Makes me wonder: if people were offered a lump sum up front which represented their lifetime take-home pay + fringe for the job they will do for the rest of their life, what would people's number be?
Or another way, a choice of a 10 year contract to do X worth 100k/annual take-home with 1m delivered at start, or an unchanging biweekly paycheck. Would the biweekly need to be higher to make it more attractive than the one-time payment or could it be lower yet still be the favored choice.
>a choice of a 10 year contract to do X worth 100k/annual take-home with 1m delivered at start, or an unchanging biweekly paycheck. Would the biweekly need to be higher to make it more attractive than the one-time payment or could it be lower yet still be the favored choice.
You can only make the up front payment so large before employees start quitting early and moving to Montenegro.
>> I doubt if he’s typical of people working at Craigslist.
> A billion split ten ways is still a decent chunk of pocket change.
The difference being that Newmark has an equity stake of some hypothetical value and the people working there would receive some fixed value per unit of time. If Newmark were to pay each of 10 workers $1B/10 then:
* their paychecks afterward would be much smaller
* their next tax period would be much larger
* someone else would control Craigslist since the equity stake would have been liquidated (probably causing it to be worth less than $1B)
Thus `has != earns`
> quitting early and moving to Montenegro
I'm of the thought that there is only so much leisure a person can take before there is a drive to contribute toward the betterment of humanity. If someone trusted you and you were trustable, would you take a large lump sum and work for work's sake? Would it make a difference if the sum was an equity stake in the work's environment?
> I'm of the thought that there is only so much leisure a person can take before there is a drive to contribute toward the betterment of humanity.
I agree completely.
> If someone trusted you and you were trustable, would you take a large lump sum and work for work's sake? Would it make a difference if the sum was an equity stake in the work's environment?
I wouldn't, if it involved a long-term commitment. It's the long-term commitment that's the issue. It locks you into one thing and eliminates the ability to do something better -- or just different -- later on.
> if people were offered a lump sum up front which represented their lifetime take-home pay + fringe for the job they will do for the rest of their life, what would people's number be?
You literally couldn't pay me enough to be locked into the same job for the rest of my life.
I also wouldn't want to be locked into a 10 year contract.
I'm guessing a lot of people here wouldn't consider it plenty of money.