem that nearly everybody in the world would like to work for them. By setting up such qualifying quizes before even asking for a resume, Google's trying to filter out the best applicants early in the process so that they don't waste their time on pursuing people they'll not end up hiring.

    So, yes, Google's going to lose some key talent because they've just created a bunch of modern-era dot-com millionaires. However, they'll just hire somebody else to replace anybody they lose and will move on.

    1. Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. by CatDogLordOfTheRoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They also seem to be handing out little "testing" packets too. I got one of em in Linux Journal, It has a few math problems in it and a questionaire.

      --
      ---------
      In the end we are ALL disconnected....
    2. Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google seems to already be a step ahead of this problem, creating a billboard puzzle in the Boston area and publishing a test for potential applicats to fill out.

      Answer is 7427466391.com thanks to a google search

    3. Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. by stu72 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny.

      All the option apologists say options are necessary to motivate employees.

      And yet, when successful, it seems options just motivate them to leave.

      Funny.

      Just remember where all the money to create those millionaires comes from - the shareholders. If existing shareholders are willing to suffer dilution and buyback expenses just to "motivate" talent, why not just pay them the equivalent in cash? It would save a whole lot of paperwork & accounting nightmares.

      oh right I forgot, that doesn't let them move billions of compensation expenses out of the expense column and into the "financing activites" column.

    4. Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet, when successful, it seems options just motivate them to leave.

      It depends how you set up vesting. Sure all those people might be wealthy on paper, but how many can actually cash out even if they wanted to? Usually options vest over 3 or 5 years. That means after the first year after the IPO, you can exercise only 1/3 or 1/5 of you options. By that time, as many dotcommers discovered, they might be underwater.

      It would save a whole lot of paperwork & accounting nightmares.

      I agree that a fair profit-sharing scheme is probably better for shareholders of a traditional company, but given that the only people holding Google stock are speculators anyway, they oughtn't to be complaining that employees are effectively speculating too.

  4. Not facing it, in reality by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google technology is so far advanced beyond what we mortals need in a search engine that most of those engineers working in the labs are not necessary. For all intents and purposes, they are done.

    Now they probably need to keep the servers up and running, and that can probably be done with a few colos located in various countries with cheap labor and moved around as necessary.

    So cut the workforce, move all essential server capacity to India, China, and Eastern Europe, and let those millionaires go off and start other companies. God knows they've probably got some good ideas for other products, better to see them deliver those ideas from their own small company than to see it bastardized by a large Google (product placement and marketing and all that).

    Braindrain at Google could be just what our ailing tech sector needs.

    1. Re:Not facing it, in reality by torstenvl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yahoo's search results aren't that much different than Google's in the top ten.

      No company can create something and just sit on it and remain in a market position. If MS couldn't parlay its success with MS-DOS into its success with Windows 95 into its success with IE and 98 and XP...

      Yeah. Nobody would still be using MS-DOS today. They'd all be using Linux or BSD or something.

      So Google does need talent to stay competitive.

    2. Re:Not facing it, in reality by Misinformed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So cut the workforce, move all essential server capacity to India, China, and Eastern Europe, and let those millionaires go off and start other companies.

      Servers cost pretty much the same in the US, China or Eastern Europe - in hardware terms (and are perhaps cheaper after import taxes etc). The manpower requirement isn't a large part of ongoing expenses - manpower 'costs' Google in the development areas (direct in these workers, plus indirect from their assistants, people running the canteen etc; I'm sure they also have a strong finance/legal team but doubt this tops 100), where the brightest from India, China, Eastern Europe could well apply and be successful (as the people they're after are in such a limited supply).

      As for let those millionaires go off and start other companies... these people are not slaves of Google, if they wanted to leave they could, and could take most of their stock options with them. These people stick around because they have the freedom to.

      The tech sector is not ailing - it is doing pretty well, not as well as 98, but who wants morons with cr4p ideas who never make them work, to get paid by (money wasted by) pension and saving plans - real people's investment in the future?

