Slashdot Mirror
Google Rewards Employees With Millions
iseff writes "According to News.com, the Google guys created a program in November which rewards employees for outstanding achievements. The program gives the possibility of millions of dollars of stock to teams who perform great work. The goal of the program, according to Brin, is two-fold. First, it allows the company to reward 'genius', or whatever they see as genius. And second, it allows them to continue to hire all sorts of employees. According to the article, they believe that a recent grad who would like to work in a start-up will still be attracted to them because of the opportunity to create something great and be rewarded with millions (and without much of the risk associated with startups)."
The First Annual Google Awards for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence?
Whoda thunkit?
Now thats innovative. It could reduce my search to wack time 80%-90%
The question is, if the money is a motivation, then when you get your first multi-million dollar project bonus, you retire.
Alternately, you're in it for the love of the game and no amount of money will make you quit. But then what's the motivation?
This kind of thing unfairly punishes those of us who do a half assed job.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Google swimming in post-IPO riches, doesn't know what to do with all that money.
Seriously though, while giving such extravagant rewards is nice for those that get them, it can cause a lot of resentment among those who don't. It's one thing for someone whose idea is (in my mind) only marginally better, or maybe even worse, than mine to get a $2k bonus when I don't, but it's quite another for them to be suddenly set for life. The politics this sort of thing could create could get ugly.
Also, there's the problem of attrition. Google is probably already going to be dealing with this issue soon, as many of their brightest engineers already have millions in stock options, but a company that has a lot of instant millionaires one day may end up with a lot of resignation letters the next.
ow about they give stocks to the users, as well? O:-)
But I would request cold hard cash instead of stock options. Back in the dot-com boom there were a lot of companies paving the superhighway of capitalism, taking the vanguard in profiteering but ultimately fizzled when it came time to show their work. Once burned, twice shy.
How long can they keep this up? They're a publically held company and eventually they're going to get entrenched like every other "smart" company. Then they quietly stop giving away millions and start selling their address lists...
Even Ben and Jerry's had to drop its "no executive makes more than 10 times the lowest level employees salary" rule when Ben and Jerry looked for a new CEO.
I'm all for stuff like this, but how do you sustain it over the long term?
Stock is actually a bit flakey, you can be rich as hell without having any money to buy food with; this happened to me a one point during the great boom.
Sadly, now I got neither stock or money.
Still, I bet it strengthen the employee commitment to the company, which is what they want.
Guess where all the 2010 dot-whatever venture capital is going to come from! This sounds so familiar - hope they keep it all connected to reality, and hire some financial consultants for their geniuses, who often turn out not to be when it involves things like stocks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Google.. is there anything it can't do?
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
Without much of the risk because they're being paid "millions" -- on paper, in the form of Google stock? Some people never learn.
(Oh, and kids, those "millions" are very likely to be taxable before you ever see a dime of cold hard cash. Enjoy!)
It's restricted stock. Which probably means they can't sell before some point in the distant future. At that point, maybe it's worth millions, or maybe you can exchange it 1:1 for shares in Webvan. Who knows?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Never rub Google on your naked body
More stock based incentives for employees. Didn't we learn from Enron, Worldcom or the dot com boom that stock base incentives causes people to do everything possible to raise the price of the stock including fraud and other dubious business practices. Why can't companies just give cash bonuses.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Now that Ben and Darin work for Google....
doesn't firefox count as an "outstanding achievement" by any scope of the imagination?
Hey, at least they are redirecting their hoarde of gold back at the people who generated it instead of the execs.
To paraphrase your sig link...
I love Google with all of my body (including my pee pee)
There is probally a catch, like if you don't stay with google for x years after you get your reward, or you only get it apon retirement. I know of some compinies that give stock option but if you leave or get fired you lose it. The only way you can get it is to retire.
Many entrepreneurs enjoy the risk as much, or even more, than the money they get in the end. So give them some risk ;)
As I read the article, Google awarded *stock*, not stock options - and I find that significant.
