I think you’re massively over-complicating things. I think you’re over-estimating by a whole lot the impact that you COULD have on Google’s stock price, and even more over-estimating the impact on your motivation and activities based on this impact. Especially compared to the motivation/activities that will come from having the job in the first place, wanting to be aligned with your coworkers and the stated mission of the team.
I generally recommend (and follow myself, at retrospective great cost) that people diversify stock away from their employer as soon as feasible, which translates to “sell grants as soon as they vest”. This still leaves value changes between grant and vest. You’ll pay to hedge that, and have to take the risk that you won’t stay through full vesting. I’d recommend NOT paying or taking that risk.
If you’re worried enough about it, you could design a donation-intent agreement to give to a charity some “excess” vested value defined by the difference in price between (grant + some historically-justified growth) and the actual vest value. This generally isn’t fully enforceable, but the charity CAN often borrow against it, and it’s pretty strong social motivation to follow through.
But really, if you don’t want to benefit your employer and try to increase it’s value, you probably should consider just not working there.
But really, if you don’t want to benefit your employer and try to increase it’s value, you probably should consider just not working there.
I mean, sure, I think most (or at least a quite substantial fraction of) people working in safety roles would prefer for their employer to not exist, or to make substantially less money, but I still think there are valid arguments for them wanting to work at the big capability labs.
I think the motivational and distortional effects of being in a social environment of an organization are also huge, but they are much harder to hedge, and I think the impact of the financial entanglement is still quite substantial (though definitely less). I think if someone could spend 200 hours of getting rid of the distortionary social effects they should definitely do it, and correspondingly I think if someone can spend 20 hours of getting rid of the distortionary financial effects they should also do it, since it seems like an easy win..
I think you’re massively over-complicating things. I think you’re over-estimating by a whole lot the impact that you COULD have on Google’s stock price, and even more over-estimating the impact on your motivation and activities based on this impact. Especially compared to the motivation/activities that will come from having the job in the first place, wanting to be aligned with your coworkers and the stated mission of the team.
I generally recommend (and follow myself, at retrospective great cost) that people diversify stock away from their employer as soon as feasible, which translates to “sell grants as soon as they vest”. This still leaves value changes between grant and vest. You’ll pay to hedge that, and have to take the risk that you won’t stay through full vesting. I’d recommend NOT paying or taking that risk.
If you’re worried enough about it, you could design a donation-intent agreement to give to a charity some “excess” vested value defined by the difference in price between (grant + some historically-justified growth) and the actual vest value. This generally isn’t fully enforceable, but the charity CAN often borrow against it, and it’s pretty strong social motivation to follow through.
But really, if you don’t want to benefit your employer and try to increase it’s value, you probably should consider just not working there.
I mean, sure, I think most (or at least a quite substantial fraction of) people working in safety roles would prefer for their employer to not exist, or to make substantially less money, but I still think there are valid arguments for them wanting to work at the big capability labs.
I think the motivational and distortional effects of being in a social environment of an organization are also huge, but they are much harder to hedge, and I think the impact of the financial entanglement is still quite substantial (though definitely less). I think if someone could spend 200 hours of getting rid of the distortionary social effects they should definitely do it, and correspondingly I think if someone can spend 20 hours of getting rid of the distortionary financial effects they should also do it, since it seems like an easy win..