      --
      --

      Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.
  5. Doing something interesting by johnmoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as they have interesting things for people to work on, I don't think they should have too much trouble keeping people. Who really cares about money? It is hard to find interesting problems to work on Google lets their employees do that AND pays them for it. What more in life could a person ask for?

  6. Well good. by mark_space2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So maybe some people who don't need jobs anymore can retire and some people who do need jobs will get them. Sounds like a free market to me....

    1. Re:Well good. by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding. Maybe even do the growing trend among tech companies in the central California region to fire all employees, offer no relocation, and re-open shop in the Portland, Oregon area. Oregonians need jobs more than California needs anything.

      --
      Help us build a better map!
  7. Maybe not that bad... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My first thought was actually in the article: A million bucks isn't what it used to be - "If you live in Mountain View, California, and someone gives you $1 million, you might be able to pay off your mortgage, but you can't retire,"

    Even if it is only subject to capital gains taxes, that takes a bite too. The article only says at least one million... doesn't say what the average is or anything. Also, it doesn't mention any selling restrictions.

    The way the market goes with these things, I don't expect the valuation to stay at 180 P/E for all that long... I could be wrong, but I suspect this will be a self correcting "problem".

    I sure wish I had the problem. [4 time stock option looser]

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Maybe not that bad... by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      elsewhere though.. a million bucks can be enough to kickstart that idea you've had in back of your mind about this some excellent new tech(remember, these aren't just some your average wage slaves either because google has specifially been looking for intelligent and creative people).

      and they must have quite a number of people with 10m+ too.. who got those options by being in important positions.. you can only buy loyalty so far before you've given so much money they don't need you anymore(at which point you gotta think of some other stuff like giving them intresting jobs to keep 'em).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Maybe not that bad... by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the UK, they did a study to see how much money would make people happy. From a survey they figured that around four million pounds was enough (six million dollars). Enough for someone to make themselves and all their relatives happy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Maybe not that bad... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe you'd even be able to purchase an iPod instead of getting people to sign up for a pyramid scheme so you can get one.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    4. Re:Maybe not that bad... by CarbonRing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's say you cash in $1,000,000 in options, which get taxed like income, so you give up a bit over 38%. So now you've got $620,000. Let's pretend you have no debt and invest the money well, making 3% after taxes and inflation (which is pretty hard to do reliably over the long term). That's $18,600 per year to live comfortably. Somehow I doubt that would do the job.

      So, what would it take? $3 million, $5 million? Even that won't be enough if you don't figure out how to manage you new wealth very quickly.

      Since you do have debt beyond a mortgage, that indicates you're not great at living within your means. Getting a whole pile of cash all at once is not a good way to learn money management. You're much better off to learn with live within your means before getting the big windfall, but if you can do that then you probably don't need it. Ironic, huh?

    5. Re:Maybe not that bad... by kagaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't judge someone unless you know them. My debt consists of medical bills from my childs heart condition.

      --
      everyday is another shooter.
  8. Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. by WombatDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That billboard thing was a piece of piss. I wouldn't consider myself qualified to work for Google and yet their little puzzle was so trivial that I couldn't actually be bothered to solve it. Added to which, of course, is the fact that you could Google the answer within a day or two of the buzz commencing.

    If they really wanted to use that sort of approach to resumé filtering they'd have used a hard puzzle and put a time limit on it. In reality, it was a marketing tool - albeit quite a good one, in my opinion.

  9. Totally expected by Duncan3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, I know you dont want to hear this... but...

    When you're hiring someone, it's absolutely CRITICAL not to pay someone enough to be "comfortable". It removes all motivation, and makes for unmotivated and uninterested employees.

    Management 101, and a quick lession any hiring manager would learn if they didn't already know.

    Giving people piles of cash in options, is one of the mistakes startups make over and over and over. And this is normal to the process.

    But, that's the fun isnt it ;) Yes Google will retain maybe 5% of the millionares, yes they move on to other things, and yes they knew this would happen.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:Totally expected by irokitt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, you're one of those people who reads Dilbert and sympathizes with the boss?