Rather than rewarding employees with paper that has no real value today (and which costs the company no real money today) and which might have value in the future, they are rewarding the employees with paper that has value today, and probably will have value in the future (as well as costing the company real money today).
If that is the case, then kudos to Google.
If the linked story is incorrect and this is nothing more than options - then I retract my kudos.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Luckily the dollar estimates are in Google dollars, only available after Google takes over and starts printing money.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the market...
Bubble II
Huge IPO.
Massive employee benifits.
Loads of hype.
Money flowing all over the place.
Zero profit.
Unproven business strategy.
Happy days are here again!
When the next fake boom collapses sometime around 2009 or so, will we all blame President Hillary Clinton for it, the way we blamed Bush for the one in 2000? Will GWB strut around bragging about the "balanced budget" projections at the end of his term which were based on the overly-optimistic economic conditions in 2007? Will the SEC do all kinds of hand-waving, arrest a few dishonest accountants, and try to fool us all into thinking we are richer than we really are once again, while both government and personal debt continue to chronically swell up?
Signs point to yes.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
and most importantly, it will help these deserving geeks to attract beautiful women to themselves.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
"The stock vests in monthly increments over four years, Brin said."
"The stock vests in monthly increments over four years, Brin said."
Can someone help me forge my CV so that Google hire me?
They don't get a check. Read the damn article. The money vests over 4 years... They gotta keep workin and now they gotta really perform, otherwise they get fired and dont get all the millions.
Google doesn't want you working there for much longer than that anyways. They want to keep the company average age at 25.5 years old.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Is this anything new? At this point in time haven't most multi-billion dollar companies devised employee-incentive and bonus systems? Typically these systems are more downplayed though. It seems as if Google is doing a lot more waving of the carrot.
This confuses me a little. Why wave the carrot more?
Is the message that Google is prepared to pay *more* handsomely? Is employee retention difficult for Google? (Are they losing their good people to start-ups?) Is the message that Google is on the warpath for new ideas in the wake of Microsoft Search and therefore needs to wave the carrot more?
Or could it be that there's a little post-IPO depression setting in over there? (Maybe the vibe is that the party is over and the payoffs that were going to happen, already did).
Anyone?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
1. Hand stock to employees
2. ??
3. Profit!!
"So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
is it safe to assume that they can't cash in the stock for so much time? I wonder if they thought that people might take the earnings of one great idea and leave with the money. "So long and thanks for all the cash." Talk about a nice early retirement.
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
Google has a problem:
1. Most of its original engineers are now millionaires who no longer need to work.
2. Google needs a way to motivate people to create new and exciting things and a recruiting tool.
Solution:
Offer bonuses to people for "outstanding achievements." It's completely sustainable, a great motivator, and an amazing recruiting tool.
This is not that uncommon for companies who rely on research. Most companies offer large rewards for patents or other inventions that will make the company money.
Here's the idea:
John makes Gmail
Gmail makes Google multiple millions of dollars
Google pays John one million
Google pockets the remainder
Everyone's happy
I'm not a google employee, you insensitive clod!
Google should learn from the past.
The bubble taught us all a couple things: Internet companies are not inherently more profitable. They are certainly not a "new paradigm".
Got cash in the bank? Ok, sure make acquisitions. But don't become a dot-bomb rollup. Buy brick and mortar companies too.
Rewarding internal (essentially "dot-com") projects, is a bit like valuing dot com companies in an even *more* dangerous way: without the input of the marketplace.
Seems a little scary.
Lets hope they reward *profitable* internal projects. Not ones with "potential".
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I'm not a financial genius, but I can do math. $12 Million given to "two teams of a dozen or so employees each" does not mean that these people are set for life. That's $6 Million per team and $500 thousand per person. Definitely a nice bonus, but not enough to set someone for life.
Even if one team won all $12 Million they would not be able to retire, at least not immediately or financially stably. Assuming these people make $150,000 (good money) 1 Million is just like getting paid for 7 years work at once. Well invested, that could be great, but (particularly if you have a family) it would not set you up for life.
