Quick Salary Tip for Software Engineers  - <AUTHOR> http://markcunningham91.blogspot.com/2011/12/quick-salary-tip-for-software-engineers.html <comment><USER2> Quicker Salary Tip for Software Engineers: The first one to mention a number loses.

Even when pressed, I _never_ mention a number.

For both of our sakes, however, I want to make sure that we're in the same ballpark or we're wasting each other's time. So I may (only if I have no better way) say something along the lines of, "I'm in the 90's now, but I'm clearly underpaid and I'm looking for the best way to solve that problem."

Then I'll ask, "Are we in the same ballpark?"

If not, we both smile and move on.

If yes, we proceed. I always let them make an offer first. _That's_ when the negotiation begins.

<comment><USER3> i think that's bullshit. "I make X, I feel I am worth Y". Credibly demonstrate that you are worth Y[1]. This got me the raise I wanted within my current employer, and willingness to decline an offer less than Y will get me the salary I want the next time I move companies.

[1] here's a hint: don't say "i can do XYZ, trust me" -- signal to them you can do XYZ by blogging, speaking at meetups, portfolio of projects, etc.

<comment><USER4> If I'm a recruiter, I then say: _"Oh good...we're close. The salary approved for this position is 0.8Y. But we offer high-cholesterol lunches that have been 'catered' by the local fast-food meta-purveyors, health care, blah blah blah. Did I mention our free massage Fridays, and extensive selection of free, high-sugar, diabetes-inducing soft drinks?"_

You then get to choose to counter or walk away. If you're a good negotiator (which you're not, since you've said the first number), we'll probably end up at 0.9Y.

Meanwhile, Joe Bloggs comes in, and doesn't say a number. The recruiter offers 0.8Y, and Joe finally says _"I was thinking 1.2Y"_. Joe, being a savvy negotiator, ends up with at least Y, and _maybe_ 1.1Y.

It doesn't matter what Y is, you always have a chance of _doing better than your goal_ if you speak last. You lose that advantage if you speak first.

<comment><USER5> If you're a good negotiator, Y won't be your ideal salary X, but more along the lines of 1.3*X. The basic tenet of negotiation is that both sides are understood to start from a position that is unacceptable for the other side.

You can also always try for the DITF[1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique>

<comment><USER4> Does not matter. As I said, pick any value of Y, and you'll end up better off (on average) by not saying the first number. Doesn't matter if Y = X or if Y = 20X.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Additional Quick Tip (Salary Judo):

If they try to play hardball on salary negotiations. Turn their high standards around on them. Bring a copy of the job listing/requirements.

Boss: "So we'll start you at $<salary>, and welcome aboard."

You: "I look forward to it, but can we agree that I've demonstrated a value of $<salary+30%>?"

Boss: "$<salary> is what everyone gets to start out, we'll review you in 6months."

You: "Your job posting listed you were looking for an expert in a number of fields ABC...XYZ? Perhaps you're looking for more of a junior engineer?"

The key is that you have a polite helpful tone the whole time. It's not confrontational or sarcastic. The point isn't to antagonize. Merely point out that high hiring standards = high compensation standards.

<comment><USER7> I mis-clicked and accidentally downvoted you whereas I intended to give you an upvote. Looks like I can't unvote, so please someone up this back one notch.

<comment><USER8> Done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's a tip. Take tips from recruiters with a pinch of salt. Their goal in life is for programmers to change jobs as often as possible, and to make as big a salary as possible so that they get better commission. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but their motivations are different to those of a programmer who wants a career.

When I go for a job I take a lot more into consideration than the salary. There are the other benefits, the work environment, what will I learn, what challenges will I have to overcome, will I enjoy the work. If you change fields you may happily take a pay cut until you can perform at the same level you do now. You may take at a job that's a in a startup or at a company with financial difficulties that you think you can help turn around. In these scenarios a pay cut, deferred pay via bonus schemes or stock options maybe more important. Another issue is job security. Nobody likes to think of themselves as replaceable or average, but of course by definition most of us are. So if you negotiate yourself an extra $10k-$25k you better be prepared to deliver on that value or you will be at the top of the spreadsheet when it comes time to make cuts.

</comment><comment><USER10> You hear the quote "never give the first number" thrown around a lot and while it's sometimes good advice, it's not always the best option. There are times where setting the anchor is a very valid approach to hitting an upper bound.

The most important aspect of negotiations is power. He who has more power will always have the upper hand in negotiations. This is usually where someone suggests reading the art of war, and that suggestion is generally pretty damn good.

Power is defined pretty loosely as anything from data, supply, demand, urgency and beyond can be considered part of the equation. I'd start by doing some research to get a range of how much someone with the same background is currently making in the particular field. The caveat here is that you want to ask the person who just changed jobs and not the person who've been working at the same place for 20 years (I guarantee they'll be underpaid).

One last point I want to make is that average negotiators always assume that the two parties will meet near the middle. Use that towards your advantage as bait.

<comment><USER11> This is a hi-fidelity recapitulation of one of the main pop theories of negotiation, that good bargaining is always hard bargaining, especially if it's brainless. However, I think it's completely wrongheaded.

There's a great book called _Getting To Yes_ that I recommend everybody read. Here are the main points in a nutshell:

1\. Focus on interests, not positions. 2\. Separate the people from the problem. 3\. Invent options for mutual gain. 4\. Insist on objective criteria.

How might that work in a salary negotiation? On the first point, the employer has interests in retention and morale, as well as in the value they can extract from an employee. (Or, maybe not. This is good information to have.) They want to minimize disruption so that they don't have to retrain. The employee has this interest, too, as it's stressful to change jobs. Neither party is going to be served by a wage that is out of balance either way.

On the second point, one important thing _not_ to do is to treat them as someone whom you'd use petty tactics on, as someone to whom you would use something "towards your advantage as bait." You're always having a meta- negotiation about the terms of the negotiation that carries over into your employment environment. Are you going to be cutting each other's throat all the time? Or, during your working relationship, are you going to want to be reaching understandings about how best and most fairly to proceed?

On the third point, you might find that there is a non-obvious imbalance between your demonstrated skills, for example, and your potential in a job that looks to be an amazing fit. What to do then? Do we shift the risk onto the employer, forcing them to pay for potential? Do we shift it onto the employee, insisting on pay for experience only? Well, to "invent an option," what about a probationary period long enough to see whether the potential is going to materialize? The pay would be, say, slightly above pay for experience only, but well below potential. And then you revisit, agreeing in advance that either party can walk if the fit is poor. That's one option, there may be more. Like contracting at a higher rate with an option to be brought on as an employee. Or so on.

Finally, on objective criteria: "Market rate" is not the only criteria. Market rate is just an average, anyhow. What's more objective would be anticipated value from the unique relationship between _this_ employee and _that_ company. How much can you increase sales? What's the likely perceived differential in reputation of your employer if you, the crack tester, continually find nasty bugs before they're discovered outside, so that they can be patched before they become problems? What if you're the amazing architect who can design a robust system that is easy to program in, increasing developer productivity across the board? These things are measurable, even if Bayesian, criteria, if we can look at your history of providing these goods.

I just bristle at this simplistic view of bargaining as mere power plays, and marvel at its persistence in the face of so many better options, not to mention the enormity of value left on the table by both sides of negotiations everywhere.

<comment><USER10> The problem with these "everybody wins" situation is that not everyone can win all the time. Same thing with being objective. The problem with this type of recommendation is that this approach to negotiations works well for situations such as conflict resolution where objectivity and a "nobody loses" scenario has inherent value. This is untrue for other types of negotiations, especially those related to financial gains.

Just like programming, more often than not, the simplest solution is often the best solution (in terms of ROI). There really isn't a need to over-complicate negotiations when goals are clearly defined. In the case of salary negotiations, the goal is to get paid as much as possible. That's it.

<comment><USER12> However, just as in programming, you cannot effectively employ the simple solution without first understanding the theory that leads to it.

It's just like the difference between good developers and voodoo coders. One stops to think before acting while the other just throws canned solutions at the problem, hoping one sticks.

<comment><USER10> I'll respectfully disagree. Theory is useful for designing algorithms, but has nothing to do with being a good programmer. Perhaps you mean understanding design (of tools, languages etc)? If that's the case, then yes, you need to understand your tools before using them. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The easiest way of getting better at negotiations, like programming, is actually just about practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've sadly realized that almost all job offers are based on some combination of what they offer other candidates at that level and what you state your previous salary as.

Given that you're an unknown commodity, they use your previous salary to determine how other companies valued you.

Between 2001 to 2006 my salary went from 60k to 94k

2006 to 2008 I took a job at a "hot" startup and went down to 89k in return for options (I am never doing that again for a company bigger than 5 people).

