Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Businesses Google The Internet

Even the Masseuse is a Multimillionaire at Google 164

PCOL writes "The NY Times is running a story on how stock options that have given an estimated 1,000 employees at Google a net worth of $5 million each affects the culture at Google. Google gives each of its new employees stock options, as well as a smaller number of shares of Google stock, as a recruiting incentive. The average options grant for a "Noogler" (new Google employee) who started a year ago was 685 shares at a price of roughly $475 a share which at last Friday's close would be worth $128,000. But employees say Google is different from other large high-tech companies where the day's stock price is a fixture on many people's computer screens. "It isn't considered 'Googley' to check the stock price," said one engineer adding that it is also considered unseemly to discuss the price with other employees. And the masseuse? In 1999 Bonnie Brown answered an ad for an in-house masseuse at Google "on a lark" and after five years of kneading engineers' backs, she retired, cashing in most of her stock options to travel the world, oversee a charitable foundation she founded, and write a book, still unpublished, titled "Giigle: How I Got Lucky Massaging Google.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Even the Masseuse is a Multimillionaire at Google

Comments Filter:
  • Sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by moogied ( 1175879 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:36AM (#21323001)
    "Massaging" sure. Gotcha.

    *wink wink*

    Its cool baby, i'm not a cop.

    • Associations with prostitution aside, massage seems an altogether too intimate procedure for a company to host on campus. I mean... there's touching!
      • Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)

        by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @11:41AM (#21324575) Journal
        My former company (a producer of math software) had a once-a-month onsite subsidized massage service. When I asked about it once, our HR person made a special point of emphasizing it was a chair massage, done over regular work clothes. Apparently they had once done a table massage (also over clothes) and there was some complaints that it the table made it "weird".

        But hey, all the power to 'em. I think people that uptight are likely the ones who need a massage the most.
    • Re:Sure (Score:5, Funny)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @11:20AM (#21324263)
      Mostly likely they were just normal massages, but even if it were the other kind of massage it would only slight more repulsive. Have you ever massaged an entire company of nerds? I haven't and I shudder at the thought. I say she earned her retirement! :P
      • I hope her investments paid off well enough to finance her well-earned investment even after paying for all the counseling and therapy. Kneading googeeks all day. /shudder
      • by Creepy ( 93888 )
        We're talking masseuse hours vs engineer hours for 5 years, then retire a multi-millionaire. I can think of much worse things I'd do for that kind of bread. Scoop pig doo with my hands? Sure, boss - as long as I meet my 5 year income goals!
    • Well she does say that she got lucky. ;)
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by jagdish ( 981925 )
      So does she uhh, you know, massage. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Know what I mean? Say no more! Follow me. Follow me. That's good, that's good! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!
    • Re:Sure (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mister Whirly ( 964219 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @12:17PM (#21325097) Homepage
      Yeah, but shouldn't the title really read "Happy Ending for Google Masseuse"??
    • Well, that WOULD be "a lot of BANG for the BUCK"...
  • Mangled summary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by niceone ( 992278 ) * on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:36AM (#21323005) Journal
    The summary says:

    she retired, cashing in most of her stock options to travel the world, oversee a charitable foundation she founded, and...
    But the article says:

    She has traveled the world to oversee a charitable foundation she started with her Google wealth.
    Not the same thing. Why not just paste the article text?
  • by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare.gmail@com> on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:36AM (#21323015) Homepage Journal
    "Giigle: how Pure Envy powers nearly every startup in silicon valley, everyone reading this book, the NYT article, this Slashdot submission and this comment"
  • by sjf ( 3790 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:38AM (#21323035)
    Now, that's a happy ending
    • Only for the folks handing out the stock options.
    • Aren't there restrictions on when you can sell the stock? I'd be surprised if you didn't have to wait a few years before being able to sell, and with the 2.0 bubble looming I don't think I'd bother keeping up to date with the stock prices either.
  • Noogler? (Score:4, Funny)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) * on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:39AM (#21323047)
    They need stock options as an incentive if new hires are called 'nooglers' :-)
  • Cash them in!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:39AM (#21323057) Homepage
    Dont get to greedy with the stock options, just before WorldCom went on its downward spiral some people were bragging about their options and what they were worth, some had been with the company for 10+ years, in the end they lost almost everything
    • Just use same day sale, and pocket the profits and pay the tax on REAL profits. Don't get greedy, think that you could exercise, hang in for a year and pay capital gains tax at 20% (or 15%) instead of income tax of 33% (or 27%). Paper profits on exericse trigger real taxes in AMT. If the tax loses more than 15% in one year, you have a loss. Watch out.