All said, I would not turn down the $500,000.
"My name is Doug Pirahna, my brother Dinsdale and I represents other IT employers here in the valley. They asked us to talk to youse about your employee benefits package".
..."
"Yeah, like my brother said. By the way, nice server farm youse got. Shame if something were to happen to it
...They make you jump through hoops and engage in pointless tests before they hire you to do some menial task.
The genuinely talented people could potentially be turned off by these types of disrespectful hiring practices -- granted a lot of people want to work for google, but are the numerous interviews, tests, and other stupidity necessary?
Either they want you- or they don't... why can't it be that simple?
I guess it all makes sense when you aren't looking for employees- but people who will be completely subservient to you.
At least not in all cases. I read the article, tyvm. Perhaps you should read up on restricted stock?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
these are bonuses. with all the talk about the .com boom and how it didn't work, i say rubbish.
.com boom was based on bringing in talent with stock options.
.. based on the performance of those 3 products, they would get more. wouldn't that be better?
it's a completely different thing.
the
google seems like they're hiring people as normal, but as an internal incentive to excel, they're giving away bonuses in the form of stock (options?). I don't see how this is bad. it's not like you're not getting paid to do your job anyway!
I do agree with the above post above that the bonuses might be a little too much. i think the bonus needs to be spread out a little more perhaps. instead of 1 team hitting the jackpot, and the other teams feel like they've wasted a lot of effort, why not reward based on performance of their product? So every team has a chance at a piece of the pie.
it's quite simple in my mind. say for example you have 10 teams working on different things. They all come up with neat ideas. say 3 of them make it to production. at this point, those 3 teams get a little bonus already. then
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
I like this idea better than the previous Belgian Waffle Card.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
During my stint at a dotcom we got some exciting perks! First off was free lunch. Now when the company was less than 20 employees the catered lunch was pretty damn good. Then the company grew and the lunch budget stayed the same, so it became cold cut sandwiches every day. And if you decided to venture out in the pursuit of something else to eat - you got dirty looks from management.
Then there was the 3 month sabbatical program. Any employee who made their 5 year anniversary got to take a 3 month paid sabbatical. This was much hyped about in the local press - but then the company was only 2 years old at the time. I think one employee actually did get to take this - but the company exploded shortly after the five year mark.
Or the basketball games on company time - much hyped again by the press as showing how the company cared about physical health of it's employees and didn't want them just sitting for 80 hours a week (how altruistic!). Well, those ended when someone mentioned that injuries while playing basketball on company time were a liability.
On second thought, some Google stock doesn't sound too bad.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
"What about rewarding the ... genius behind the Walmart stores"
;p
Because I'm sure they don't get anything for all that selfless labor they're doing...
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
For those who weren't tuned in Sunday, This is the award Mr. Burns gave to Homer on Sunday's episode of the Simpsons. Poster failed, however to work in any jokes about low sperm count.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
They're all true. But they're terminally depressing to those of us with bad jobs, or no job at all!
Restricted stock shows up nowhere. CFO's like this a whole lot.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
That it's restricted ownership. Perhaps the stock is of the "category A" type that only a few people got on Google's IPO - which carries 10x the voting rights of normal stock. Either way, I think it's a superb idea to reward brilliance.
It seems like the .com(Dot-Com) crash is finaly over. Companies such as Google.com are having a bright success. Are we at the doors of another Dot-Com boom ?
Maybe you should read the comments so far before making such statements.
Most people have said it's not a great idea.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Try this scenario- you bust your ass 12 hours a day/7 days a week for a year to spec, design and code Wizzyfoo. It's awesome. It does some really neat things. Two weeks before it goes live, the company decides that Wizzyfoo just isn't compatible with the new direction the company is moving in. All your work is tossed in the bin and you're assigned to a new project. No bonus for you.
