And yet it directly speaks to the comment it was replying to. It makes the point that RSUs are generally multi-year; so if you're getting them with _any_ frequency, you never get to the point of "the last RSU vests".

It remains privileged. I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do. That doesn’t change the reality expressed.

But does it matter that it is or isn't privileged? Thats the root question. What are you trying to highlight?

I have to assume you aren't trying to shame someone for moral opinion about talking about facts on the table - as that does 0 for any kind of public discourse.

So you agree your comment provides no value to the conversation here except a kind of "check your privileges - shut down the conversation I am greater than thou perspective".

I am asking you what value are you trying to bring here to the thread with this comment? Does one have to have a qualifier statement "I have certain privileges ascribed to my life" and now make a comment? Should I be adding qualifying statements to this comment to make sure the morality police don't come finger wagging?

I mean you are the one reacting. I am curious what you are trying to achieve except casting shame (implied morality) and shutting down conversation.

I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you are just reacting without thinking about the deeper level of what you are trying to express.

Continue to be unable to answer the basic question I ask you - and I get the "sure bud". Ok, sure bud.

Agreed

Of course i realize how privileged it is. It seemed like useful information to the discussion, so i added it. I don't particularly care if people know how much or how little i made.

The vast majority of HN in the US is almost certainly within the top 1% of earners in the US (the cutoff is ~660k for households, ~450k for individuals), and the rest is probably within the top 10% (the cutoff is ~260k for households, ~150k for individuals). So overall it's a fairly privileged place, even if it likes to often pretend it's not.

In my life i've been both very poor and very rich. I'm now happy, and that matters a lot more than either.

I also happen to think it's fairly naive to believe that making lots of money makes it trivial to leave a place.

It's like believing having loved someone for 20 years makes it easier to get divorced.

Wasn’t meant to shame, just a shocking thing to take in. Make as much as you can, if that is what is sought. Those numbers are a rarefied circumstance. It sucks that they cuffed you, but great you escaped. Tough decision to make.

It’s genuinely great to read you’ve found happiness.

The conversation was

> If you have an X that Y

> If you have an X, it won't Y

to which you added

> Your statement is privileged

The fact that it's privileged to have an X is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about whether or not an X will Y. And it started with "If you have an X".

> I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do

I don't. And I expect I'm not in the minority here. If you're going to throw rocks, you might want to ponder your own privilege before you start tossing accusations.

I think the "last RSU" was more a figure of speech. At some point a person passes above an earnings level where they feel comfortable deactivating the "money making mode" and let their conscience speak.

almost like it's by design!

And? I value this as a forum where people can speak plainly and transparently (mostly).

While transparency is admirable, I don’t find the “why I left Google” blog posts to be particularly interesting content to be posted to HN.

They happen relatively frequently and there are a number of things about them that feel distasteful:

- The authors are in the literal 1%, so for the 99% of us who are doing far worse it feels a bit like a tiny violin exercise.

“Sorry you worked for an unethical company, my company is unethical, too, and I can’t quit over morals or else my family won’t eat.

- Being in the 1% affords many of these individuals more options in life to work for ethical employees or pursue noble causes, and articles like this one makes you question why they just woke up to the reality they were benefitting from for so long. It seems like everyone on the outside has known about those moral quandaries for a while.

- The people who quit Google are one of 100,000 employees, which dilutes the value of hearing an individual story from someone who is leaving the company.

I imagine many Google people are interested, and they get voted up.

You don’t have to read and engage with everything on the front page. And you certainly don’t have to come make snarky criticisms of others.

I don’t feel like I was being “snarky.” I also have no problem with the articles being upvoted.

I don’t think it’s very fair to tell people who want to constructively criticize articles to just not engage with them. That feels like a deflection of my points rather than addressing the merit of what I actually said.

Instead of saying “here’s what was wrong with your idea” you said “you’re not supposed to be here.”

I genuinely think the author could read comments like mine and get something out of them.

I think it’s fair to say that if you are not interested to just move on, and not criticize having a discussion on that topic

Site guidelines say “thoughtful criticism is fine” and that’s my intention.

I think it's good when people share their opinions. No snark detected.