But then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?
> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same.
From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.
I have received equity as an employee. When I started, the company was very early and their evaluation was still very low. The way it worked was that I had to pay for the equity grant upfront. I forget exactly how much but it was<$200. This is also how it worked for me as a founder of a company.
That same company eventually raised a sizeable equity round and then began issuing options for new employees. If they were to continue issuing equity grants, the cost to purchase the grant would be much more than $200 (likely tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars). Alternatively, if the company were to give employees equity grants directly instead of having to buy them then that would count as income and the employees would owe taxes on the equity gained. The tax bill could also easily be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Options avoid all of that and defer the upfront costs that come with an equity grant.
Imo, the real problem is that options can be clawed back once you no longer work for the company.
IMO, the real problem with options seems to be that you have no idea what they are truly worth. You have the option for 10k shares and you know the company is worth $200 million, but you have no idea how many shares are outstanding. Meanwhile, shares are being diluted, or maybe they aren't. You're just kept in the dark as to what is happening. At least that was my experience.
the first thing he said in that imgur link was that he thinks its okay to "hide your power level" . he is clearly okay with and willing to hide his real beliefs
i wish that were the case, but there is a strong argument that it doesnt work that way. Unfortunately instead it looks like the consensus amongst citizens is largely irrelevant. this study in particular comes to mind. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
You know, a lot of poor people spend their time on Twitter and what not saying ugly things like "Eat the rich" because they feel powerless and feel like no rich people would ever listen to them and so forth. And then they are all shocked when the rich don't give a damn about folks who are openly hostile to them.
And then some poor people have hobbies like becoming the (apparently) first woman to make the leader board of HN shortly after getting themselves off the street and back into housing. (That would be me, in case that needs to be said.) And some people close to me are of the opinion that me running my big fat mouth on HN while homeless and earning a pittance online while sleeping in a tent is why tablets are no longer expensive shiny toys for rich people and are actually productive and affordable for ordinary people with sucktastic lives.
So, studies aside, you will have to excuse me for sticking to my guns here. My apologies for having no idea how to convince you I'm the one that's right in this case.
IIRC wasn't Apple throttling the CPU because of battery degradation and to prevent sudden shutoffs even when it showed >25% battery? In my opinion, they should've said what they were doing, and made it clear that replacing the battery would fix the issue, but I'd rather have the battery status be accurate versus an always fast phone that shuts off randomly.
I lived in Boston a couple years before Uber was a thing and if I was out at night and needed a ride back to Southie (where I lived), it would take me four or five taxis at least to get one to agree to go there.
Uber eliminated that problem. It would be terrible to go back to that system where drivers can just refuse you based on where you are going or what you look like.
Wouldn't that be 60% are not interested. 100% - (20% very interested) - 20% (somewhat interested). People who are somewhat interested do not count towards being not interested.
I don't know how the survey was worded. But if they asked me, would have said "somewhat interested", in that I want to work from home 1-2 days a week, but no way all 5 days a week
Correct, but it sounds like there was no option for "strongly interested in working remote part-time".
What other option is this person supposed to pick then? Saying "not at all interested" skews the results of the survey to mean that this person is not interested in remote work whatsoever.
Imo in the absence of "strongly interested in working remote part-time" answer, picking "somewhat interested in working remote full-time" is the most rational choice.
Tbf we dont know that there are long term effects on organs and lungs from covid-19. Its only existed for 6 months. Its impossible to know what will happen long term at this point.