Meanwhile, Bob across the aisle goofs off, posting meaningless replies at /. for most the day and goes golfing with the boss every weekend. Since he's got the ear of the boss, he manages to get a great looking demo before the suits, who decide to make it the new big thing. He gets the cash for the neat demo, even if there's nothing behind it and the product wouldn't work in reality.
Would this happen at Google? Maybe not, but if you don't think similar happens everyday in industry you're blind. The suckups and losers get rewarded, the truly good get shuffled off since they're hard to deal with.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Let's see...
Best case for a startup = Earn millions.
Best case for a normal corporate job = Earn average cubicle wage and maybe get an ok 401K plan.
Worse case for a startup = Get laid off after company goes bust.
Worse case for normal corporate job = Get laid off anyways because the CEO needed to appease the stockholders.
I think it's a pretty clear choice.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
last post.
True, a restricted stock may not be sold today. That is not my point.
A stock option is normally issued at very nearly today's market price for a stock, and is nothing more than the guarantee that stock may be purchased at that price.
If gasoline is $1.759 a gallon, and I offer you a piece of paper saying "I guarantee you can buy a gallon of gasoline from me for $1.759", how much is that paper worth right now.
Nothing, as you can go to the gas station and buy that gas for that price without my paper.
Now, if gas goes to $2.759 tomorrow, then that paper is worth $1.00.
If the price of gas goes to $1.009 tomorrow (fat chance), then the paper has no value whatsoever.
Now, if I give you a piece of paper that says "I guarantee you 1 gallon of gas" then that paper is worth $1.759 today. If gas goes to $1.00 a gallon, then it is STILL worth $1.00.
And that is my point - that if Google is actually issuing stock, not options, then they are doing something unusual and worthy of respect.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Makes me wish I was smart enough to work there.
Someone got to encourage science and mathematics than rotten software (yeah yeah Google is not more than that)
An aspiring geek has about as much chance of joining Google and 'earning millions' as another kid has playing basketball.
In the theory the money is there, but in practice there's a vanishingly small chance.
Compare the average wage and top wage of the following professions:
Actors, Musical entertainers, Sports players.
Even without UberGoogleGeeks, we're not doing too badly.
Short of being a scam to take the money and run, I see no real growth potential.
They have a nice pice of the market, and the will likely keep it, and they do a nice job
HOWEVER, Additional capitol will do nothing to increase it's value, it's not like it needs money for more servers so they can serve more people, they are already maxxed out
i think the IPO is an opportunity to cash in on the past growth, knowing darn well future growth will be VERY tame.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Why is everyone so damm negative about this? If you feel that you should be making all this money,why don't you apply for the job?
Google's already diluted their earnings by almost 25% with stock-based compensation. That amount is fine as long as they get their 700% earnings increases, but as soon as the earnings drop to a reasonable growth rate, shareholders are going to ditch Google if they keep giving out shares as if there's no cost.
Such irE
It is good to reward the team that develope a key aspect of your product.
When all the other smart guys could not write code to do the job a friend of mine had a stroke of insight and wrote the entire code in day by himself (only a few thousand lines of code). They had been trying to develope the code for nearly a year. In this case it can be said he is truely the sole developer. In many cases it is a small team of 5-10 individuals.
They company promptly sold the code for $7 million later that year. His bonus was take your wife out and the company will cover the check. A good way to promote smart people to work harder. The smart people are smart enough to know when they have been insulted and leave. All you are left with is stupid people.
I am sure the senior executes recieved a much better bonus.
Needless to say if they would have rewarded him with say $70 000 he would have been happy and continued to work hard for years. At his current job the code he writes generates about $15-20 million a year in sales (but he is part of a small team of developers 50 individuals and equally as many sales staff). He is currenlty well paid and gets extra paid time off after each project (I think last year he had about 4 months off - partly because the team he works on got the project done 2 month ahead of schedule). He has no plans of looking for a job anywhere else.