2008 to 2012 I took a job that started at 95k, and I've only been able to drive the salary up to 103k even though I've gotten the highest rating possible on every performance evaluation (and I've been a key contributor to hardware development worth about 50 million in revenue -- when other products are breaking even / losing money).

I feel that the only way I can advance my current position is by getting other job offers, but I don't want to be that guy.

<comment><USER14> > I feel that the only way I can advance my current position is by getting > other job offers, but I don't want to be that guy.

I don't understand that. Who is /that guy/ and why don't you want to be him?

<comment><USER15> I think engtech's point is they wish their work was better-recognized and better-rewarded, without him/her feeling he had to force his employer's hand by pulling a "well, XYZ corp is all lined up to pay me 20% more!" (AKA, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease").

Maybe that's realistically what you do have to do, but that doesn't mean it's ideal. It's easy to view the employer/employee relationship in a purely market-driven, antagonistic style, but I think many people who _like_ their jobs really wish it wasn't like that.

Again, it might be naive, but that doesn't make it wrong to feel that way. It really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like friends, and not just resources.

<comment><USER14> I've heard this point before, and you know, not only do I vehemently disagree with it, I also think it's massive cognitive dissonance. People are brought up told that discussing money is taboo, and rationalize that.

> force his employer's hand by pulling a

> purely market-driven, antagonistic style

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so emotionally laden?

> It really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like > friends, and not just resources.

I think that would be dreadful. I want a company to treat me as a resource, and to realize that as a resource, they'll get the most out of me if they keep me happy. I would like the company to be acutely aware of how much I am worth, how much I cost, and what my options are, and to be happy that they're getting good value by employing me. Programmers spend so long convincing themselves they're scientists, but for some reason (and maybe it's because economics is such a weak science) this all completely goes out the window as soon as money is involved.

I think it's weak-sauce for a programmer to be jumping around chasing a few bucks here and there, but if you're being undervalued, do something about it, rather than complaining that life is unfair, and that the company should be looking after you. And I say this as a bleeding-heart pinkie limey leftie liberal who actually worked at The Guardian once.

<comment><USER15> _"Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so emotionally laden?"_

For a lot of people, it is an emotional situation. Work makes up a big part of their life, I'd be surprised to find many people who can view compensation in a totally cool and detached way.

And yes, obviously, "do(ing) something about it" is the correct course of action. I wasn't suggesting hoping and wishing as a means of getting a raise.

On a side note, I wonder if the Dunning-Krueger effect implies that the least qualified people are the ones clamoring for raises the most often?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Quick salary tip for hiring software engineers: go easy on the low-balling.

Once the software engineer realizes they are getting paid significantly lower than what they could get paid in the market, you may have just incentivized them to leave the company. Depending on the personality of the software engineer, they may not come to you and re-negotiate, they may simply look for a better offer elsewhere.

So make sure you don't undermine your ability to retain talent.

<comment><USER17> Not much worse than finding out you are grossly underpaid. If that doesn't turn an exceptional employee into a slouch, I don't know what will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> His supplied quote asking if it's OK to go away and think about it comes across as weak/unsure of yourself in my opinion.

A confident candidate will TELL the interviewer that they will need time to think about it. This isn't a thing to be rushed anyway so any interviewer should be fine with this. If not, do you really want to work for someone so pushy?

Interviews are a 2 way street, a lot of interviewers forget that they are also on show to impress the candidate. Especially right now where there seems to be a lack of skilled engineers out there.

<comment><USER19> It seems to me like that question may be purely "polite".

It's OK to be and act confident. It's also OK to be nice and respectful at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think best thing is just look for something when you dont need it. Then when they ask about salary, mention any number, it doesn't matter. Then when they give you a final offer, be a hard-ass and ask for 30% more. Keep saying no until you get the offer or they don't call you back. You might get laughed at a handful of times, but there will be someone who will give in. Again, do this when you don't need a job and aren't desperate. Just keep being a hardass and douchebag. It's not hard to when you're looking for sumthing casually.

<comment><USER21> Agreed. You can confidently negotiate if you've got nothing to lose. Another way to achieve this is to have multiple offers. You come out ahead when you have competing offers - get them in a bidding war.

Also you can be a total hard-ass when negotiating with HR - you won't offend your future boss or team in the process. They usually are not involved in the negotiation process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> (For anyone interested, here's a rehash of a comment I made a while back <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097801> which suggests you be flexible on salary to gain a larger total compensation. If you haven't worked out these numbers in advance, this is how I think you should spend the extra time the OP's tip will give you)

Keep firmly in mind that your _salary_ is only one term in the overall equation adding up your _total compensation_. Total compensation = sum(salary, daycare, commute costs, conferences, professional development, 401k matching, ...)

Consider, for example, lunch. Here in NYC, a company that buys you a $10 sandwich for lunch every day is giving you $3,330+ salary equivalent (Assuming you're in the 25% tax bracket) [1]

Take the time to sit down and do something along the following lines:

\- list out benefits a company might offer

\- group them into things you care about and things you don't (don't have kids -> don't need daycare)

\- for the things you care about, think about how much each one would cost you to pay for yourself

\- think about what minimum level of that benefit you would accept, happy, and ecstatic. (eg. Minimum: company pays for one local conference/year. Happy: one conference anywhere in US/yr. ecstatic: more than one conference anywhere in the world)

\- for the ones you DON'T care about, think about how much it costs the company to pay for each

When it comes time to negotiate your compensation, always think in _sets_. Think (and talk) in terms of how moving any one piece requires movement on a different piece. Give up the things in the "don't care" set to gain at least as much value in the "want" set.

Eg. They want to give you less money, you can agree to that, if they give you X more vacation days.

Eg. They offer free daycare, you say that you appreciate that, but since you don't have kids you would rather have "work at home Fridays" and a slightly larger 401k match.

By considering the _total_ you are much more likely to get a better overall package

[1]

      (salary equivalent) = (daily cost * 5 days/wk * 50 wks/yr)
                            </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
                                       ( 1 - tax rate )

      25% tax bracket
      $ 5 lunch = (5 * 5 * 50)/(75%) = $1,667 salary
      $10 lunch = $3,333

So every $1 the company saves you (by buying your lunch or your monthly parking or whatever) is worth $333 in salary in the 25% tax bracket. (Assuming you don't change to a different tax bracket by the change to your cash salary)

<comment><USER23> You have to pay income tax on the $10 sandwich.

<comment><USER24> No, meals provided at work for the convenience of the employer are deductible for the employer and tax-free for the employee.

Meals provided for business purposes such as a lunch meeting away from the office are half deductible for the business and tax-free for the recipient.

That's the USA rule (Canada too, I believe). Elsewhere may be different.

<comment><USER25> I checked awhile back and most software companies fail the convenience test. It is only allowed if the employee can't get food elsewhere (e.g. on an oil rig).

See <http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html>

Exact text: Meals on Your Business Premises

You can exclude the value of meals you furnish to an employee from the employee's wages if they meet the following tests.

They are furnished on your business premises.

They are furnished for your convenience.

This exclusion does not apply if you allow your employee to choose to receive additional pay instead of meals.

Whether you furnish meals for your convenience as an employer depends on all the facts and circumstances. You furnish the meals to your employee for your convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an employment contract provides that the meals are furnished as pay. However, a written statement that the meals are furnished for your convenience is not sufficient.

From <http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html> Meals and Lodging

You do not include in your income the value of meals and lodging provided to you and your family by your employer at no charge if the following conditions are met.

The meals are:

Furnished on the business premises of your employer, and

Furnished for the convenience of your employer.

Another source: [http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2000/Jun/TheHighC...](http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2000/Jun/TheHighCostOfAFreeLunch.htm)

Meals an employer provides as a means of disguising additional compensation to an employee are not regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer under section 119. The IRS considers a meal as furnished for the employer's convenience only if the company provided it for a substantial noncompensatory business reason. An employer furnishes a meal for such a reason when providing it

So the employee is available for emergency calls during his or her meal period.

Because the employee must be restricted to a short meal period and could not be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short time.

Because the employee could not otherwise secure proper meals within a reasonable meal period, such as when there are not sufficient eating facilities nearby.Meals an employer provides as a means of disguising additional compensation to an employee are not regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer under section 119. The IRS considers a meal as furnished for the employer's convenience only if the company provided it for a substantial noncompensatory business reason. An employer furnishes a meal for such a reason when providing it

So the employee is available for emergency calls during his or her meal period.

Because the employee must be restricted to a short meal period and could not be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short time.

Because the employee could not otherwise secure proper meals within a reasonable meal period, such as when there are not sufficient eating facilities nearby.

In other words, if a company provides you with a free lunch, it probably is taxable income.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Here's a not so quick tip: learn to steer conversations towards value for your client/employer, not just skills or abstract, hard-to-quantify achievements. When you and your potential employer are talking about millions of dollars, a 50% increase in salary becomes rather small.