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:Totally expected by Forbman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you hire people who will enjoy the work, the kind who appreciate the money, but don't care too much about it.

      If all you hire is people wanting to move up to $70K a year, instead of people looking for new cool things to do, then, yes, you create the lack of motivation that money seekers get.

    3. Re:Totally expected by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you're hiring someone, it's absolutely CRITICAL not to pay someone enough to be "comfortable".

      It's even more critical that you pay them well enough that they won't jump ship for a better salary at the first available opportunity.

      Management 101, and a quick lession any hiring manager would learn if they didn't already know

      Actually, I've taken Management 101, and you clearly haven't. Money is what behavioral psychologists call a "hygiene factor". Lack of a hygiene factor can make a person miserable, but once a basic threshold is reached, more of it won't make them happier.

      Example: your employees might get upset if their wastepaper baskets were only emptied weekly, they'd be satisfied if they were emptied daily, but having them emptied twice daily wouldn't make anyone any happier. Same could be said for office kitchen cleaning. That's why they're called "hygiene" factors. Money's the same. If someone's struggling to pay for his kids, mortgage, etc then lack of money means that redressing the lack of money must take priority. If someone can pay for their lives without too many worries, then the motivation to look for more is reduced and such a person will be motivated by intellectual challenge, prospect of promotion, etc etc.

  10. *Maintain* it's sense of mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google has the challenge of building a whole new mission. With billions in the bank and way more employees than are needed to operate a search engine, there is no way they can keep going if they just maintain their current mission. They need to get a whole new mission.

    Another challenge they need to get a grip on is a release culture. Up to now, most of their products and services have been in perpetual beta. If they want to expand, they need to get a mentality that sets targets, and makes releases. Right now they look like Netscape did. Their most visible product, the Google search engine, has way more features, many of which are useful, than any competitor. In terms of search quality, though, I think they already fall behind the new MSN search. If all they do is tack more features on and add new beta products they will fall behind. Granted, they have a long time to make it work, with that mountain of cash, but that won't sustain them forever.

    Google needs to decide on a new vision that is grand, but reachable with the money they have now. Then they need to execute their new plan successfully. Neither staying where they are, or growing at their current rate, is a viable option. They need big changes. They may well be up to it, but we won't know for certain for a few more years.

  11. Re:Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think there was a time limit. The moment the Slashdot effect hit that e-mail address, they most likely stopped using it and only responded to those who answered the puzzles quickly before the solutions were widely published.

  12. Google Labs by rafikki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like their Google Labs idea. It's a great way to show the employees that they're supporting them, and at the same time allows them to stimulate the engineers creativity, probably helping to reduce burn-out rates as well.

  13. Google's new quitting policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To quit your job at google go to: {last 10-digit prime found in consecutive digits of e}.com

    1. Re:Google's new quitting policy by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Funny

      To quit your job at google go to: {last 10-digit prime found in consecutive digits of e}.com

      Wow, it is easier to get hired than to quit!

      That's like so cool dude!

  14. Harder to recruit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If folks leave, one wonders how hard a time they will have recruiting new Googlers...

    Salaries were not competitive with the market as recently as 4 months ago. Of course, back then they were still "Pre-IPO." IMHO, You'd have to be foolish or a huge gambler to take a meager salary in lieu of options at the current strike price.

    So once the brain-drain starts... there may be no way for Google to staunch it... unless they start hiring very competitively (and presumably, retro-compensating current employees).

  15. reminds me of... by nbert · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the documentary "Microslaves"

    They interviewed some ex Microsoft employees. All of them are millionaires due to stock options. Now they are mostly in their late twens wondering what to do with their existence for the rest of their time (one of them - living in his huge mansion alone said that he pretends to be into IT consulting on dinner parties, because saying that you basically do nothing is kind of embarrassing).