Lesson learned:
treat your employees fairly and they will stick around. Treat your smart employees with respect and they will never leave.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
I think the google search engine is tops like most folks...but...If the stock were such a great thing why are the people who own the largest amounts of it suddenly selling it hand over foot, whether via ipo or employee incentives...one would think they would want to keep something if it was that valuable
Over ONE billion in sales this last QT. 100% more than last year. dot BOM... don't think so. You can't complain about lower IT salaries and then complain when a company actually rewards its employees. Twist and turn in anyway you want, but a bonus program is never wrong!
After what many call a "burst" or "crash" in hot tech stocks I suggest this plan of action for Google employees:
1. Win Google (GOOG) stock
2. Sell Google stock
3. Re-invest
4. ????
5. Profit!!!
Get your Unix fortune now!
Honestly, waving money at your employees & creating a ultra-competitive environment is not healthy in the long run. The company will succeed, but only a few (20%) will reap the rewards. Granted that's more people than 98% of the companies out there, but it will burn people out easily. Now if they offered full pay for 24 hours a week (if you win an award) for a year, it would offer a balance of life, work and money. And the company manpower/operations will not suffer.
Google wants to give current workers the chance to re-live the 90's. Good for them, they likely deserve it. But 5-8 yrs from now, any new empolyee will be treated just like at any other good tech company, i.e. you will not become a millionare by working there.
Enron. Thank you and goodnight.
Depression is like stubbing your toe on a doorframe. The pain is telling you something. In the case of a busted toe it means don't do that again. In the case of depression it means do something.
according to the now unfindable by google ninetyninezeros blog, they don't pay all that well, they expect top 10% but only pay average salaries.
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/WRJ?subid=6578013
I think this is a great idea. It allows for many different gains for both the company and its employees. For one it gives the employees the chance to get millions, which is a good thing. Another thing is that those millions are tied into the stock which is a direct correlation on how well the company does, and thus gives the employee more incentive to work productively. Kudos to google.
Sour grapes, get your sour grapes! Who wants some? I'll take some sour grapes, I am so tired of hearing about how great all the people at Google have it while I rot away in my part-time retail job because all of my computer experience is financially valueless outside of India. I love Google as a company and I am glad that they have shown themselves truely appreciative of the work that their workers do, but man am I jealous!
That's so their employees can afford a two-bedroom apartment in Silicon Valley.
I know that Google can do no wrong in the eyes of the Slashdot community, and on the surface the idea of rewarding employees with millions of dollars seems like a good thing, but I think ultimately it's a profoundly bad idea. With the stakes so high, think about how the runners-up will feel. Google is a company with a lot of smart, hard-working people, and the idea that one particular group would get millions while one that didn't do quite as well in some exec's eyes gets nothing is kind of painful.
And indeed, that's another point. There's no possible objective measure to base the decision on. It's somebody's whim. Moreover, any decent project in a company should span several people and likely several groups. How do you decide who to reward? Maybe it was the marketers who made the product a success. Maybe it was the HR person who spent their weekends recruiting the all-star who led the project? Etc. etc. etc.
As Google becomes a larger and larger company, they're going to have severe growing pain. I'll be impressed if they don't implode under their own weight.
If my employer truly cared about me and my work, the long hours, the multi-million dollar deal that I salvaged with an all-nighter and resultant fix, my employer would give me either or both of A. something I love, or B. something my employer loves. Money is nice, money buys things I need, like food for my kids, a roof over our heads, etc. I don't "love" money, but I do need it. My employer LOVES money, and will not part with it. That says a lot about what they value, platitudes about "We are a performance culture" and "We are a meritocracy that leads through learning, inclusiveness and change" notwithstanding.
So, maybe Google realizes that by offering big bucks, they are showing their employees that they value good ideas more than immediate cash. Of course, Google will want to use those good ideas to generate more cash, but if I read it correctly, the reward to the genius employee comes well before the company makes that money back (and more) from the idea.
[sigh] When I am king ...
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
You may be joking, but there is more truth to this then you may realise. Based on my casual talks with women (mid 20s to early 30s), they would rather date and have sex with strong/*tall men. But, would rather marry a geek with money to care for their children as it provides security.
