Where I am in Colorado gyms reopened. No one inside wearing masks & even though they had reserved times it didn't seem like they limited the number of people at all. I imagine people are now "wearing" masks but actually subtly skirting the state mandate. Decided to stop going to the gym because of it & am now building a home gym instead.
The mask mandate for gyms in Ontario is…odd. You apparently don’t need to wear a mask while actively exercising; you just have to wear it while walking around and in the locker room.
> None of our stockholders are party to any contractual lock-up agreement or other contractual restrictions on transfer. Following our listing, sales of substantial amounts of our Class A common stock in the public markets or the perception that sales might occur, could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.
It's hard to reason about wealth inequality because it is so massively, massively skewed right as a distribution. I don't think humans are very good at reasoning about distributions that are not normally distributed.
For example, the world's eight richest people have the same wealth as the poorest 50%.
We used to like it especially when management referred to their employees as "resources" .. you know.. "we have 5 resources devoted to this". So we started referring to ourselves as meat bags. "We have 5 meat bags on this project."
In my mind the only reason to work crazy hours is when you find product market fit: the ball is rolling down the hill and you're chasing it. That is supposed to be what it feels like. Customers are breaking down the door because they want your product and you're fighting to keep up with demand. And yes the "best" teams work crazy hours because they already have product market fit.
I've worked at a startup that very clearly had product market fit and one that very clearly didn't. In the former example the early employees worked a ton to scale the product and keep up with demand. In the latter example, the founders felt they needed to work nonstop in the mindset that hard work for the sake of hard work would produce product market fit. I think it resulted in a lot of thrashing. They kept focusing on minutiae in the product when probably taking a step back, letting things simmer, and evaluating from a higher level would have been really beneficial.
I think successful product development requires a lot of creativity, and you don't get creativity by sitting in a seat for 16 hours a day because that's what your investors tell you their best teams do...
- The pre-sale, which is like the early-bird sale for tickets, will be moved until after the directed group sale, which is for burners who are "key contributors to Black Rock City (theme and mutant vehicle camps, art collectives, and core teams)."
- That directed group sale is also growing by 10 percent more tickets in an attempt to boost "meaningful participation."
- The application-based Low Income Ticket Program will grow by 18 percent.
- The organization is also reducing the number of high-priced tickets available by 30 percent: "Higher-priced tickets will now be limited to 2 per person instead of 4 per high-priced tier, and buyers in what was formerly the “Pre-Sale” will no longer be able to participate in subsequent public sales," Goodell wrote.
- The limited sale will also be eliminated this year, which for the past two years allowed burners to purchase $1,200 tickets into July, according to the post.
It's interesting to me because most people who get tickets via the directed group sale contribute very little to the event beyond the camp dues they pay. Most full theme camps are planned and run by just a few people. I really think they should increase main sale tickets rather than directed group sale. Prioritize people who really are radically self-reliant and still want to contribute and aren't just paying dues to a camp and using their infrastructure.
Of course everyone will complain about the tickets no matter what they do though. Cool they are trying to improve.
Yes most full theme camps are planned and run by a few people, but they're generally inclined to only give tickets to those who are actively helping with the camp (and its the public sale people who tend to come in and contribute less). Having camp dues alone is a pretty solid indication that its enabling commoditization.
I think the split between "contributing" and "not contributing" is veiling a less glamorous, but possibly more pragmatic battle: new vs. old.
If they can ensure that more tickets are going to well-established camps that have been around for a long time, you'll be more likely to give tickets to people in the "right" social circles.
And that's probably an effective thing to do to maintain the social fabric. I don't think the community is getting angry about a camp's tent getting setup by 5 out of its 40 members; that's always been the norm.
I think that's a bit cynical, and the fact that certain established camps are getting kicked out for misbehaviour (as per the article), and some of the bigger MV camps are getting reduced in size seems to indicate that just being "grandfathered in" is not enough. Overall this is a very hard problem with no easy solutions. I personally think the changes described in the article are likely to help with some of the issues the community has been growing concerned with.