</comment><comment><USER27> I would assume that it probably helps to have other job offers on the side or a current job that pays nearly the same as the job you're interested in for this to work.

</comment><comment><USER28> A founders perspective on this:

I think such negotiation tips are great because they helps engineers, many of whom are not the best negotiators, get the fair market value they deserve. This is a real concern when recruiters are involved, or its a big company, or even a large startup (e.g. 50+ people).

However, as a technical founder for a smaller team, its not really in my interest to mis-align employee incentives, especially engineers.

The people we hire are at the top of their game. If they're are not treated fairly, they will eventually find out, and someone will feel bad or be de- motivated or eventually leave. Every instance of lack of transparency or apparent "unfairness" will breed resentment and impact the net productivity of a team that's trying to run at its 110%. Even if/when we do get things wrong occasionally, quarterly/annual reviews are a great way to correct for decisions made with limited initial data.

Tl;Dr : Founders don't get rich by cutting corners on someone's salary/benefits.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wasn't part of the job of the technical recruiter supposed to be negotiating the salary? Considering they make a commission off it, I would assume it would be in their best interest.

<comment><USER30> Hey all, I'm a tech guy that also spent 3 years as a recruiter and in IT staffing sales/business dev. I know this industry in and out.

I'm going to speak for our location (Greenville, SC). The normal direct-hire % is between 18-25%. If you're doing volume with a company you'll probably be 18-20%. If it's a niche skill or new company then 25%. The days of 30% is mostly over unless it's a retained search or some extremely difficult skill.

This recruiter is on par with his advice. For a direct-hire role it is his best interest in getting you the highest salary possible because he will make more money that way. If he's a good recruiter he will do all the negotiation for you and you won't have to worry about it at all. You tell him what you need and he'll work his magic. Trust me, we are very good at getting those target salaries (if not more) for our developers.

If you are going through a good agency and the salary question comes up then you need to defer that to the recruiter and if your recruiter doesn't know what to do then find a different agency. Lots of bad ones out there.

Sometimes though you have to persuade a candidate even if the salary is not what he wants. As an example I placed a Sr. Architect at an awesome gig and the salary was 15K lower than what he was used to making. He was hemming and hawing and I told him up front that he could continue to look for work for his skillset and not find it in this area (he had been out of work for about 6 months at this time) or take the job at the lower salary with the potential to grow. Needless to say he took the job and has since been promoted (which I knew would happen cause of his skills and knowledge).

No on contract-to-hire gigs it's the best interest in the recruiter to get you to take the lowest possible hourly rate and then he will bill the client the highest he could go. Why? Because it's all based on a Net Margin formula and the more NM the recruiter makes the more commission he'll make. Our firm wasn't too aggressive on beating down candidates but companies like TekSystems are notoriously known for low-balling their contractors and high-billing clients.

Hope this helps some. Not all recruiters and agencies are bad but unfortunately many fly-by-night and sorry shops give the good ones a bad name.

I will say this that 90% of the IT jobs out there (at least in our market) are never posted on a job board. They are filled by agencies because they can get it done faster and more efficiently than a job board and an HR person who's clueless on IT skill sets.

~V

ps On a side note we had a joke in that internal recruiters were folks that couldn't hack it working for an agency. It's a different culture and fast- paced and being heavily commission driven tends to drive a good number of folks away. Why I left was that I placed myself back into IT :) And no, I did not get a commission on that (which would have been nice to boot!) :)

<comment><USER31> Obviously you're biased, but you're making it sound like working with an external recruiter is actually a good idea. Mostly I just hear that IT recruiters are terrible -- don't actually know what your skills are and just blast out your resume as much as possible, falsifying information if needed, and so on. So I've never pursued it, and ignored the occasional overtures. However after some disappointments I'm wondering if I've been too hasty there.

I know a bunch of HN posters stay in start-up land, where things are likely different, but I'm wondering if those who aren't have any other recruiter experience? My wife did have good luck with a recruiter in the law world, though the market there is quite different from the tech market.

<comment><USER32> I'm starting a new job in less than a week that I got through a recruiter. I was cold LinkedIn-ed and was initially skeptical because I've had bad experiences in the past. But this time was different and I'm really glad that I followed through.

My recruiter was helpful and remained at all times respectful of my time and my goals. She never pushed me to interview with companies I wasn't interested with, and she gave me some really valuable advice about how to sell myself as a less experienced and junior programmer. And regarding compensation, she was able to help me negotiate for a lot more than I thought I was going to be able to ask for.

I'm obviously not that experienced, but I think there definitely are some good recruiters out there who can be really helpful in certain situations. In my case the relationship happened to be extremely beneficial, partly because of my inexperience but also because it was just good timing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Hey everyone, thanks for the comments. As evidenced below, there are many different ways to negotiate on salary with companies. I've read through several below and they are spot on.

Regards,

Mark

</comment><comment><USER34> Another tip applies when you're interviewing at a company where they have a dedicated HR person who you talk to about salary (in other words you are not negotiating salary with the person who will actually be your boss or the owner)

In that case there is a good chance that person is an internal recruiter and they may get a bonus based on number of hires they bring in. So if the company decided they want to hire you - this recruiter is very motivated to get you to accept. They will be bound by policy as far as what numbers they can give out without you asking for more. But they really don't really care how high your salary will be (unlike for example your boss or the owner might).

If this is the situation then you really have nothing to lose by going way, way high with your salary request. The worst that will happen is the recruiter will just have to name their highest price they are allowed to go and hope you will accept.

I can't think of any situation where a prospective employee named a price and we said "oh they're way too expensive, let's not insult them with a counter- offer." We always make our best counter-offer and hope the person accepts it.

</comment><comment><USER35> The example does work well if a company makes the mistake of not even going over salary early in the process. It's generally advised for the candidate to not bring up salary early on, but every situation that's involved a recruiter, it's the recruiter that brings salary up early - often before a phone screen. They don't want to waste the company's time if you're way to far off with salary.

I'm also making the assumption that the 105k and 90k salaries both have the same benefit packages, option grants (if applicable) and work environments for the sake of simplicity in the article, but in practice, I've learned the hard way that the things beyond the salary matter most. One does want to maximize salary for a given company, but remember, that once you've been there for short while, all the other things start to matter much more. At least that's my experience.

</comment><comment><USER36> I would never recommend this. Never, ever, negotiate salary. Negotiate COMPENSATION.

<comment><USER37> No, negotiate salary to get it as high as possible, then vacation time to get as much as possible, then stock options, then 401k match, etc., etc. With each one make sure they know that is the most important thing to you, so they think that if they give you more on one item they can make it up by not giving you as much on the next one. Of course then the next one becomes the most important thing in the world to you...

Of course, that's used-car buying tactics, so be careful. If you are talking to an HR guy it might be fine to make him mad, but sometimes I feel uncomfortable pushing that hard on my future manager like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Isn't it bad to take salary negotiation advice from a recruiter? They might want to get you a job, absolutely, but their pay is directly proportional to how shitty you negotiate. I don't know if I can take advice from someone that directly benefits when their own advice is wrong.

<comment><USER39> Don't recruiters get a percentage of your salary? If so, it would be in their interest for you to get paid as much as possible, wouldn't it?

<comment><USER38> Not necessarily. Let's assume the recruiter is paid a percentage (although in some cases they get paid more simply because you get paid less, let's ignore that case.)

First, you and the recruiter have a different BATNA. He just wants you to get a job, otherwise he gets $0 and you want to get a job that aligns with your goals. Those usually don't match up. I've been in the position of being offered a job and rejecting it, it was clear at that moment the recruiter and I had divergent interests.

Secondly, at the margin, the fact that the recruiter gets a percentage of the benefits of the negotation but usually shares equally in the costs of negotiating (every recruiter I work with proxies the negotiation), the profit maximization point for you and the recruiter are rarely ever at the same point. In fact, the recruiter will nearly always be willing to abandon negotiations and settle at a lower salary than you should. The same thing happens in real-estate. Offering and counter-offering for 3 days over 6% of $3000 is a lot different than 94% of $3000.

Maybe I am wrong. Also, I am not saying the recruiter that wrote this is incorrect. I am just saying that I hold his advice under the strong light of scrutiny. I hope I haven't crossed the line into ad hominem fallacy by doing this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Employers: More often than not, you get what you pay for. Saving a few bucks in salary will probably cost you in the long run.

Employees: Negotiate your salary realistically. Embellish too much and you'll find yourself negotiating your salary again (probably with a NEW potential employer) sooner than you'd like.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you are healthy and have no dependents _(thus don't have unusual/expensive medical insurance needs)_ then the best salary tip I've found is to be a 1099 contractor over a W2 employee. This is especially so if you are in a work-at- will State like California.

When you've done your interview and the company is ready to make you an offer you can straight-up tell them you'd prefer a 1099 based relationship over W2. They may not like it or prefer that, but obviously the market for software engineering is a seller's market.