    It makes me wonder if stock options are really a sustainable way for both sides to grow. Wouldn't it be better to have more employees at a lower wage like 500 grands a year? Every ex MS worker being part of the documentary suffered some kind of burn out syndrome, so it might make sense to reduce their workload at the same time.

    1. Re:reminds me of... by nbert · · Score: 2, Interesting
      a business they'd like to start

      since you mention it - one guy put his money into a .com startup distributing sheet music. After the bubble bursted he had to accommodate to a quite moderate lifestyle. He's still running this company, but the server is in his basement and he had to fire his employees...

      btw: who told you that clerical employees don't have aspirations?

    2. Re:reminds me of... by Sweetshark · · Score: 4, Funny

      As my ex-boss once said:
      Being rich does not make you happy, but it is easier to cry in a Rolls-Royce ...

    3. Re:reminds me of... by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On blacksmithing, why is this such a faciniaton of geeks? I've always wanted to forge something, but the rational side of me realizes that my apartment isn't quite the best location. Ive seeen more than a few web pages (the early kind from the mid ninties when you had to be a geek to be online) devoted to smithing. And while I realize that it was certainly state of the art technology 1000 years ago, why is that particlular facet of tech development still an important part of what we want to do today. I think I'll have a forge about as long after it takes me to build it from when I retire.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    4. Re:reminds me of... by aonifer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now they are mostly in their late twens wondering what to do with their existence for the rest of their time

      Dude! Two chicks at the same time!

  16. this article is worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole article is based on interviewing people at other companies and asking what happens after an IPO. There's nothing specific about Google at all. Is there any actual evidence of people at Google selling out? Is there one actual instance of somebody leaving Google because they got rich on the IPO?

    Recently I was interviewing with Google in Mountain View (and I'm posting AC for that reason) and I didn't meet a single person there who seemed like the IPO had affected them at all. Some engineer made the comment to me "Yeah, I ended up with a lot of money after the IPO, and the thought crossed my mind to leave, but what would I do? I can't think of any place I'd rather work."

    Everyone loves to hate on Google now that they're no longer the scrappy underdogs. But after walking around the "Googleplex" I can't say I've ever seen a company where the engineers were happier.

    1. Re:this article is worthless by SlashdotLemming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone loves to hate on Google now that they're no longer the scrappy underdogs. But after walking around the "Googleplex" I can't say I've ever seen a company where the engineers were happier.

      It's the usual Slashdot jeasously. Anyone who has any sort of success must be torn down. I'm a loser so I'll sit around Slashdot pumping myself up by putting others down.

      Hmmm, kind of like I just did.

      C'ya Slashdot. Over and out...

  17. Re:Total percentage? by UserGoogol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fourteen years ago? WTF? There wasn't even a World Wide Web in 1990.

    --
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  18. Re:Total percentage? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 3, Funny

    1900 employees, as in the number of employees Google has, not 1990 employees, as in employed on the date of, which was your interpretation... and would make no sense.

    2004-1990 does equal 14, so you can subtract, but it's obvious you can't read.

    --

    ---
    Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
    (I read with sigs off.)
  19. Operation: Shootfoot by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Funny

    CFO: It looks like we have quite a problem, Eric. We are losing employees because their stock options are worth so much, they don't wan't to work anymore.

    CEO: The deuce you say, George. There's only one thing to do.

    CFO: What's that?

    CEO: George, we have to tank the company. When the stock bottoms out, we'll buy back those options and correct the retention problem. We must destroy Google to save it.

    CFO: OMFG, you're brillant. But how will we devalue the company? Google is doing great.

    CEO: We're going to need help. We need someone with experience in this sort of thing. Get Carly at HP on the phone, quick!

  20. Google has been recruiting in Redmond by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work at a certain EVIL company, and there have been some rumors that Google has been sniffing around, looking for good employees (yes, yes, obligatory MS joke here...) to bring over.