      I know people who were working for FreeMarkets. The exercised their stock when it was selling at 190$ triggering paper profits of 180$ a share and AMT. Paid

      • by Faizdog ( 243703 )
        I'm sorry,
        I guess it's my lack of knowledge about financial matters, but I've read your comment multiple times and can't figure out what you're saying.

        What is a "same day sale" and why would it not trigger the AMT rather than waiting? If you exercise a stock option, don't you have to pay taxes on the gain?
        • by Fizzl ( 209397 )
          And what the hell is AMT?
          • You lucky son of a gun! You don't know what Alternative Minimum Tax is! I long for those simple days.

            Long time ago, sometime in 1960s, many rich millionaires were using many tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying any taxes. So they introduced what they called an Alternative Minimum Tax. It used to hit people making more than 150K a year in 1960s. But they did not index the trigger to inflation. It is the same 150K a year today. Strictly speaking tax meant for people making more than half a mill a year are h

          • Alternative Minimum Tax [wikipedia.org]. Originally aimed at the 155 wealthiest households in the US, the law was not written to account for inflation, and is now a real possibility for upper-middle class families. The AMT specifies a minimum tax rate (in the high-20s%) that cannot be avoided by standard deductions, etc. Read the wikipedia link for more details.
          • "Alternative Minimum Tax" [wikipedia.org]

            It was a very long-term thinking way to screw the middle class:

            They created it ostensibly to keep the "rich" from being able to use too many loopholes to keep their cash. Because, apparently it's simpler than just doing away with the loopholes or something. But they set hard limits on the income that triggers it, and inflation is bringing those triggers down to the level of the ordinary middle class. All they have to do is refrain from updating it and its rolls will grow every ye
        • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @01:17PM (#21325767) Journal
          If you exercise the stock option and sell immediately, you are paying taxes on the real gains. Since you held the instrument for less than one year (less than one day really) your gains will be deemed to be income and you will pay income tax. If you exercise and hold the stock for a year and then sell you will only pay capital gains tax on the real gain. So it is tempting to exercise, and hold the stock for a year and sell saving on taxes.

          But, when you exercise the stock, the difference between market price and the exercise price is counted as your "gain" for the purposes of Alternative Minimum Tax. Though you have not sold anything and you have not seen any money and the gain is merely a paper gain, it is counted as taxable for AMT. If you follow this path and pay the AMT and the stock falls and you sell it at a lower price, you can claim a loss. You cost basis for the stock will the market price used in AMT calculation. So if it falls you could recover the excess tax you have paid. But still it is not a simple calculation of 33% income tax vs 20% capital gains tax. It is 33% tax in AMT + 20% capital gains on further gains in the next year or 100% of the loss in the next year. It is more complex to calculate and judge. Play it simple, get money into your pocket and pay the tax on actual realized gain.

          • More clarifications. The real gain of the same day sale does not trigger AMT by itself. But if the profit is so high, and it pushes your AGI over the limit, then it will trigger AMT. But even with AMT you are paying taxes on the actual money that came to your pocket. Not based on some paper gain. On the other hand, if your income is small enough and the profit is small enough, even under AMT calculation, you might not pay additional taxes. In that case, it is a straight forward, 33% income tax vs 20% capita
      • by curunir ( 98273 ) *
        If you're convinced the stock will continue to go up, you can always sell the minimum number of shares you'll need to pay your taxes. You should probably add in the cost of an accountant you consult to arrive at that minimum number, since it's foolish to do your own taxes once you get beyond the fill-in-the-number-from-the-w2 stage of your life.

        It's reasonable to have faith in your employer to the extent that you're willing to bet on them with your non-salary compensation. After all, if you believe that you
    • Re:Cash them in!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @10:02AM (#21323323)
      Dont get to greedy with the stock options, just before WorldCom went on its downward spiral some people were bragging about their options and what they were worth, some had been with the company for 10+ years, in the end they lost almost everything


      People forget how to make money in stock. Buy low and sell high. They tend to hold when it's high thinking they are going to be richer.. I keep sell orders in and smile when they hit my prices. I sold a bunch 3 weeks ago and sold some more last week when it peaked. If the price dips enough, I'll buy back some at lower prices. Often I can increase my holding by 20% in a month this way, or pocket 20% of my holdings and wind up rebuying the same amount of my original shares. I love it when the market moves up and down. That is how to make money.

      Don't forget.. Sell high!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Prof.Phreak ( 584152 )
        People forget how to make money in stock. Buy low and sell high. They tend to hold when it's high thinking they are going to be richer.. I keep sell orders in and smile when they hit my prices. I sold a bunch 3 weeks ago and sold some more last week when it peaked. If the price dips enough, I'll buy back some at lower prices. Often I can increase my holding by 20% in a month this way, or pocket 20% of my holdings and wind up rebuying the same amount of my original shares. I love it when the market moves up
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Technician ( 215283 )
          I mean seriously, how the heck can you tell if a company is "low" or "high" within a 3 week period?

          Ask aroung and look at the comments... Has anyone lately said Google is low? The general take is Google is high. The knowledge is "It is high". Use that to your advantage. It is high simply means there are tons of people who will bail when the bubble bursts. If you don't want to hold the bag when the massive sell-off starts, it is a good stock to not be holding.

          If it is climbing, put in a sell order and
          • by qbwiz ( 87077 ) *
            Well, the general knowledge really is "it is at the right price." If everyone thought it cost too much, then they would all be selling or shorting it.
            • Well, the general knowledge really is "it is at the right price." If everyone thought it cost too much, then they would all be selling or shorting it.

              The general knowledge that it is at the right price is long past. The general knowledge is it has passed the right price, but it's still climbing so I better hold and ride it up, and "I want the action too so deal me in regardless of the cost". When it starts back down and gets traction, those who think the price is too high will quickly sell off to lock in
      • That's not always as simple as it sounds. While I personally would be selling my GOOG shares if I were to own any, it isn't an easy practice to know how far a group of overly optimistic speculators can raise the price of a company's stock. Sell too soon and you've given up potentially large profits, hold too long and potentially wind up with a loss.

        Unseemly or not, there are people that went bankrupt and lost more or less everything when worldcom and when enron went bust. People don't really seem to remembe
        • While I personally would be selling my GOOG shares if I were to own any, it isn't an easy practice to know how far a group of overly optimistic speculators can raise the price of a company's stock. Sell too soon and you've given up potentially large profits, hold too long and potentially wind up with a loss.

          Absolutely true. The point many miss is this is a market. When the price is high and a ton of sellers show up all at once, not everyone is going to sell for top dollar. Stop chasing top dollar. Pick a
      • Re:Cash them in!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @11:10AM (#21324131) Homepage
        Better idea, for most people: Don't bother day-trading. Don't even buy individual stocks like Google. Drop your money in a few good index funds and sit around 20-40 years while you wait for retirement. Anything else is borderline gambling.

        (Not that you can't make money gambling, borderline or otherwise, mind you...)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DerekLyons ( 302214 )
          An index fund is just barely this side of gambling itself - so I cover myself by having half my money in an index, and the other half in a managed fund.
          • Do you think that a managed fund is any less of a gamble than an index fund? A managed fund is someone else getting paid to gamble for you. At least with index funds, you are essentially mirroring the area you are indexing.
      • I just wonder why do you tell your 'super method' to the masses. Won't it break your scheme?
        • I just wonder why do you tell your 'super method' to the masses. Won't it break your scheme?