You can usually expect to make at least 30% more like-for-like as a contractor because you're going to have to look after your own medical insurance, tax affairs and pension, etc.

Don't forget that $100k offer the firm is going to pay you actually costs them more like $130k in terms of benefits, payroll tax, etc. So why not just ask them to give the full $130l to you? Plus you may be able to negotiate even more on top of that.

The real fun happens when you start to make _legitimate_ tax deductions that as a W2 employee you can't normally make. Computer equipment, software, ipads, games consoles, phone bill, meals with other people in the industry, etc. I bet you work from home too sometimes, so deduct a %age of your rent and utilities.

These are all legitimate business expenses which are hard or impossible to deduct as a W2.

The net benefit in terms of your annual take home pay is potentially going be a lot more than the advice given by the OP - although there is no reason to combine all of this together.

(BTW Recruiters won't suggest this tip because their remuneration usually is based on W2 salary, and not contract positions)

<comment><USER42> You should be careful here:

 _I bet you work from home too sometimes, so deduct a %age of your rent and utilities._

This is usually a big red flag for IRS audits. It's my understanding you have to have a dedicated area just for work. So lounging on your couch wouldn't count. A corner desk or separate office is fine I think.

<comment><USER43> A corner desk is probably not enough. You really need to have a completely separate office area that is used 100% for work. Last I checked, the home office also must be for the benefit of the employer and not only for the employee. Add in that your chances of being audited go up significantly with a home office deduction and it makes it a risk that needs to be weighed carefully. Definitely find a CPA and get them onboard before trying to claim the home office deduction.

<comment><USER44> Agreed. I'd recommend against this every time, unless you are 100% prepared for the inconvenience and potential penalties of an audit. It's just not worth it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to use Firefox better? - <AUTHOR>

  Recently I use Firefox for my web browsing, but it seems that Firefox "eats" a lot of memory.
  I am on Mac(10.8.2), sometimes it can take 400MB or more.I don't install much add-ons.
  And before I use Chrome.And I alse wonder why Firefox always take so much memory?
  because the memory management doesn't work well or something else?
 <comment><USER2> Firefox is great when it comes to memory management. My Firefox instance is using 550 MB of RAM - and that's totally reasonable. I have some huge pages loaded, and around 20 of them, but Firefox remains very fast.

If you want it to use less memory, open less pages or open pages that use less memory. Other browsers won't help as they'll use around the same amount. Chrome hides it's usage in separate processes and threads, by the way.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for replying, and I know Chrome separates its processes. And I just wander sometimes Firefox use the same memory when I open 4 or 8 pages. Even it uses more memory for no reason(e.g. I open 2 pages, but it will increases).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How much RAM do you have on your machine? Are you running out because of Firefox? Actually the memory management has been really tightened up over the last year or so. Type "about:memory" into your address bar and you can see exactly what's going on in there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I always see "about:memory" and minimize memory usage. My machine doesn't run out because of Firefox, but yesterday it took nearly 1G RAM. I have 4GB RAM.

<comment><USER3> OK so if you're not hurting for memory, then I think it's using an appropriate amount of memory.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just wander why Firefox always takes more memory for no reason-Even I keep the same pages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The new version(s) doesn't "eat up" memory. I use it to test web design / apps, I have ~5 background running addons, and it's fast.</comment>


Facebook's Zuckerberg Tells Employees to Respect Diverse Views of Colleagues - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-zuckerberg-tells-employees-to-respect-diverse-views-of-colleagues-1538767936 <comment><USER2> I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi.

Before I could even explain why, he responded with that I was a monster of a human to even put "the party that locks children up and votes for rapists" close to the goals of the Democrats. I was called a shit bag "Repug" and told to kill myself.

We haven't talked since.

I also voted for Hillary, for pragmatic reasons.

If it's tough to maintain friendships with differing views in this day and age, doing so in the workplace where the environment allows this to be a bit more in the open will be a tough HR friendly pill to swallow.

<comment><USER3> >I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi.

I too find this very hard to believe. I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

<comment><USER4> Both parties are pro-war, pro-big business, big government blood suckers.

Neither party is concerned about privacy.

Lots of other things in common as well.

<comment><USER3> That's not really an argument, that's an unargued statement of opinion.

<comment><USER4> It's the start of a conversation.

Which parts do you disagree with and what evidence would convince you otherwise?

You can tell me the political party you support and I can show you how they have strong pro-war elements.

<comment><USER3> I just want to hear _why_ you think it's true. If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you, so please tell us what evidence you're considering.

If you aren't willing to spell that out, we're not having a meaningful conversation.

<comment><USER4> > I just want to hear why you think it's true.

Like any political opinion it is based upon thousands of observations and arguments over a period of many years.

Would it convince you the Democrats are pro-war if I provide evidence of Hillary Clinton being a war hawk?

What kind of sources will you trust?

Surely if you follow US politics you are aware of the argument already so why don't we skip the fluff and get into the details?

> If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you

Sure - so like I said let's find our common ground and points of disagreement and we can go from there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Ms. Sandberg has previously posted an internal message calling Mr. Kaplan's appearance at the hearing "a mistake."_

So if this is the stance Zuckerberg and Sandberg are taking, has that internal message been retracted? I'm in no position to demand or even suggest that some sort of consistency in conviction is warranted here-Sandberg is free to comment or not as she pleases, but it sure would be nice to see for once in these strange and heated times.

Seems to me you either respect Kaplan's decision to be present for his friend, redact statements that his personal political decisions were a 'mistake', or fire him as VP of Global Public Policy and admit it was because his appearance at the SJC hearings made for bad optics, and saving face matters more than consistent convictions and that this appeal to employees is proof.

Or do nothing and let people infer everything in between.

<comment><USER6> It's not a 'personal' decision to appear on TV in front of hundreds of millions of people when you're a representative of the company. High profile actions will be interpreted as representing the interest of the company.

He can personally support Kav, have dinner with him, maybe not hide anything about his support or friendship ... but making public statements, such as appearing on TV is a whole other dimension given his role.

FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB.

So I think it's not hypocritical for Sandberg to indicate that it was a mistake, I think it was.

<comment><USER5> _FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB._

One person's political controversy could very well be another's platform.

Who are any of us to decide what that dichotomy looks like if not anything but bystanders? Furthermore, if that's an opinion you really want to take, then would you similarly argue that Facebook should therefore have _nothing_ to say politically? Ever? About anything? In any shape or form on the platform-since as easily as someone could take Kaplan's appearance and assert it as a direct endorsement of Kavanaugh coming from Facebook, I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook.

Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?

Can I then ask Facebook stop putting banners up reminding me to register to vote (I already am) or that I should go out and vote in my local county elections (I already did), or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)

If the execs shouldn't be involved in any political controversy, then the platform should be devoid of political calls to action similarly and follow that lead.

Taking the long view, I don't see either happening.

<comment><USER6> "I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook."

If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely.

"or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)"

Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views.

"Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?"

There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations.

If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour.

The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.

<comment><USER7> > If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might > upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away.

Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to have execs do politically controversial things.

It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things.

I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees because of out of work political activities is literally illegal.

So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of thinking)

<comment><USER6> Of course Facebook can allow it's staff to do this, nobody is doubting that.

But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is probably why he didn't.

See my comment above about 'California's laws'.

You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this out of touch.

Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right away, one way or another, even as an employee.

So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that team, or your political activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article shows how diversity is fundamentally flawed. Diversity as currently applied says: "We welcome all points of view and all backgrounds unless they differ from our own." Which is the exact opposite of diversity.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't see why a company can't be biased. It wasn't that long ago the right was championing a companies right to not bake a cake for a gay couple. It seems a bit hypocritical that they support a companies right unless that company is left leaning.

<comment><USER10> It's ok for a company to be biased as long as they don't claim to be neutral.

Zuckerberg to US congress:

> Congressman, I do agree that we should work to give people the fullest free > expression that is possible. That's what — when I talk about giving people a > voice, that's what I care about.

> [...] And I think that that — it — our general responsibility is to — is to > allow the broadest spectrum of free expression as we can ...

In the same hearing:

> I'll ask — my — my question is, on this, do you agree that Facebook and > other technology platforms should be ideologically neutral?

> ZUCKERBERG: Congressman, I — I agree that we should be a platform for all > ideas, and that we should focus on that.

Transcript of the hearing: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/04/11...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/04/11/transcript-of-zuckerbergs-appearance-before-house- committee/)

<comment><USER9> Yeah I agree that's pretty dumb to tell Congress one thing but do another. I wish they'd just be honest about it.

My comment was more of a general sense of any company, not necessarily just Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A billionaire tells his underlings to not mess up his money-making machine. I'm touched.

<comment><USER12> This belongs to n-gate.com :)

<comment><USER11> I suddenly found myself channeling him, I swear :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember a time in America when a Republican & Democrat could peacefully disagree with dignity, and follow that up with an evening out as friends

<comment><USER14> I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats shared a consistent view of reality.

<comment><USER15> This is closer to the truth.

I remember when the net first came up, I'd watch my friends in both parties argue online. They'd do some research, agree on the underlying facts, then things would progress.

They might never come to agreement, but they began a discussion on the terms of the discussion, which was progress. If done well, everybody could part as friends. This is the dialectic. It's what friends do. It's designed to understand the issue by understanding one another better. This is how productive conversations are supposed to happen.

But folks caught on to that, so they started flooding the internet with a lot of rhetoric. Now, if you disagree, there are a hundred sites on your side that are quite happy to provide you with all the emotional ammunition you need. This is argumentation, what lawyers do. It's designed to win at all costs. Conversations are battles to be won. Combine that with some nice rhetorical tricks and there's really no need to discuss facts anymore.

Take a look at what education a lot of the talking heads on TV have had. They were trained in rhetoric, the legal profession. That's no accident.

<comment><USER16> > This is argumentation, what lawyers do. It's designed to win at all costs. > Conversations are battles to be won. Combine that with some nice rhetorical > tricks and there's really no need to discuss facts anymore.

Sounds like what the ancient Greek sophists taught. That rhetoric was a useful tool for winning debates and being persuasive, particularly in politics.

<comment><USER17> _That rhetoric was a useful tool for winning debates and being persuasive, particularly in politics_

But that cuts both ways: two skilled rhetoriticians in debate each won't permit the other to deploy a logical fallacy. Therefore they will always converge on the truth.

Rhetoric can only be weaponised when your opponent is unaware of it, and is powerless when they don't care about debate because their mind is already made up.

<comment><USER15> _But that cuts both ways: two skilled rhetoriticians in debate each won 't permit the other to deploy a logical fallacy. Therefore they will always converge on the truth._

Been thinking about this all day. I didn't want to flippantly disagree, but there was something about your comment that bugged me.

I think maybe you have overstated. I would phrase it this way: skilled rhetoriticians _tend_ to converge on a semantic definition around the meaning of words and phrases.

I don't think they come to any ultimate truth, no matter what the greeks thought. I think what happens in any productive conversation is something more along the lines of _shared mental model alignment_ , which I would argue is vastly more important.

Thanks for giving me something to cogitate on yesterday!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This seems to be a reference to James whats-his-name. He's really had a lasting impact.

<comment><USER19> OP paywalled, but what's funny is that your comment could be read in two completely opposing ways:

1\. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Google did with Damore

2\. Zuckerberg tells employees not to mistreat diverse views like Damore did at Google

I find there's a bi-modal distribution in how people interpret Damore's memo. It's like that blue-gold dress debate again:

1\. evil sexist falsehood propaganda by a closet neo-nazi, meant to hurt

2\. a well-sourced, accurate and well-meaning text by a nerd, meant to help

I read Damore's memo and reached my own conclusion (which is irrelevant to my point so I won't even state it), but isn't this dichotomy fascinating?

<comment><USER20> His memo just seemed to me like the view a Republican holds on a polarising topic - so it's not surprising it splits into two polarised bimodal responses in my opinion.

<comment><USER18> To me, there seem to be reactionaries on both the left wing and the right wing - the horseshoe effect [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)

<comment><USER21> I think part of the problem is largely calling "right wing", "alt-right", "bigot" any view one disagrees with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What I find most fascinating is how powerless Mark looks.

</comment><comment><USER20> Vox had quite an interesting take from the left on how it's a bit odd that Facebook are taking threats from Republicans to punish them for alleged bias seriously. The example they used was Hollywood, Republicans hate Hollywood for being too liberal, they have an endless decades long culture war over it, but whenever a Republican comes into power they make sure to force other countries to enforce copyright laws that Hollywood wants and do precisely nothing to damage them. Just like Trump just did with Canada.

<comment><USER5> Was it this one? [https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/9/12/17848026/f...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard)

<comment><USER20> It was on their 'The Weeds' podcast, on the latest episode called 'Alexa, raise the minimum wage'. It was in a segment discussing Kevin Roose's daily Twitter updates about the top performing Facebook stories on Kavanaugh/Ford. It looks like the latest one he did was October 4th ([https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1047614324225847296](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1047614324225847296)):

Sources of today's top performing Facebook posts about Kavanaugh, per @crowdtangle:

1\. Fox News 2\. Ben Shapiro 3\. CNSNews ("News the Lefty Media Doesn't Want You to Have") 4\. Breitbart

About Dr. Ford: 1\. Fox News 2\. CNN 3\. Daily Caller 4\. Breitbart

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is this with respect to PHP still being used at FB? /s

<comment><USER24> With short tags and error_reporting(0)!</comment></comment>


Greengar, The Mobile Whiteboard, is trending on AngelList - <AUTHOR> https://angel.co/

<comment><USER2> Cool.</comment>


This Is Your Brain on Silence - <AUTHOR> http://m.nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/this-is-your-brain-on-silence

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206982](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206982)</comment>


The Command Line - The Best Newbie Interface? - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/print/6282/The_Command_Line_-_The_Best_Newbie_Interface_ <comment><USER2> I found this piece very interesting. The main advantage of the CLI seems to be the fact that it _only shows the user information relevant to what is currently going on_. This makes it far less intimidating to new users than a multi-process windowing operating system where the screen can have hundreds of buttons on it at one time.

I myself have experienced this problem when teaching new users: people who haven't grokked the basic logic of GUIs find it extraordinarily difficult to infer what to do next in a particular situation. And all of us who design GUIs _have_ grokked this, so we can't help the people who haven't.

<comment><USER3> >> The main advantage of the CLI seems to be the fact that it only shows the user information relevant to what is currently going on.

Really? When I open bash it doesn't show me anything. When I am trying to muddle through a grep it gives me 0 feedback. Unlike say Regex buddy that gives quite a bit of feedback. GUIs may have the problem of overwhelming the new user with too much feedback but the CLI suffers from too little feedback. It is much easier to simplify the GUI than it is to beef up the command line.

<comment><USER4> Many CLI programs are written to be used _by other CLI programs_ , which is considerably more difficult when the the primary interface to the program is a GUI. If you keep the interface simple and textual, though, you can still write a GUI wrapper.

<comment><USER3> Too true, RegEx Buddy certainly helps me with regex's but it doesn't help me get them into any other app where I actually use regexs. To me GUIs are REPL while CLI is compile and wait. CLI is much faster(especially if you know what you are doing) at the end of the day but when I don't have a clue as to what I am doing(most of the time) large buttons that say try this and try that allow for experimentation with immediate feedback,with the caveat that it doesn't lend itself to integration.

<comment><USER4> First off, a REPL _IS_ a CLI.

I think that we're talking past each other - I'm talking about expressiveness (once you know the system, you can easily ask the right questions and get rapid, informative feedback), while you're talking about discoverable interfaces (if you've never used it before, can you figure it out?). There's a certain point past which having a discoverable interface is overrated. Complaining about a system advanced as (say) AutoCAD not being intuitive is a bit silly, IMHO.

<comment><USER3> >>First off, a REPL IS a CLI.

drscheme, allegro lisp,squeak,dolphin smalltalk,idle. Most of the REPLs I use aren't CLI and are the better for it. I certainly don't see this as a discoverable vs expressive debate. It is expressive(the app) vs expressive(the user) debate. A GUI allows the App to be more expressive. CLI has only one way of expressing anything to the user, slabs of text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think one of the major things that the CLI has in its favor is the ease with which an experienced user can guide a new user. The experienced user only needs to the tell the new user what to type, and when to hit enter, which can easily be accoplished via phone, email, IM, etc.

Navigating a GUI over the phone is a skill that few possess.

<comment><USER6> Also easier to search for.

Recently I had to perform a very simple image manipulation: given two images, I wanted to use the second one (which was all grayscale) as the alpha channel for the first one. I spent quite some time googling for things like [gimp alpha channel] and reading various tutorials, which were very nice with screenshots etc. and still I couldn't really replicate the process. Then in a flash of genius I replaced "gimp" with "imagemagick" in my query. The first page Google took me to contained a command line which I copy-pasted and it did exactly what I needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are some points in the article about how a CLI is very focused, it does one thing, and only exactly what you tell it to do, which can be nice for overcoming some sort of fear of breaking stuff and losing control.

However, research has shown again and again that GUIs are better at most tasks, but not all. One obvious example would be photo handling or sorting, I'd rather do that sort of thing in Picasa where I can see and drag and drop, than through the command-line where I'd have to move the images by remembering their filenames.

As always, what the "best" interface for something is depends enormously on what tasks you want to perform. If the task is simply to overcome your fear and having the computer do something, anything, then sure, a CLI might be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER8> I especially like what he says about manpages - the FSF trying to phase out manpages in favor of its proprietary texinfo system has been a real pain. (I hesitated to use "proprietary" here because of its open-source-world use as the opposite to free, but no other word actually fits as well).