(and, as you say, if one of the side effects is that the camps that have have been part of the culture for a long time remain able to exist and contribute, that is a good thing for the social fabric).
Camp dues cover the costs of the camp. Such as water and food, transporting said water and food, shelter, etc... You share those costs because you share the resources and also there is the benefit of economy of scale and less redundant effort per person. Honestly not sure how that demonstrates commoditization.
It's because the principles of Burning Man are inherently in contention with each other and equally unachievable. People who harp on the principles generally grossly violate them to some degree. It's a big party in the desert alongside the largest installation art festival in the world. If you think it's more than that, lay off the acid.
Thats an incredibly reductive way to think about it that comes from a really cynical position - I feel bad for you that thats how you think about it. Its opened a lot of different worlds of thought to me.
I'm really glad you enjoy acid and other psychedelics. I'm glad that you have the privilege to do that at Burning Man. I also enjoy both of those things.
If you've done any real volunteering with the org, you'd understand that it is a purely capitalistic endeavor that preys on people who think it's more than what it is. Realizing this has given me lots of opportunity to do great things with great people.
All ideals are contradictory and unachievable, but the tension they create motivates action, which can lead to interesting forms of change.
There are as many stories as there are participants. Yours is one kind of story that some people have. There are other people, who have been participating in Burning Man for years, for whom the party and the art are nothing more than useful motivating excuses for going to Black Rock City. Some of them might say that the event is a laboratory for experiments in forms of social organization and activity which contrast with those most commonly seen in the "default world". All of these stories are true at once.
If there was no party and no art, there would be no Black Rock City. If there wasn't a faceless capitalist organization running the party, there would be no Black Rock City. I don't disagree that your story happens, it happens to me, but let's get real: It's for rich white people, just like all psychedelic movements of modern civilization. Acceptance of my privilege has enabled me to grow in ways that you couldn't imagine, although I do feel complex emotions for people who think it's more than what it is, but at the end of the day I don't think they have much to offer to the world or the burning man experience, and their zealous attitude that they are [insert your greater power]'s gift to earth is juvenile.
Agreed. Shared Resources covered by the cost of dues are directly related to the principles of Communal Effort (cooperation and collaboration on efficiently allocating and deploying resources as a collective effort) and Civic Responsibility through more environmental and public friendly use of resources.
The point is definitely to share costs and resources, but my thinking is converging your camp experience behind a paywall is a bit of a commoditization thing. Its one way to ensure equal financing of the costs, but in the places I've camped its been a lot more "we want you here, please provide what you can". Unless of course, everyone is on equal economic footing in which case... mayybe a less homogenous group would be of a benefit?
What kind of due diligence is required? Isn't the concern here mostly how the stock should be priced?
And why then are private funding rounds so much cheaper to get done? Diligence still has to be done for private funding. Why is more diligence required for an IPO?
It's hard to give a comprehensive answer to your first question since it would require so much background knowledge of valuation. But in short:
> Isn't the concern here mostly how the stock should be priced?
Yes, and this is extremely nontrivial :) There are many competing incentives and metrics to evaluate. Public investors want to buy at a discount relative to future growth. The company wants to get as much money as possible. Investment banks don't want to be associated with fraudulent or poor performing IPOs. They also want to ensure there is sufficient liquidity to make the market move on the new security when it's listed while making everyone happy. And aside from these logistical obstacles, you have the standard financial problem of price discovery and valuation for a security which is fundamentally new.
As for these questions:
> And why then are private funding rounds so much cheaper to get done? Diligence still has to be done for private funding. Why is more diligence required for an IPO?
Private funding involves proportionately greater amounts of money from fewer overall investors. It does not as a rule involve the general investing public. By law public investments must be secure against a number of risks that can be accepted in private investments. You're offering a novel security to a large population of amateur investors who cannot tolerate as much risk as professional investors who either represent institutions or are independently wealthy. Insulating IPOs from that kind of risk requires a lot of due diligence.
Depends on the capital structure of the corporation, the financing deals it has, and the nature of the business it runs.
To simplify quite a bit: You're going to need to make sure the earnings it has aren't juiced, that it owns what it says it does, that it isn't going to violate any agreements it has, and that the people running it aren't questionable.
When we zoom in, recognize that you need actual evidence to move forward - and that's way more expensive than you'd imagine at first glance.
It isn't enough to write "Jim said we own a plot of land with nice trees", either. To unpack that one element of due diligence, you'll need the deed to the land, the land registry document confirming ownership, a report from an arborist attesting to the fact that the trees are of the right quality and type, an accountant's quality of earnings determining the value of the tree-fruit, etc.
The best part is stock options. Not only are you not diversified, now you get to concentrate your portfolio by buying stock in the company that provides your income.
Stock options: for concentrating your income and your investments when you're excited and biased.
Decades of experience has taught me that stock options are essentially wallpaper. Sure, if a company wants to give me options, I'll take them -- but they are in no way a substitute for real compensation, and I won't accept them in lieu of something real.
That said, if a startup is doing something that really turns my gears and I like the company, then I'm absolutely willing to work for less pay in order to be a part of that.
Something I never understood about this attitude ("... then I'm absolutely willing to work for less pay ...") is: why there are almost no examples of such behavior in other highly paid professions, such as physicians or lawyers? Very rarely you'll find physicians saying "I really want to become a brain surgeon, I'll happily take 40% less than my market rate". You'll certainly find physicians doing volunteering, but that's another thing.
In software instead, that's incredibly common: several of my coworkers (late stage private company) are in mostly for the thrill of working on our technology since we operate in some interesting niche, and I know for a fact they are paid much less than me (30%+), even if they have a bigger impact than me on the company (and they are also older, with more experience!).
It's so common that many times employers use it at their advantage, by preferring people that can be sold purely on the tech rather than the tech AND the market rate for the position.
To me, both the financial aspects and the technical challenges must be absolutely satisfied in order to join a company. Maybe I'm too practical because I'm not a trust fund kid and grew up dirt poor, so I know that in my limited ~20y engineering career (assuming ageism) I need to make enough so that I will be able to retire comfortably, while making sure I work on stuff that stimulates me so I can give my very best.
With regards to teachers or photographers, that's not a fair comparison in my opinion: in those cases, low wages are mostly dictated by high supply vs low demand, so from an economic point of view it "makes sense". That's much different than software engineering or medicine, where there is a scarcity of supply (and the only reason why software salaries are in the 6 figures).
In other words, teachers are not willingly giving up a portion of the compensation that they could otherwise be making doing the same job somewhere else. In software instead, that happens ("Oh, you work on FOO v2.0, I'll happily take 40% less than what I could otherwise be making doing this job in another company").
I don't know about public defenders, you might have a point there.
From my perspective it looks like a good amount of teachers decided to give up a portion of the compensation earlier (i.e. they gave up good pay not when they're looking for another job in an industry they're already in, but they decided to give up good pay upon joining the industry).
It's like how artists/writers/game developers/etc. decide to go into their field even though they know that they could be making much more money in any other field.
It's still just supply and demand. Sexier products draw more candidates. The only reason you're taking 40% less to work on something cool is because if you don't, someone else will.
Most people eventually have to decide whether they want to make 150k writing CRUD apps or 90k writing algorithms.
"Less pay" generally entails something that's still reasonably lucrative. One could potentially make 20% more at one or two FAANG companies. Frankly, the big difference is in the RSUs. It's not unusual to see $100k/yr RSUs going to a senior engineer at one of them whereas at a startup, the equity is most likely worth nothing.
Basically, startups are a terrible place to work. I wouldn't recommend them to anybody. However, there are some folks, myself included, that love them.
Tech or IT or whatever you call it tends to happen at a glacial pace in structured organizations. Most IT projects fail. Most folks don't care. They want to come to work, do their thing, potentially excel at their thing, go home at the end of the day, and enjoy their life. At a startup, someone that's eager to contribute can really make a difference. One inspired idea has the potential to really move the needle when it comes to the success of the business.
How about: Doctors Without Borders? Docs who enter general practice in underserved areas rather than metropolitan dermatology? Legal pro bono work, or most prosecutors?
You might have a fair point. I am, however, empirically convinced (but have no data) that the examples you are quoting are a very small portion of their respective professional market population, whereas, always empirically, I'd say that the amount of software professionals who willingly choose to be underpaid purely because of their attraction to some kind of work is much much higher, probably in the 30%+.
Someone doing pediatrics might have been better off skipping med school and being a nurse practitioner, or a taxi programmer. Or when going through it, specializing instead in dermatology. Now imagine your town without any pediatricians and GPs and emergency staff ;-)
Doctors pick specialties and the balance of $, time, stress, location, marvel, and giving back all factor in. Think city dermatologist vs small town pediatrition.
Source: married to an md phd, meaning ~half the potential salary is both forgone and that time is used to be in public labs solving cancer. Hours still stink tho and every day is life and death, so aggrieved programmer discussions of hours, burnout, compensation, and ability to own equity come off sounding similar to how bankers do. Clearly real for those living it, but odd from the outside.
There are a few factors that you are overlooking. A lot of startups (and small companies) aren't on the 'SV Unicorn Track', particularly so for startups focused on 'hard' problems. Energy, biotech, aerospace, etc.. These types of startups often have to cobble together funding from a variety of sources (grants, strategic partnerships/investments, niche VC firms). The pay is lower because it has to be, funding is limited and developing the product (and sometimes just a prototype) can take years, so there is little to no revenue.
Something to consider as well, is that while the salaries might be lower, they are often not that far off from what one would make in their respective industry. So someone working at a biotech startup will probably be making a lot less than a FANNG engineer, but would probably be pretty competitive with their peers in 'BigBiotechCo'.
And the other thing to consider is that engineers, and in particular programmers, tend to be pretty bad negotiators. Its possible that your co-workers would gladly take a 30% raise if they knew they were making that much less. I highly doubt they are 'trust fund kids' (those folks tend to found crappy startups, cause if you are set for life, why would you work for someone else?). And if they are older (as you imply) its also possible they were starting to feel the impacts of ageism in tech, and took a low ball offer as a result. Or perhaps they have saved up enough from previous jobs and just don't care that much if they are maximizing their pay, and are more focused on working on cool things and with non-toxic co-workers!
> A lot of startups (and small companies) aren't on the 'SV Unicorn Track'
Yes. My willingness to work for less pay if the work is interesting enough only applies to those sorts of companies. The stereotypical SV-style business has no appeal to me regardless of what sort of work is involved. Been there, done that, learned my lesson!
The most obvious example is academic research. Many engineers, doctors, lawyers, and economists take massive pay cuts to work in an academic environment.
Plenty of lawyers quit Big Law to work in human rights law or as public defenders because they find the work more meaningful. All lawyers are also required to do pro bono work and different lawyers and some treat it as pro forma but many go above and beyond because they feel the work is important.
Here's the thing -- a job that isn't fun and interesting is a job I can't tolerate regardless of how much it pays. Life is too short to suffer on a daily basis.
But I do have a minimum amount of income that I can tolerate as well. I have to earn enough money to live, after all. How much the minimum is depends on the cost of living in my area.
But does the “enough money to live” include money to cover your future living expenses as well? As I was saying, I plan for a scenario in which I’ll be “forced into obsolescence” in my late 40s due to ageism, and won’t be able to claim any social security benefits due to the massive deficit in federal budget.
Hence, what I really strive to make now is actually 3-5X my cost of living expenses every year, so I can ensure a decent retirement down the road.
Based on that math, I really can't afford the luxury of taking a job that will just cover my yearly expenses. In my case, I really have to go for jobs where swes make $300-400k/yr, and I live pretty frugally myself (I spend 60k/y post tax in the Bay Area). I don’t think it’s safe to assume software engineering is a career that you can keep up until your 60s, unlike teachers for example, so you have to plan for it.
I’ve seen several people actually employ this logic and justify to themselves a 120k software job at a cool Bay Area startup, because it fully covers their living expenses in the Bay, despite not letting them save even one single dollar for retirement. I think that’s very irresponsible though, and they’re in for a sad surprise when they’ll discover in their late 40s that employers don’t consider them as hireable as they once were, and now they have to drive Uber to not become destitute (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s hardly a great outcome).
> But does the “enough money to live” include money to cover your future living expenses as well?
I've covered that through savings over the decades. But, honestly, I don't expect that I'll ever retire anyway.
> I plan for a scenario in which I’ll be “forced into obsolescence” in my late 40s due to ageism
That's not inevitable. I'm in my 50s and am in as much demand as I ever have been. The key (at any age) is that you have to keep your skillset up to date.
Not all companies want experienced people, but companies who strongly prefer younger employees do so because they know they can take advantage of them, and so aren't the sorts of companies I'd be willing to work for anyway.
> In my case, I really have to go for jobs where swes make $300-400k/yr.
Yow! You must live in an area with an insane cost of living! If that were me, I'd move to somewhere more reasonable. Software engineering jobs are everywhere.
If Google or MS give you options, or RSUs, or whatever, they are essentially cash. You'll be able to liquidate them at market price as soon as you vest. So in those companies stock options are a real form of compensation.
For startups whose stock has 0 actual value in a market, then yeah stock options are worth nothing.
Stock Options are just that - an option to buy a share of stock at a future date. They are a bet on a future outcome which contains lots of risk.
Restricted Stock Units are cash. They are new shares issued to you with restrictions on exercising them. Once they vest, there is no value in not selling them immediately. The tax consequences are the same if you hold them, and you gain the value of diversification by selling.
The above should tell you something about the calculation you are espousing. Yes, the very risky asset called stock options is much less likely to hold any future value. The risk implied should also tell you that for a rare good pick with lots of well managed influence to the outcome, you can succeed with fantastic gains where you cannot simply by holding public shares.
YMMV. The only way to win the startup lottery is to work very hard to influence the outcome. I can't think of any other lottery like that.
> The tax consequences are the same if you hold them
The gains that occur after vest-and-release are capital gains. Capital gains for assets held over a year are much lower than ordinary income rates for most people receiving RSUs. (It's still reasonable advice to diversify in the typical case.)
I think I'm either misreading your comment, or there's a misunderstanding here.
When RSUs are issued, they typically appreciate in value due to either an increase in share price or a discount or both.
When the RSUs vest, one of 2 things happens: either the number of shares is reduced by a sum equivalent to pay income taxes, or (more rarely) income taxes are paid by the recipient later at tax time. In either case, the shares didn't exist in the recipient's account before that vesting date.
If the shares are sold, those funds can be used to buy other shares if desired. If they are held, they are just normal shares in that company. In either case, they appreciate as capital gains instead of income, starting with the point in time when they were either purchased or vested whichever the case may be.
When the RSUs vest, what typically happens is both of the things you describe. A number of shares is withheld at vesting and the value sent to the Treasury as an income tax withholding. The following April, you true-up the full tax liability with the full number of shares treated as ordinary income. (The withholding is typically at the supplemental wage rate [22%, used to be 25%], which is frequently not enough to cover the full amount of tax due.)
Your initial comment suggested that you didn't distinguish between the ordinary income and capital gains taxation for the pre and post time periods. It turns out you did understand that distinction, but I didn't glean that from your prior text.
