Hacker News Reader

Comment by bern4444 | Hacker News Reader

My company also does not have a 1 year cliff and it's wonderful.

I switched a few months ago from a company that did. It was a farce how my old company, at the end of the year, would say your compensation for next year is $X but part of X was paid out over the next 4 years with a 1 year cliff each year. Just one of many reasons why I left.

My current company pays out equity every 3 months and it's incredible.

The only good thing my old company did was pay every week instead of every 2 weeks. I know most companies do every 2 weeks; I was surprised at how large a difference getting paid every week vs every 2 weeks makes. Not sure why the extra week between is so impactful but it really is.

View on HN

> I was surprised at how large a difference getting paid every week vs every 2 weeks makes.

In what way?

I would think, psychologically, it feels more of a two way relationship, rather than one way (i.e. you working constantly for the company with them only occasionally reciprocating)

While this isn't much of a company relationship thing: If you're getting paid every 2 weeks, sometimes you'll get paid the first/third week of the month and sometimes the second/fourth, which can be a pain if you're trying to keep a consistent amount in a checking account while also having bill pay and auto-transfers to savings/investment accounts.

Or, tl;dr, it makes it easier to automate money without leaving a large buffer of cash in a checking account.

And in other parts of the world, they just pay monthly. Avoids that problem...

That would be good too when it comes to that predictability.

Or daily. That's probably the best option.

How is having an extra 2-4 weeks of income in checking "a large buffer of cash"?

This seems like a silly thing.

I think what you want in checking -- if your circumstances allow for this kind of money-shuffling, at the least -- is more along the lines of 4 weeks of expenses, not 4 weeks of income, which would (hopefully!) be considerably higher. I'm not sure I'd call it a "large buffer," but even if you're not in the "shove absolutely everything you can into index funds and live like a pauper despite the fact that you're making $250K+ a year so you can retire at 35" camp, the more money you have in higher-return places, the better, so you probably don't want it in the checking account. (And probably don't want a lot in a low-interest savings account.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com