<comment><USER9> In partial defense of Texinfo, manpages are terrible at the kind of documents the FSF is trying to write with Texinfo. (man zshall, for example, is spastically organized and tries to be reference and tutorial at once, which doesn't work well). But you do need the man pages as well for quick reference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is great. I almost avoided reading this because I thought it was going to be something along the lines of "everyone should really understand how computers work and using CLI allows people to understanding arguments, etc..." instead of "CLI is actually more similar to the way people think in many ways."

Also, there is an interesting point here. Its not that graphics are bad, but that the CLI is a better starting point. This means (I think) that people should be happy pulling up GUIs from the command line. E.g. it might be easier to type

vlc "My_Birthday_Part.avi"

then opening vlc from the desktop and searching around for the file. If you think about its, not even very intuitive that you click "File --> Open" since most people _don't think of the movie as a file._ It's only a file in our (sorta wacky) jargon. <edit>Also, I don't want to "file an open" I want to "open a file."</edit>

Finally, this might lead to a better UI design. Something graphical but sequential could be good for many people.

Just random thoughts inspired by the article.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's a working link:

<http://www.osnews.com/story/6282></comment>


Tesla laid off my disabled veteran husband then cancelled his sign on bonus - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/_kariedaway_/status/1086913043932446721 <comment><USER2> It's possible her husband got railroaded, however it's also possible he did not. Impossible to tell from this tweetstorm.

First, being a disabled veteran does not preclude you from being laid off.

And as many others in this thread have pointed out, the "sign on bonus" she appears to reference apparently vests over 4 years, which is not that uncommon.

She says:

> "We're shattered. Devasted. And fucking broke. @Tesla, shame on you. I know > lay offs are a part of life, but you really took the low road and kicked > your loyal employee in the balls when he was down."

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial situation of the employee? Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation?

Look -- this is not a judgment on her, her husband, or their family. Maybe what happened to this couple is a complete travesty, maybe Tesla is some horrible evil mega-corporation and they should feel ashamed over the situation.

However it's also possible her husband was in a department that was no longer needed or maybe even he underperformed his colleagues -- there's no way of knowing from this tweetstorm.

What I dislike is this presumption on HN that just because someone tweeted out his/her spouse got laid off by a tech giant that it's automatically some immediate miscarriage of justice.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. There's no way of knowing from the evidence in front of us. I wish the mods of HN were more judicious in accepting these kind of one-sided screeds.

<comment><USER3> > _Just to play Devil 's Advocate for a minute, what if companies were > prevented from firing or laying off employees because of the financial > situation of the employee? Should the company be forced to keep paying > redundant employees as some form of social justice or obligation?_

Sure, why not?

This is common practice in lots of pretty successful and pleasant countries. It's also common practice in systems like academic tenure. It's got its downsides, but so does at-will employment.

The primary reason I can think of to not do it is that it makes life tough for small employers like startups, who simply may not have the resources to pay out people for an extended termination period. So have it kick in once you hire N employees or make more than $M in revenue. (We do the same with plenty of other protections with social justice overtones, like anti-discrimination / anti-harassment laws.) Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance continue.

<comment><USER2> > Once you're Tesla-sized, though, you can afford to give people months of pay > when laying them off, either as notice or as severance, giving them time to > interview for another job and letting benefits like health insurance > continue.

Wait, how did you make that determination?

In Musk's most recent letter to employees he said Tesla made a 4% profit in Q3 2018 and the forecast was lower for Q4 -- you think companies should be obligated to pay for employees they don't want or need? Just because they're a big a company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee?

I don't understand this POV at all, can you explain?

<comment><USER3> Yes, I think that companies should be obligated to pay for employees that they thought they wanted or needed and then changed their minds, just because they're a big company and it'd be inconvenient for the employee. I don't believe they need to be obligated to pay indefinitely, but I do believe that they need to pay some generous severance period.

I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws?

I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year. That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to participate in the market. Is this POV comprehensible to you?

In that same letter, Musk wrote, "we grew by 30% last year, which is more than we can support". I think that it is good for society and good for people and good for companies and good for investors for companies to be careful and intentional about hiring.

<comment><USER4> > My apartment is on a yearly lease, and either party needs to give about two > months' notice if we want to not renew the lease for another year.

But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law without needing anything separate?

And sometimes you don't want that, e.g. you may have to stay in a hotel for an indeterminate period of time because your house was damaged by a storm, but still want be able to check out whenever you want instead of having to give two months notice.

> That seems like a good thing, and rents are sky-high in my area and the > market is very vibrant, so it's clearly not making landlords unwilling to > participate in the market.

Rents being sky-high actually _is_ a sign that landlords are unwilling to participate in the market, but it's more likely caused by restrictive zoning (causing _new construction_ to be unwilling/unable to participate in the market) than some kind of lease requirements that may or may not exist there.

<comment><USER5> > But then how is the problem not already being solved through contract law > without needing anything separate?

Contract law only really works for two people in similar bargaining positions. Good luck to you if you have poor credit history or are barely making ends meet and have to rent from whoever will take you.

If that's the only protection, then it's precisely the people who can't afford to be kicked out suddenly who won't have protection against it.

<comment><USER4> Contract law works for everybody. People in a better bargaining position get a better deal, but the contract didn't create their bargaining position.

There are two lease contracts the landlord can offer you. One has a lower rent but allows them to evict you at any time without notice, the other has a higher rent and gives you two months notice. You can pass a law against the first one, but then you're left with the second one. And then the person barely making ends meat has to pay more in rent.

<comment><USER3> I would like law to fix their bargaining positions, because I think that's a place that law is capable of working effectively and that it would be good for society for it to do so. I am not personally a believer that the law should treat the status quo as something sacred / "fair" and avoid interfering unless necessary.

<comment><USER4> > I would like law to fix their bargaining positions, because I think that's a > place that law is capable of working effectively and that it would be good > for society for it to do so.

There are ways to do that, but some of them are better than others. For example, institute a UBI and the person barely making ends meat will be doing better and be able to afford the lease with the notice.

In general, the policies that work are the ones that don't try to micromanage anything or prohibit anything. If people are choosing something, assume it's not because they're idiots. Give them more choices, not fewer.

For example, a great way to help the poor is to have tuition-free community colleges, or encourage anything that lowers housing prices. But we don't really have that. Instead we subsidize student loan interest and mortgage interest, because that's more profitable to the banks who lobbied for it and the for-profit colleges and existing landowners it allows to inflate prices into the sky.

The problem with programs to help the poor is that the ones that actually do are expensive and don't pass, while the ones that pass will claim to but really do something else that most of the time makes things worse, completely by design from the perspective of the people who proposed it because they profit from it.

Better to have a UBI than subsidized loan interest, but better to have _nothing_ than subsidized loan interest. Many "solutions" produce negative progress.

<comment><USER6> Instituting an UBI will only make rents more expensive and above the UBI level. It happened with government guaranteed housing credit in certain EU countries. The credit upper threshold was max 60k euros, so good luck finding cheaper options because everything starts at 60k now, even old apartments. If the gov't screws too much with the economy, it will screw people back.

<comment><USER4> That's because it's a housing credit instead of a UBI. If you give people money they can only use for housing, they use it for housing and the price of housing increases relative to the price of everything else (including wages).

If you give them money they can use for anything, it doesn't increase the real cost of anything in particular, it only reduces the relative disparity between the rich and the poor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Somehow the jobs which you want to do the most in tech screw you the hardest.

Like if you do back-end database boring stuff of moving data around at random Enterprise X, then you can charge through the roof because they know that the only reason you are doing this job is for the paycheck.

But if you are working on video games/Tesla/Other cool stuff and obviously passionate about the mission, you get screwed on compensation and if things go wrong, treated inhumanely.

Also, why treat people like shit when they get laid off. Can't just manager meet with the person and say, hey our division got cut, I am sorry it turned out that way, happy to help out with the job search.

<comment><USER8> This is not just tech, it's life. Ever wonder why your plumber takes 2 weeks and $150/hr to summon, but aspiring actors are on every corner parsing your 12-word coffee order for a thin fiver?

Macroeconomics is all around. :)

<comment><USER9> The key to understanding this is to understand, that aspiring to work in lottery'ish professions pays less than, predictable well established career paths.

There are only going be a dozen Tom Hanks and Chritian Bale in a country at any given time. If that is what you want to be you are going to have to settle for something way way lesser than even the normal after a few years, because you have no real skills, domain knowledge or experience compared to even the most ordinary of jobs out there.