    It looks like they are agressively trying to make sure that they keep on top of the talent curve. MS has always made an effort to grab up all the most talented engineers coming out of school. Google might try to give them a run for the money.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  21. This is the best kind of "brain drain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intelligent people with enough money to convert their ideas into a business isn't something to be sad about. The slight hardship Google might suffer is more than offset by the chance for a lot of smart people to pursue their own interests.

  22. The Way Things Are by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    it is now imperative for Google to maintain its sense of mission


    The thing to understand is that like other cutting edge Internet companies, Google is no longer what it was. It is now a publicly held company with ONE SPACIFIC THING in mind for its mission: Produce cashflow for its stockholders. This is now Google's "mission". One day, it will be the mission of many of today's successful Open Source brainiacs. This is the way things tend to flow in a free society, people for the most part are driven by the need to survive and live in comfort.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:The Way Things Are by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Informative

      WRONG!

      From Google's prospectus:

      Our mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. We believe that the most effective, and ultimately the most profitable, way to accomplish our mission is to put the needs of our users first. We have found that offering a high-quality user experience leads to increased traffic and strong word-of-mouth promotion. Our dedication to putting users first is reflected in three key commitments we have made to our users:

      * We will do our best to provide the most relevant and useful search results possible, independent of financial incentives. Our search results will be objective and we will not accept payment for inclusion or ranking in them.

      * We will do our best to provide the most relevant and useful advertising. Whenever someone pays for something, we will make it clear to our users. Advertisements should not be an annoying interruption.

      * We will never stop working to improve our user experience, our search technology and other important areas of information organization.

      We believe that our user focus is the foundation of our success to date. We also believe that this focus is critical for the creation of long-term value. We do not intend to compromise our user focus for short-term economic gain.

    2. Re:The Way Things Are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you joking?

      When you date a woman, do you tell her you want to take her home and fuck her or do you talk about everything except fucking?

      Some people...

  23. vesting ... by mqx · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Options usually vest over a number of years, so while they may be worth a paper-$1m, they're only going to see real-$1m if (a) they keep working hard/smart enough to keep the paper-value high, (b) they keep working long enough to cash in the paper-value to get real-value.

    This is exactly what options are designed to do!

    With regard to "brain drain", for a company like Google, it would have people champing at the bit to work there: so any lost talent is easily replacable with new hires, if they keep standards up in the hiring process. And, it's good to have fresh talent come in over time to keep revitalising the place.

    Finally, as others have mentioned, many of these types of people actually like what they are doing. I can tell you that if I were a millionaire, I'd live a nice lifestyle, but I'd still be pottering around on code or doing something creatively interesting -- (a) because that's what I like to do, (b) I'm just not the type of person to laze around doing nothing.

    There are _many_ examples of serial millionaries and creative types who do what they do because they love the creative elements.

  24. Is this supposed to be bad? by melted · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our millionaire overlords. I wish more tech companies had folks who had enough money to retire, so that those who don't have enough money yet would be able to make a bit more and advance their careers a bit faster. Where I work, it's like a freakin' concrete wall up there. Folks who have been with the company are well put in their trenches and it's nearly impossible to get anywhere, because the "old boys club" is everywhere. I wish the stock price doubled and they took off. I'd be a happy camper then.

  25. CASH OUT NOW ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ha, they would be wise to cash out now. Google is just another company, and they can't ride a much higher wave. I worked at (unnamed major software company) pre and post IPO. The smart ones exercised their options as soon as legally possible. Guess what, the stock never went up to those IPO year numbers again. I saw lots of programmers that came in during year one for low salaries and big options get that cream. Even the shipping clerks had 20k or so of options. Besides, there are geniuses graduating from universities every year. It is foolish to think that google can't attract or afford new top level talent.

  26. Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! by Proudrooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thank you Google for showing us that one in a million company where stock options actually pay off ! Google and it's employees have achieved the American dream and should be proud. America is still the greatest country in the world. You can roll the dice, start a company, and sometimes even be successful. On the flip side, if you fail, America is still the land of opportunity. You can always start over.