*Note*: a mans hight is perportional to his income and his success with women. If your tall, you have been blessed for life with the majority of the worlds riches.
Life is not for the lazy.
A friend of mine, a fairly competent sales rep, started his own printing company a couple of years ago. I worked for him for a while doing pre-print and graphic design, but I couldn't hack it for very long, as he gave the reps he employed free rein. The company was a sales person paradise, perks, insanely high wages, they could say what they liked to whoever they liked. It was the kind of company my friend would have liked to work for, so thats what he built.
Needless to say, that went under in about a year, and I got the equipment in lieu of pay that had been given to salespeople instead, but the point of this is that google was founded by highly intelligent, academic people, and what they are doing is building an academics dream job. Intelligence is rewarded, whether applying for a job, or within the job itself. I do applaud their strategies, which are fairly novel, but you can't run a business like that. Their results have been slipping in terms of accuracy and reliability, their image search is actually less useful than the new MSN effort, and the pay per click model (which I'm betting is a good portion of their income) is starting to get a seriously bad name, as companies realise that competitors are costing them money by simply clicking on their adverts.
By indulging in these "gentlemans club" policies, and losing sight of their core functionality, google will go the way of the dot bombs. Intelligence doth not a successful business make.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
If I were modding I'de give ya informative points galore.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Yes. Hire anybody who isnt Ivy League material (read: not in their blueblood circle) or is from/works in the Midwest that isnt in that circle.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This sort of willful ignorance is why The Register stays in business -- do they provide any original content? No, hardly any. Do they link to other stories? Sure, but so does Slashdot. How many sites slurping up others' vomit and regurgitating it themselves do we need?
News.com should not receive credit here.
Microsoft invented the GUI so give them the award. Andrew made Samba, who cares, that hardly qualifies as a smart product.
Or someone forks out YaBSD as an OS.. Yet Another BSD, while the guy who ported the ATM drivers from Solaris to this BSD only ported drivers so who cares?
So between Erik Raymond, Linus Trovalds and Andrew Tannenbaum, who would you give an award to?
Linus because his name is on the biggest UNIX out there??? Shouldnt Alan Cox rather take THAT award?
And why not Tannenbaum's Minix, from which Linux was created?
Someone puts up a great idea, another builds a structure and an alpha version of that idea. A third person works years debugging and improving it for prime time. The first two people will be most visible, the third will be the apparently hard working guy, how do you measure things here?
With such pressure to be 'seen' as working and contributing, Google might be turning itself into a Microsoft. The real trick is, how do you get the employee's sincerity for the whole company instead of his next bonus, the way opensource projects work?
By not paying them or yourself at all!
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Here I am about to finish grad school, sitting on a juicy Google offer and waiting for replies from universities about faculty jobs. Stories like this don't make it any easier to stick with academia. What to do? Is being rich worth abandoning research and academia and moving all the way out there? Heck, is that much money worthwhile at all? I've never experienced it, and even a faculty salary seems like plenty, especially compared to what I grew up with. Will I have more BS/stress to put up with at Google or at a university? I know it's pathetic asking on Slashdot, but everyone I usually trust for advice is biased one way or another in this case. Being a grad student has been great at times, but really sucked at other times. Is being a prof more consistently better? Or should I just take the cash and escape all the worries about tenure, funding, paper acceptance, dishonest competing researchers, annoying students, ...
There are also private jets, yachts, mansions, and drugs.
Without the same risk as a startup? Umm.
1) Google went public last year. Insofar as its incorporation into the publicly-traded markets is considered, it's a "start-up".
2) Google makes software that any E&CE university grad could hack together in, at most, a few days. Sure, they wouldn't have the hardware, or the brand name effectiveness, but these are things that could, conceivably, build over time. If anything, this should make anyone at Google shake in their boots.
3) Ever see Google's stock price? Ever realize that, for a company whose business relies on dishing out ads while serving other people's content, the stock price comes nowhere near to what a reasonable price might be (say, based on Graham's rules of investing, or even significantly relaxed versions of these rules)? In other words, I feel that this stock price is going to plummet significantly. And when it does, there will be employee cuts. And despite their MarketingSpeak now, this place will not be significantly safer than many of the other IPOs we see each year.