I think you are likely to live a good life if you understand that normal is how most millionaires are made. Also don't run behind points. YouTube likes, Instagram likes etc etc. Don't use imaginary internet proxy points to measure your value, worth, or the value/worth of your work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ex-Tesla employee here. I'm not going to comment on any of the statements because I know nothing of it, but I wanted to give one angle to the "performance bonus not paid out":

Like most employers, Tesla gives out a mix of raises, bonuses and equity renewals at times based on reviews/merit/etc. Some of them, like equity, vest over 4 years.

That's normal, etc. But, Tesla is the only employer I know of where you had an option to pick stock, options, or _cash_ , as the vesting entity. Cash wasn't always offered, but I know it to have been an option at least once.

I don't know if that's what happened here, but it might be part of why someone thought of it as "earned bonus with delayed payout" when in reality it might not have been. I can't tell, but I wanted to mention the possibility.

<comment><USER11> > Some of them, like equity, vest over 4 years. That's normal, etc.

It is absolutely not normal to have raises and bonuses "vest over four years". I've never encountered that or heard of that at any company at all. The only reasonable way to describe that would be "highly abnormal", not normal.

<comment><USER10> I said that there was an option to get retention grant as stock, options or cash (usually just the two former but at least once all three were available). Nothing about raises or bonuses being over 4 years.

I actually can't remember getting any bonuses, just salary adjustments and retention/equity refresh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd argue for paying at least pro-rata signing bonus in the event of a not- for-cause termination like a layoff. Probably for letting the employee keep the entire signing bonus in this case. (More likely yes if it's a lower level employee, less likely if it's a very senior executive and a larger amount, but those are more often in equity or explicitly to make up for lost options in a previous company.)

Otherwise, yes, termination and NDA/non-disparagement are fine. She has every right to be upset, but isn't really helping her case with irrelevant details. DV status is irrelevant to civilian employer.

Performance bonus would depend on the terms. Was it a 2018 bonus for work in 2018, with a payout date in 2019? In that case, if terminated for cause (or quit), sure, don't pay, but they should pay for a layoff. Again, above the legal requirement, so making it conditional on NDA/nondisparagement is fine.

<comment><USER13> > More likely yes if it's a lower level employee, less likely if it's a very > senior executive and a larger amount, but those are more often in equity or > explicitly to make up for lost options in a previous company.

The thing is, the higher level employees are the ones most likely to have brought in a lawyer to review their employment agreement and to have negotiated explicitly for getting a clause for this type of payout if they are let go. These are often referred to as a golden parachute or golden handshake...

Basically, fire someone near the top, whose mismanagement is likely responsible for problems, you have to pay out the nose; fire a low level employee, you pay next to nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> But what's her actual point? They're not allowed to fire disabled veterans? You get to keep receiving bonuses after firing?

"A signing bonus or sign-on bonus is a sum of money paid to a new employee by a company as an incentive to join that company.

To encourage employees to stay at the organization, there are often clauses in the contract whereby if the employee quits before a specified period, they must return the signing bonus."

<comment><USER15> Did you even read what she wrote ?

She has a list of grievances not just the signing bonus. I think if Tesla had shown her husband a bit more respect she likely wouldn't have posted it.

Giving someone 0-day notice and physically escorting them out of the company is simply unacceptable.

<comment><USER16> Unacceptable how? They had no responsibility to do otherwise. They no longer wanted the employee so he was removed immediately. Are they supposed to give him notice even when he has no value to them?

<comment><USER17> It's unacceptable on the level of treating people with appropriate acknowledgement of the inherent fuzziness of society- employees need time to get hired elsewhere, and employers need time to find a replacement- thus it is courteous to give notice on both sides of the relationship. By not acknowledging this fuzziness of human society, one is also giving the message that people will not be treated with what is the standard understanding of human dignity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It sounds like the sign on bonus she's referring to vests over 4 years. Unless I'm mistaken, this is an initial stock grant and you only get the full amount if you stay with the company for 4 years.

<comment><USER19> It always bothered me when people who wanted me to join their startup were bothered by me not wanting wait for something to vest that long. So you mean to tell me I can do all the work you need me to do right now, and then just get rid of me before it vests and I don't get it?

I really think there should be 2 different vesting terms \- 1 in case I quit (can be longer term in this case) \- and another in case I get fired (shorter vesting period IMO). Call it early termination.

<comment><USER20> So now everyone who wants to leave the company will be a negative force, hoping to be fired. Not such a great idea.

Vesting is fine as a concept. Just understand that whatever dollar amount to they're telling you is something you have the chance to earn over a period of time. It's not a bonus.

<comment><USER21> Then vest over a reasonable period of time, like weekly or monthly, and not annually?

<comment><USER20> That seems reasonable. But from my understanding the complaint was that someone was promised $x over four years and then let go after two years, and lost $x/2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Side points;

\- Justified or not his wife might be jeopardising her husbands future employment with her tweets. Any new employer has to consider what if I have to fire him again for whatever reason. You're risking angry wife dragging you/company through the media. No-one wants that regardless of being in the right or not.

\- She says 'I'm not covered by NDA' and brings up information about about pay/benefits etc. She might be creating an issue here if Tesla wants to push back. It pretty obvious he husband told her those things so while its normal to discuss with your wife, is that an NDA breach on his behalf?

I think this is a good lesson in biting your tongue and focusing on the end game. Howl at the moon but not social media. She can't possibly think this rant will help him keep his job, get a better payout or get a new job.

<comment><USER23> Maybe she thinks that she can cause Tesla a PR event. If she can, she may well get what she's after (an apology? the 2018 bonus? the rest of the as-yet- unvested sign-on bonus?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's pretty crazy to see rationalizations here for reversing the signing bonus and annual bonus.

I can't in good faith ever do that to a high-performing employee I'm making redundant.

<comment><USER25> > I can't in good faith ever do that to a high-performing employee I'm making > redundant.

How virtuous of you. What about a mediocre performing one?

<comment><USER26> A mediocre performing employee shouldn't be getting an annual bonus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > They took his laptop 10 minutes after he found out and he couldn't save his > personal files.

I have a hard time understanding why people put personal files on a company laptop, much less ones that you don't also have stored elsewhere. This is what you should expect to happen.

</comment><comment><USER28> Disabled veterans should be given generous benefits. These benefits are owed to them by the government for the services they provided to the government. Private companies have no responsibility for this.

<comment><USER16> And from the government they should get exactly what they signed a contract for. Nothing more or less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Tesla seems to be working very hard to cultivate a really poor reputation.

They could find it more difficult to hire in the future. Maybe that doesn't matter for assembly jobs but software engineers don't grow on trees.

<comment><USER30> The context of the layoffs should have every tesla employee and owner worried. As the spring debt comes due, without more investors or more profitability, the company is very likely to change.

Also consider that gm, Ford, fiat aren't in a market or cash position to consolidate. The best hopes for Tesla may be Toyota, VW, or Aapl right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think companies should be allowed to lay-off people. The lay-off process should be fair. A few months of salary to sustain, paid off bonuses due, RSUs about to be vested etc. Don't cancel perf bonus or RSU vesting by laying off people a week before they are due. That is just straight up evil.

</comment><comment><USER32> >Should the company be forced to keep paying redundant >employees as some form of social justice or obligation?

Well that is an American point of view where companies are there for shareholders profits only.

Fortunately here and elsewhere in the world we have good laws in place where a company needs to notify an affected employee or section of an impending layoff so that you have at least time to find alternative employment.

We also get one week of pay for each year worked as part of your redundancy.

</comment><comment><USER33> People get laid off all the time. Business is not hostage to your performance.

In the end we all are just numbers of the XL sheet. Treat your company just like one.

All the talk about mission reeks of naivety. Seriously, I can understand the emotional outburst but it is unnecessary.

</comment><comment><USER34> The last bit about having to sign an NDA sounds very legally questionable.

<comment><USER35> If he got no consideration for it, he's not bound by it. Never sign anything when you're being fired unless they offer you money and in that case ask for much more than they open with.

<comment><USER36> > ...and in that case ask for much more than they open with.

Have you (or anyone reading this) done that? What was the result?

<comment><USER37> What's the downside? If someone is fired giving the company _anything_ for free is throwing money away.

I had a boss at a startup let me know I was being let go with two weeks notice. I immediately asked for $20k or else I would walk out without helping anyone transition.

He gave me the $20k (1/5th of my salary!!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's sad, though, how we need to build a lot more housing so the rent is not in the stratosphere for everyone. We don't need a green new deal, we need a housing Manhattan project.

<comment><USER39> How? You can't build too densely in an earthquake zone. And you can't move because the thing that makes Silicon Valley special is that CA's constitution makes non compete clauses null and void so that venture capitalists and startups can form with little worry of being sued by the companies that they are trying to disrupt. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- compete_clause#California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- compete_clause#California)

<comment><USER40> >You can't build too densely in an earthquake zone.

And yet Tokyo exists.