          Buy low sell high is already well known. If the masses use it, will it break it? Short answer, no.
          To get into the market, you need to by shares. Someone somewhere will have shares sitting there with a sell order waiting for someone to buy it. Someone else is ready to retire and pull out of the market and take retirement. They will sell and someone with a buy order will pick up the shares.

          If everyone bought into
      • by fm6 ( 162816 )
        The fact that you can say "buy low and sell high" without irony disqualifies you as an expert at making money. It's just a cliche, and this is the first time I've every heard it used non-humorously. I mean, jeez, even a stall at the flea market operates on that principle.

        Anyway, people with stock options are not investors. They're employees who are beneficiaries of a profit-based bonus scheme. It would make more sense for these bonuses to be granted in the forms of cash, except that selling employees stock
        • The fact that you can say "buy low and sell high" without irony disqualifies you as an expert at making money. It's just a cliche, and this is the first time I've every heard it used non-humorously.

          Are you serious? The only way to make money in the stock market is to buy low and sell at a profit. Buying high and selling low is stupid. It doesn't take an expert to understand that. I'm not an expert, but I am makeing money. Look at some popular tech stocks over the last 3 months. Take Microsoft, Intel,
          • by fm6 ( 162816 )

            Are you serious? The only way to make money in the stock market is to buy low and sell at a profit.
            RMFP. I didn't say it wasn't true. I said it's meaningless. Everybody knows that goal of stock speculation is to buy stocks that are going to appreciate. The trick is know which stocks are going to appreciate.
    • Worldcom, like many other companies (Qwest, Adelphia, etc) were following the lead of Enron. Enron did it perfect. Total lies backed up by nothing but BS.

      Google is not even close to this. At this point, they ARE search. Of course, the problem for them, as Netscape showed, another monopoly CAN take it away. MS will have a difficult time as long as the feds are crawling all over them (MS is suppose to be let go from that, but most of the players have appealed that). But all it takes is for Google to create n
  • We might find ordinary humdrum factory foremen managing all the country hicks flocking Detroit to get a shot at the incrdible 5$ a day wages for factory workers. These shop floor bosses might have been worth 40 grand those days when they hung their hard hats. Adjusted for inflation it might be close to half a mill of present dollars. How did it affect the culture in Ford those days?
  • new meaning (Score:3, Funny)

    by cthulu_mt ( 1124113 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:45AM (#21323121)
    This gives new meaning to "massaging the data".
    • by lintux ( 125434 )
      For a moment I thought you wrote "massaging the beta". Which would make perfect sense as well in this context. :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:48AM (#21323149)
    Web company. Billions made in advertising dollars. Founders making billions. Employees getting rich from stock options.

    When this crashes it will be loud and hard. Hopefully you guys working at Google are going to do the smart thing and save as much money as you can while you can.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jamar0303 ( 896820 )
      Will that ever happen, though? Everyone's using Google these days (in fact, my free e-mail provider switched to the GMail system very recently- now I essentially have a Gmail account without actually having GMail).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by canuck57 ( 662392 )

      When this crashes it will be loud and hard. Hopefully you guys working at Google are going to do the smart thing and save as much money as you can while you can.

      I highly doubt google stock is going to go down, in fact I foresee it doubling or tripling inside a decade or less. Why you ask? Lets look at how google has positioned themselves:

      • They have massive bandwidth and are increasing it daily.
      • YouTube gives them a A/V branch, want to pick on ABC/MSNBC/CBS/FOX...certainly MTV is dead.
      • They have the tec
      • by Richthofen80 ( 412488 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @10:56AM (#21323943) Homepage
        Being Positioned is one thing. You can have all the capital in the world, but if you don't have a way to transform it into a revenue stream, your business isn't worth as much as your stock price. Google's current revenue stream comes from advertisements. Fine, that's a valid model. But i have no idea if its actually recouping the costs of all the projects they have going on.

        Ballmer will one day wake up and will find their mail products, office products and OS sales are all no longer selling.