I'm not sure what do you mean, and I don't really want to know...
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Depression is like stubbing your toe on a doorframe. The pain is telling you something. In the case of a busted toe it means don't do that again. In the case of depression it means do something.
That raises the question, do what?
What do you do when you have a job you hate, and all the better jobs are taken by people better than you? Where do you go when you don't have the skills or the intelligence to do anything better than degrading soul-destroying grunt-work for minimum wage?
And even if you did have some skills, it's not much use if you need to jump through a million hoops and two million interviews just to be turned down for a job at a dot-com on the verge of collapse.
There are very few decent employers in the world, very very few. And because they're decent employers they can get the best workers, therefore if you're not working there you've no chance of getting in. And even if you do get in, you get to work alongside people who through bonuses are millionaires whilst you live in a shitty little apartment with no hot water, and you get to work amongst people who are twice as clever as you and are worth twice as much to the company as you.
There are no ways out.
if employees are trying to win prizes, won't their appetite for risk increase in order to be competitive? is this a good corporate strategy?
Get your torrents...
One thing google does with these awards is make them vest over four years. So if you want your $$$ you have to stick around. I'm sure that helps employee retention.
By firing everyone there.
Last I heard that piece of junk was hacked.
Do yourself a favour Google.
Stop supporting lame programmers ffs !!
Well, hopefully at Google, the geeks are still in charge, instead of the bland corporate management and leadership that bow down to capital.
I'm also hoping that the former don't become the latter.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
At Compaq, when it was just Compaq, after completing a very hard project, I once got 100 points to use at the company store. I could choose between candle sticks, a watch with rubber band, pens, or a mouse pad. I chose the watch because I know it will be a collectors item in 6000 years.
Quick name some technologies that are making money for Google.
1. Search engine
2. ???
3. ???
(Don't get me wrong, I love google groups, but I still type www.deja.com because I remember where it came from.)
Google has not blown my socks off with anything lately. Many of their search inovations were available already in other search engines (altavista, etc).. They just packaged them nicely with a good base product.
"Hmm. I see they have the Internet on computers now."
"Internet? Is that thing still around?"
Now I hate clever people more than ever :(
If your arguing points aren't correct - what does that say about your conclusion? ...is on the biggest UNIX out there (Linux isn't Unix)
Erroneous "facts":
NOT! - Microsoft invented the GUI
NOT! - Linus because
NOT! - Tannenbaum's Minix, from which Linux was created - (what a ridiculous idea! and one I might add that has been disproved many times.)
regards,
You dont catch sarcasm easily do you?
Microsoft invented the GUI, they never stole it from Apple.
Linux is the biggest UNIX out there, who cares about the open groups definition which is pretty much bought, and currently everything but AIX 5.x is not UNIX. If you look closely, UNIX is also defined as an architecture of operating systems, which Linux has been following as a loyal 'unix clone'. I, like many on slashdot refuse to swallow the open groups paid-for definitions, of unix.
Theres no minix code in linux. sure. but the first linux versions were developed on minix, and used the minix fs. the architecture was close to minix initially, and both Linus and Tannenbaum claim that Linux was 'inspired' by Minix. My point exactly was Linux itself isnt such an original idea, since a free 'unix' of that architecture existed as minix, but for different reasons. Can we give ALL the design credits to Linus alone if minix had the linux's early kernel design?
This is not the newyork times, expect some cynicism.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
With so many n00bs out there you think subtle is going to come across? ;-)
Next time mark it up properly with
regards
I'm guessing that all of those countries, except Canada, will have higher suicide rates. I know for a fact that Japan does. You could also look at average family size. The US will again be higher.
If you ask most people in the US whether they are rich, middle class or poor, most will tell you they are middle class. This is true even if they are poor or rich.
Ads? They're everywhere.
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.