    America is still the land of hope and promise, even though our leaders are trying to crush the hopes and dreams of the American spirit with FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT! Thanks again GOOGLE, you are a bright ray of light peeking through the gloom.

    1. Re:Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are many countries other than just America where you can make it big on stock options. For instance, the Perimiter Institute was founded on the basis of the stock options of the founders of RIM. There is nothing uniquely American about the dream of making it big on the basis of your innovation and hard work.

  27. Re:Umm... by burns210 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not anymore. They used to, but Yahoo has sinced bought a Search Engine company and have used that as the basis of their searches.

  28. Former chef to the Grateful Dead... by mikael · · Score: 3, Funny

    which already include an in-house masseuse and free lunches prepared by the former chef to the Grateful Dead.

    For a moment I thought that read "an in-house massage ... by the former chef to the Grateful Dead".

    "And zeez is how weee tenderize zee meat before we apply zee hot sauce... bork! bork! bork!"

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  29. What if the unthinkable happens? by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if they all decide to stay and continue building this company and its stock value?

    What better place to increase your own wealth but where you have had and can continue to have influence on its growth.... as opposed to some disconnected, abstracted stock market game of chance...

    Imagine what those who got out early with MS would regret now!

    On teh more intelligent side of this, don't ya think the google guys would have considered this... especially given all the apparent presidence...???

    1. Re:What if the unthinkable happens? by lwagner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some factors to consider:

      1. Short-term capital gains @ ordinary income. Ouch. Tax man cometh. Depending on what the new president does with the tax laws.... 35-39% for federal, maybe up to 10% for state. All the folks espousing their liberal viewpoints I trust will enjoy giving up 45% - 50% to Uncle Sam because they are now "evil rich people".

      2. People who receive a windfall of money, such as lottery ticket holders, about 95% of them blow the money within 3 years. If you didn't earn it by struggling, you're not going to struggle on keeping it. Sorry to say, but they will also probably not go to see a NAPFA-certified, fee-only financial planner, either.

      Think of how many True Hollywood Stories you've watched on E! that have the same sob story.

      3. The exception to this is when it is annuitized, which would provide a certain amount of money per year for a certain amount of time. In which case, it would be more like a salary without work.

      4. A lot of these people are not vested. By the time they're able to exercise their options, the stock will probably be down at a level more in line with reality. If you're not liquid, you're only a millionaire on paper.

      5. Some people may own restricted stock, so this would impede their ability to convert it to cash. Again, another liquidity issue. By the time they are able to sell the stock, the price will have deflated.

      6. Money doesn't buy happiness. Most people would not enjoy laying around all day, past maybe 1 year, because your purpose in life becomes basically to consume. There are only so many cars and so many Rolex watches one can buy before it becomes old really quick. People need purpose and vision.

      There are actually psychologists who specialize in treating folks who receive a windfall of money. You don't realize that, when you receive a large sum of money or inherit something grossly large, some of your dreams, aspirations, and hopes are destroyed.

      Helpful hint that no one does. Here's how to turn into a "rich person" while keeping sane. If you save just 10% of your income, starting today, each year, in 20-30 years, you'll be right there... but you'll have done it organically and have your common sense about you.

  30. Who really cares about money? by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 3, Informative
    People with kids, mortgages, other debts, plans for the future... If you think a million dollars is a lot of money, well, you haven't tried to buy a house in a decent school district near Boston or Silicon Valley recently.

    --
    Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
    1. Re:Who really cares about money? by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without trying to sound rude, the people who "care about money because of kids, mortgages, other debts, etc. etc." aren't the target employees for a business that revolves around inventive new ideas.

      As it's often been pointed out, there are practically no scientists out there who have achieved any great/notable work after they were married and had kids. This is no accident.

      When you make the decision to start a family, you effectively trade off much of your former "free time" in an attempt to reap the benefits and experiences/insights gained from bringing a new child into the world and from forming a "life partnership" with someone else, to solve day-to-day matters together.

      The "free time" you would have had before that is the commodity used by inventors and creative types to come up with innovative/original ideas and works.