        Fine, everyone uses google office, in your scenario. But how does that make Google money? Again, having tons of happy customers is fine, but not having a way to collect revenues from them directly... that's the killer. There's a difference between making people happy and making them money. Stock price is about making people money.
      • There was a time when IBM was the juggernaut, and a young Microsoft was eyeing the giant and assessing whether the stones from its' sling might topple IBM. Interestingly, Microsoft took a niche and exploited it masterfully and then extended their market share and influence to the leadership position it occupies today - but IBM is strong and has massive revenue.

        Even if Google grows to dominance and eats some of Mcrosoft's lunch, as Microsoft did to IBM, that does not spell the end of Microsoft.
      • They have invested in their intrinsic growth to be strong enough to go up against the likes of Microsoft and squash them like a bug.

        They hardly compete with Microsoft now. Or, to be more specific, they compete with bits of Microsoft. But what they don't compete with:

        1) Windows
        2) Most of Office, except Office Live and Sharepoint
        3) Microsoft Games (Including Microsoft's Zone.com or whatever they call it now, and including Massive which does in-game ad serving.)
        4) Hardware
        5) Servers (although arguably they pro
      • by Fizzl ( 209397 )

        certainly MTV is dead.

        Interesting. Just last weekend, I went to our band premises and the guys were laying on couches and apathetically watching some music videos in hangover. I wanted to see some show and commented "Geeez! You'r watching music videos from the TV?! Gimme the remote!"

        I just realized the implications.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      When this crashes it will be loud and hard. Hopefully you guys working at Google are going to do the smart thing and save as much money as you can while you can.

      This happens when people fail to sell high and hold and buy instead. When a stock gets expensive, I sell. Take a look at the market last week. A couple stocks I don't own are Google and VMWare. VMWare started too expensive. Last week it peaked over $110 a share. This morning, it is at $87. Google is also too expensive to hold. Many investors
  • DOH! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:48AM (#21323153)
    And to think I discouraged my daughter from becoming a masseuse because I thought guys would think she's easy!
  • Google Cash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by webword ( 82711 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:50AM (#21323177) Homepage
    The truth is that many people working at Google are still passionate about Google and what it stands for. Now, it doesn't really matter what that is exactly. In the minds of Google employees there is something special about working at Google. Perception is everytihng.

    Also, keep in mind that the stock price keeps going up. This isn't just because Google is cooking the books. They appear to be legitimate financially. As long as this is the case, many people -- even the millionaires -- will stay on board. I predict that once Google takes a serious financial hit, many will bail out. Ideals be damned.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by El Torico ( 732160 )

      The truth is that many people working at Google are still passionate about Google and what it stands for.

      A lot of us felt the same way when I was at UUNET (RIP). Thanks, WorldCon.

      Fortunately, Google isn't run by a megalomaniacal crook.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by e2d2 ( 115622 )
        Fortunately, Google isn't run by a megalomaniacal crook.

        How would you know?

        There seems to be some disconnect with reality when it comes to google or any other large geek-friendly company. Pretend for a second that they _are_ a multi-billion dollar corporation and pretend also that you know jack shit about them beyond what you're told. That "pretend" is reality.

        I can hear these stories until the cows come home. Doesn't change shit. Google is still mega-corp no matter how many segways they ride the halls with
        • How would you know?

          I would know based on the evidence available. Bernard Ebbers is in prison after being found guilty of nine felonies including conspiracy and securities fraud. None of the top managers of Google have been convicted of any similiar felonies (that I'm aware of). Is this absolute proof? Of course not, but it is sufficient to support my original statement.
          Of course, they could be committing fraud of some type or another, but I haven't read of any accounting scandals or indictments at G

          • by e2d2 ( 115622 )
            Sorry mate, I used your post as a launching point for my own soap box. I do understand your points and worldcom was clearly led by a criminal. My only point was that google is just as likely to have a crook inside as any other large corporation.

            When money is involved at that level it's silly to think otherwise. I may be setting up a straw man but it seems like slashdot is overtly google-friendly while wasting no time to throw similar large corps under the bus. I just don't see any distinction between google
    • by Bandman ( 86149 )
      Your second to last sentence negates the entirety of the rest of your post. I'm confused.
    • Also, keep in mind that the stock price keeps going up. This isn't just because Google is cooking the books. They appear to be legitimate financially.

      Google's stock price has nothing to do with it's financials - if it did, the price would be a fraction of what it is now. (It's P/E is insane.)
       
       

      Perception is everytihng.

      Precisely the reason why GOOG's price keeps heading for the sky.
  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @09:53AM (#21323225)
    With the treasury bill rates what they are, around 4 %, each million only brings in a guarantted $40K if you want to be safe and make sure you keep your nest egg. So 5 million is 200K per year - a nice income but hardly enough to finance an out of control rock and roll lifestyle.
    • by hey ( 83763 )
      Plus you should re-invest some income to keep up with inflation. Because $40K in 20 years will be worth even less.
      • by Gorimek ( 61128 )
        I was going to say the exact opposite. That is what you'd do if you live forever.

        More realistically, assume you'll be dead at, say, 100 years old, and spend accordingly.
        • by hey ( 83763 )
          If you are, say, 40 and going to live to 100. You have 60 years.
          5M / 60 = 83,333 a year. Not bad. Plus the 40K interest which would be less each year.
    • ...Also, while one may `take' that taxable 4% a year and maintain the lump sum, that lump sum has just lost about 4% (if not more) to inflation. It's not a ``nest egg'' in a sense that after 20 or so years of that, it won't be worth much.
    • by Rinikusu ( 28164 )
      Most "rock and roll" lifestylers do it on less then $30k/year. It's all about priorities and knowing how/when to spend. You forego food and get all your calories from Beer, for example. ANd not microbrew, either. WE're talking $3/6-pack PBR, Miller High Life, or something like that. You shop at thriftstores because you can only afford $3 jeans and $1 T-shirts, you don't wear underwear because why waste beer money on something that's just going to get left on some dumb girl's floor and/or soiled with yo
  • And wrote about it in a book? Please, won't someone think of the children?

    .haeger

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
      It must be as exciting as "How I got rich by winning the lottery"; "I bought a lottery ticket. I won. The End".
  • Stock Options (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Cabri ( 13930 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @10:11AM (#21323403) Journal
    Maybe the reason why it's not done at Google to ostensibly check the stock price every day is out of embarassment over the fact that employees that join now will have to hope that their $700 options stay afloat while they may be more brilliant and their contribution more critical to the company than that of employees who join only one year ago.

    I think that options are great for startup companies, which Google is not anymore, to compensate for the risk that the people who work in them do, and the fact that the contribution of early employees is by definition seminal to building a successful company. But for mature companies (which Google is now), it becomes too difficult to manage as a standard compensation system. How can you keep employees focused on their commitments if the cash bonus that you can afford to offer them at their annual review is dwarfed by the value of the stock options they already got just for being hired ?
    • Seen it the other way around.

      I graduated just after the Y2K peak, and then there was 9/11, so for most of my career, I got almost no bonus while seeing my few actions lose value every month. I certainly can't say it helped me stay commited.
  • Word is she joined google after a massage-table-throwing incident.
  • by LibertineR ( 591918 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @12:40PM (#21325337)
    ....because when you have spent 29 out of 30 days in your office trying to squash bugs in the project to be released the following year called "Exchange", your marriage is kaput, your boss doesnt bathe, your car has mold growing in it, and you dont know what day it is, you can say to yourself- "Ok, my life currently sucks, but next year, I can buy a new one."

    Stock options keep you going when everything else is falling apart, baby! I stared at that little window for a straight 18 months, and LIKED it.

    Sure, Mountain View aint Redmond; there are actually more reasons to go outside, but if Microsoft had been giving out free food, I think I might have died under my desk, and my group manager just covered up my body and sprayed perfume on it until we shipped.

  • Good for the employees. Now, is this good for Google and its shareholders? Probably less so. They are the ones that end up paying these millions out without getting a return.
  • by AngD ( 1188113 ) on Monday November 12, 2007 @03:42PM (#21327689)
    You can read more about Bonnie and read excerpts from her hilarious book, Giigle, at her Web site: www.GiigleBook.com

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Working...