undefined | Better HN

0 pointskethinov10y ago0 comments

Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.

0 comments

sokoloff10y ago

But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.)

At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic.

kethinovOP10y ago

> But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them.

That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.

sokoloff10y ago

I now understand your point, and I thank you for that. It was escaping me, because I so strongly hold the opposing point of view. Thank you for explaining it.

My view is that with an ESPP policy, Netflix helps align employee incentives with investor (and executive) incentives, and that makes those employees more likely to act as shareholders and take a pro-company mindset. It serves a legitimate purpose and is a hell of a perk, IMO.

Taking that perk away hurts the poor employees more than the rich employees. Rich employees can invest in other stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Granted, the ESPP is an excellent investment vehicle for them so it's not a surprise they take advantage of it, but if you kill the program, you hurt the very people you're trying to help.

2 more replies

mc3210y ago

Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job?

I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for.

oldmanjay10y ago

if the intent of the hiring policy is to get elite employees, then being elitist seems like an excellent plan

manarth10y ago

s/elite/wealthy/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

sokoloff10y ago

At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic.

kethinovOP10y ago

> But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them.

That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.

sokoloff10y ago

I now understand your point, and I thank you for that. It was escaping me, because I so strongly hold the opposing point of view. Thank you for explaining it.

2 more replies

mc3210y ago

Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job?

I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for.

oldmanjay10y ago

if the intent of the hiring policy is to get elite employees, then being elitist seems like an excellent plan

manarth10y ago

s/elite/wealthy/

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse