Hacker News Reader

Comment by fullshark | Hacker News Reader

Golden handcuffs are called handcuffs for a reason.

They're not handcuffs, involuntary servitude is illegal.

'Golden handcuffs' means you care more about your future payout than whatever missbehavior/illegality/immorality you're overlooking.

Also believing that same missbehavior won't cause the contract to be worthless by the time you get to collect.

Someone will reply with the exact citation, but there's the story of that psychologist or economist or jaded physicist who goes to a fancy bougie party, dressed like a million bucks, and goes up to a pretty lady in a fancy ballgown. "Would you sleep with me for a million bucks?"

Intrigued by his presence and directness, the lady raises her eyebrows and says "go on..."

"Would you sleep with me for a hundred bucks?"

"No! Who do you think I am?!"

"I know who you are, we're just engaged in market price-discovery."

------

I don't know if the person you were responding to was intentionally implying Ms. Fowler probably had a unicorn's worth of money on the table for the typical 1-year cliff or was just making a dark commentary about the reality of the industry we work in (internet postings suck for conveying subtleties of language), but I will say I know people who joined/stayed at a place they weren't really happy with because the offer matched or exceeded their BATNA price.

I think we should have that self-reflective commentary about just how much money actually matters in relation to our ideals of "disruption" and "making the world a better place" (would you realistically take a 40k offer to do something truly altruistic after a few years of a SF salary?). Whether that's on-topic here, that's the are-the-downvotes-warranted question here.

I haven't downvoted a single person in this entire conversation.

I have no idea what her compensation package looks like, it doesn't really matter to the point I'm making.

My point was simply this: if you're waiting for your payout, you're keeping your mouth shut by not walking out. If you have some sort of serious ethical disagreement with your employer, you have to weigh how much you care about that to how much you will benefit from your future stock package.

If you say everything they're doing is incredibly evil and they need to be stopped, but you're waiting around for your $12 million payday, we figured out your price.

You can walk away from things with multiple zeros on the end. I've seen people do it. You might end up happier in the end. All depends on the situation.

The name "golden handcuffs" seems to imply that someone doesn't have a choice in the matter. They do. If you find yourself in one of the situations, don't forget that's an option.

I think we agree on everything except

> The name "golden handcuffs" seems to imply that someone doesn't have a choice in the matter.

"Golden handcuffs" to me is a beautiful phrase. It implies a fragile, beautiful piece of jewelry that is only superficially binding. To me, it's a euphemism for a personality test of do you chose ideals or sufficiently-high-enough material comfort.

It was meant to be dark commentary. I don't judge people who subjugate themselves to toxic work environments too harshly. I think they are usually behaving optimally given their livelihood/personal wealth is on the line.

FWIW, I think it was brave of Ms. Fowler to write this (most probably stay silent for fear of retribution).

Fools gold, pretty soon.

This. I would be ashamed to have Uber on my resume for much longer after this story ran, and will think twice when interviewing a candidate who does.

People can have reasons to stay at their current jobs. The author of the article did, even.

Come on... "You're super smart, competent at the job, and are a good fit culturally here. BUT, you worked at Company X 5 years ago, and they did something unethical, so we're not going to hire you!" - said no hiring manager ever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com