  31. Don't worry it's all bullshit by gelfling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No doubt all those Google options have a beginning date and an end date and a strike price that's far out of reach today and will remain so as Google stock slowly slides backt to rational levels.

    On paper is one thing, real value is quite another. Millions of dotbombers know the reality of stock option accounting and if they were worth 'millions' from the get go they'd be warrants or gifts not options.

  32. "Oh how I wish I worked for Google." by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the contrary... Oh, how I wish I used to work for Google!

  33. Pass the Champange by mrshowtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why Google should have never IPO'ed. Google is safe for the next few years as there is no real competition and the brandname is legendary now, but when ax falls, Google may find themselves in the closet with other great search engines like HotBot. Why would I want to work at google for $50,000 a year, when I could make the same at another search engine company and get stock options and try to make the company another google and then make my own million.

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  34. Its worse than that: by Gannoc · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Another problem are the 40% of people who AREN'T going to be millionares. When your co-workers who don't get to quit start driving into work in expensive cars, etc, its going to be hell on morale.

  35. Re:FOD by CrankyFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On a slightly less flaimbaitish note ...

    Yesterday, I worked 19 hours.
    The days before, I worked something on the order of 13-14 hours.

    I'm working on a project that's pretty damn important to my company, and I've got to put lots of late hours in. My boss makes me do this.

    She does this by working harder, and often longer, than I do. This morning, when I left at 4am, it was only about 45 minutes after she left.

    She does this by telling me how much she appreciates what I do, and the impact I make.

    She does this by providing me with all the snacks and soft-drinks I can drink, and by making sure that when I work late I'm well starbucked and fed.

    She does this by paying me a pretty darn decent wage, and letting me know that when this company can afford to pay me more, they will.

    She does this by looking at the fact I worked while on vacation and letting me determine how many days of vacation I really officially took, if any.

    And so in return, I spend 70-80 hours at work during crunch times and make sure that what needs to get done gets done.

    Everyone I know at Google is like this in this regard. I suspect their managers are like my manager in these regards. I suspect "FOAD" is not normally something a Googler ever considers wanting to tell their boss.

  36. Re:Umm... by mrklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A "Search Engine company"?

    Yahoo itself was a search engine company/portal and with its acqusition of Overture, it now also incorporates technology and algorithms from Altavista and Inktomi as well.

    I am not surprised at all that Yahoo's search results are just as good as Google's, if not better.

  37. Re:google share are just hype by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just think... what if say tomorrow, google.com timed out on _every_ request. what would you do? You'd just go use Yahoo, or MSN, or some other search engine. The PageRank algorithm is very well known and documented---heck, even I implemented it for a limited dataset. You can be sure that if it works well for google, then Yahoo, and MSN search engines are doing it. (there are many more ideas other than pagerank that are better---pagerank is just simplest to implement) ...on a less optimistic note, google just needs to mess up their public image a few times (every public company does evil things from time to time)---and Microsoft or Yahoo jump on that chance and hype their search engine... and before you know it, google's stock is in single digits, and everyone's using some other search engine.

    Now, GM isn't just about cars. They're about a LOT more. I can't think of any single thing they can totally screw up to drive their stock price all the way down.

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  38. Grab while the grabbing's good by ballpoint · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While Google's employees may be a clever lot, most of them are just not financially astute enough or are too intrigued by their jobs to realize that they have decaying gold in their hands. Yes, they know they have gold, but no, they cannot imagine that it's a special kind of gold that decays.

    As such they will clamp on to their options and shares, linger on and eventually see their value erode, like so many engineers have seen past the bubble. To add insult to injury they will have paid taxes on the options.

    So here's a sound advice to anyone in a similar position: grab while the grabbing's good. If you linger, the grabbing times might pass you by.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  39. Re:Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. by aonifer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't consider myself qualified to work for Google and yet their little puzzle was so trivial that I couldn't actually be bothered to solve it.

    I tried that on a test once. They didn't buy it then, either.