<comment><USER41> And Mexico City

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> hindsight is 20/20 but:

\- believing in Elon Musk \- having 0 savings and wanting to immediately spend any theoretical savings \- wanting to live in NYC and then SF despite no savings \- having a child despite the above 2 \- apparently not reading an employment contract before signing it \- venting on twitter in the hopes that hashtag-shaming of Musk will achieve anything

</comment><comment><USER43> This twitter account has all the classic signs of troll/bot. Wonder how it made it to hacker news.

After years of read-only mode, having to create a new account to bring this to people's attention. Please check the Twitter timeline for yourself before jumping to conclusions. I hate Tesla as much as the next guy, but this story needs to be checked out before upvoting.

</comment><comment><USER44> Just to clear up a specific point that I see a lot of people getting wrong here about the bonus stuff. I can at least say for the performance bonus it seems weird but thats how it works. Even though its money to reward your performance in "the past" so you've effectively "earned it", if you quit like I did or get fired apparenty if it hasn't hit the date that it gets paid to you yet you don't get it. I think most people get surprised by this fact but since that specific situation is fairly rare I don't think theres much effort to change the policy. I don't even know what the policy really is, but just wanted to say that part at least of losing the entire performance bonus happened to me. But since I quit I think it's more reasonable to lose it, that's pretty lame to lose it when you're fired since I had the time to factor that into my decision making knowing I would lose it where when you are fired and blindsided like that you are effectively losing a lot of money that you had already accounted for. I know corporations aren't really dictated by emotion, but man it sure seems like there's a lot of "bad luck" all at once here... that is really unfortunate. Maybe some rules could be changed to prevent certain things overlapping up like this. Getting fired is one thing, but getting fired and losing money you had already accounted for and technically "earned" is definitely putting you in an even harder spot. Really wish him the best. Also this isnt like tesla is going out of their way to screw this guy, these are just standard industry practices, but hearing situations like these definitely makes you wonder if they should be.

Also just to clear up some lingo for people that I still see people getting wrong:

Signing bonus Cash sum you "recieve" for accepting the job.

Performance bonus Cash sum you recieve several months after you're latest performance review based on your "rating" for that half or year.

Equity (RSU) is seperate from both of these things but you can receive them in both situations. They then follow a vesting schedule that when you leave before the various vest dates its obvious that you wont receive the compensation.

</comment><comment><USER11> The lady needs to consult with a labor attorney as soon as possible. They should not sign anything until after that meeting.

</comment><comment><USER45> Theres a very good chance Tesla got a large tax break for hiring vets. This has been true for a while. They could be trying to abuse this be having a rolling hiring of vets. But anybody saying that Tesla owes nothing doesn't realize that there are employee protections out there.

</comment><comment><USER46> It is not very surprising when companies behave this way. They act in their own interest which oftentimes aligns with employee interests, but not always. I'm pretty sure the only way to guarantee more ethical behavior is to regulate it.

<comment><USER47> Unfortunately I don't believe regulation would work in this case. Not because it wouldn't be effective, but because it wouldn't happen. People tend to wonder why e.g. Nordic unions are so strong. It is because they have real power. They have organizations, newspapers, building, cash and everything else that you need. The prime minister of Sweden was even recruited directly from being the head of a union, because of that unions long standing relationship with the party.

This is why I always smirk a little bit when Americans speak out against unions like they actually would have a choice to form a an organization that would take power from the corporations and politicians.

Eh, I don't know what my point was. I guess I wouldn't expect a solution anytime soon because it is a power issue.

<comment><USER48> But this is also why Silicon Valley didn't happen in Norway.

<comment><USER47> No, it isn't. SV didn't happen anywhere in Europe, very likely because of WWII. Norway is mostly concerned about oil these days, but Sweden have been doing very well in tech for its size. Second most unicorn per capita in the world after SV is what people like to say.

<comment><USER49> Not even close. It's all down to culture and where their priorities lie.

If WWII is any indication, the Germans would be very good at developing new tech. (They did it during the war)

I believe that the reason why Europe has not had a good chance at a SV:

1\. They don't rely on credit for the most part. Using Debit/EC cards are more previlent.

2\. High taxes and cheap sources of labor: Most tech is outsourced to Eastern Europe. There is some seriously good talent there, but there's a heck of a lot that isn't great. The treatement of talent is used as a cheap cog in the machine. Hard to hire the best talent when the wages are at a particular level.

3\. Strong labor unions and policies: Germany requires companies over a particular size to have representation from the labor force on the board. (This has created the wackamole in companies splitting off)

4\. The regulations and monopolies are pretty strong in Europe: it's hard to compete and overthrow say sap or mediamarkt. (Although those are prime for a disruption).

5\. Companies play fast and loose there. Due to strong workers rights, they're still playing tricks to prevent people from being full time. (Contractors, probation periods, etc)

<comment><USER26> You're making an argument about why Silicon Valley isn't in Europe based on your understanding of Europe today, when Silicon Valley isn't emerging in California today, it emerged in 1970.

Let's take Intel as an example: Intel was founded in 1968 by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Why do you think there's no European equivalent of those two people? Very possibly because Herr Moore and Monsieur Noyce would have died in WW2 or fled to America. If they had survived and started up a semi-conductor company they would've quickly found themselves unable to compete with the American companies who had the advantage of a massive military budget to win contracts and engineers from.

Your point also don't address the situation in which SV emerged in the US. High taxes? Denmark has 22% corp tax and 52% income tax. Income tax when silicon valley emerged was over 70%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is a bit of a tangent but what is with people posting long-form stories on Twitter, a platform whose defining feature is you say what you have to say in 140 characters? Just blog it somewhere and post a link!

</comment><comment><USER51> Has anyone ever alleged that Tesla or SpaceX treat their employees in some out-of-the-ordinary admirable way?

Wondering what the outrage is going to be when cash rich FAANGs start acting like the rest of Fortune 495.

</comment><comment><USER52> All irrelevant. The firing was nothing personal. Tesla needs to stay alive. These people can either all suffer minority now, or whole company suffer later.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is why you pay the bonuses and pay the severance and pay the health insurance for 6 months. That way you don't act like an asshole.

</comment><comment><USER54> The (new) American dream is a rnd() function

<comment><USER55> That'd be an improvement for many people compared to the status quo.

<comment><USER54> Maybe. I feel that "calculated risk" is no risk at all.

Blindly taking chances "just do it" fashion with no clue about possible consequences it's not very smart, especially since most decisions affect someone else negatively.

There's randomness in life, no doubt about it.

We can account for it: plan B, realist optimism, etc...

But "hoping" that it will all happen just because of sheer luck... I don't think it's smart.

For instance, I think this is what happened to FYRE ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyre_Festival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyre_Festival)), there's a great documentary on Netflix. I cringed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Let's not allow tweetstorms about personal drama on HN.

What's the point of policing the comments with an iron fist if the links are a free-for-all!? It's such a weird dichotomy to be hellbanning people for being snarky while every day the front page is filled with flame bait.

</comment><comment><USER56> cancelling the bonus is evil. Tesla, shame on you !!! I am not gonna buy your cars.

</comment><comment><USER57> Her story is heartbreaking, and reminds me that once a company is "done with you" they don't care about you anymore regardless of what kind of employee you were. Never expect a company to do right by you. Always act in your own best interests, even if those are not in alignment with the company. If working in the Bay Area has taught me anything, is you always need to be planning your next move. There is no such thing as job security in our present economy. Working at a large company is often times even more dangerous than a small one or startup because decisions like this which are made far away from your own sphere of influence. Companies are like sociopaths: they have no capacity for empathy, and if any does exist, it's likely been legislated into them, taken from them by force or by public shame.

If there are any companies left that actually do treat their employees like anything more than disposable assets, it's only a matter of time before they are "disrupted" by one that is willing to do whatever it takes. Capitalism is a perverse force that cares only for efficiency, not for human lives.

</comment><comment><USER58> > We are barely making ends meet.

Wow. This is people working at high tech companies in bay area. Why are they being paid subsistence salaries. Too many people flooding into bay area? Why are ppl accepting such low salaries.

So strange to me as an outsider. Whats the end game, just tough it out for a few yrs and build your resume and then get out?

<comment><USER47> A lot of people are not having a good time in the US. Every once in a while that shines through. Like in this article where Ford (the company) is commenting on hiring:

"The company said it takes about two weeks to collect enough résumés from state employment agencies, minority and veterans groups and employee referrals. Then each job candidate must pass a basic reading comprehension and problem-solving test. That preliminary screening takes at least a week, likely longer, Ford said. Those who pass the written test must then be cleared by a doctor for physical activity and pass a drug test. To get 400 drug-free employees, Ford said it probably has to test 600 or 700 job candidates, a process that takes another two weeks."

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2018/05/01/no- way-t...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2018/05/01/no-way-to-run-a- factory-teslas-hiring-binge-is-a-sign-of-trouble-not-progress/)</comment></comment>