Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

OK, then honestly it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the idea that she was "coerced". She was being paid lots... but wasn't getting paid even more?

If you're an executive at Facebook, you should know how to research negotiation and compensation, and figure out a living situation where you're saving money. You're in the big leagues. If Sheryl expected her to be able to hire a full time nanny, then that's an excellent time to renegotiate a salary than can afford that.

If you're an entry-level worker who can't make ends meet in San Fran then of course I sympathize greatly! But if you're an executive at Facebook making enough money that you can even consider a full time nanny... you're not facing any level of "hardship" by which an offer of even more money in exchange for non-disparagement could be considered "coercion". Nobody is in poverty here. Nobody is going to wind up hungry or on the street.



Apparently she was living paycheck to paycheck (from what other people said on this thread).

So yes, she was 1-3 months away of poverty while caring for a baby.

Poverty can come really quickly, you just need a few incidents to stack.


That's what I don't understand. How can a high-up executive at Facebook be living paycheck-to-paycheck?

If I made, say, $300K/yr and was living paycheck-to-paycheck with zero savings after many years with the company, I'd say I was making highly irresponsible spending choices.

And she had a husband too, who sounds like he was working.

So something's just not adding up. It doesn't make any sense that a director-level executive at Facebook is 1-3 months away from "poverty".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: