I like that this is taken care of for me and that I don't have to spend my personal time trying to research a bunch of life insurance options and figure out what works and what doesn't. I also love that there is some amount of collective bargaining being applied here instead of me making the purchase as an individual. I'll gladly pay a $300/yr premium for that, and the ease of mind that my loves ones will have some advocate inside Google rather than having to go toe-to-toe with the insurance companies themselves to get pay out.
I mean has anyone dealt with other forms of insurance? E.g. Car insurance or home owner insurance or health insurance. Getting these companies to actually pay you when the policy rightly kicks in is like pulling teeth. I wish Google did that for me too.
One time I filed a claim on my car getting broken into. They 'paid' me with a prepaid debit card that had a $300/day limit. Out fucking rageous
> some amount of collective bargaining being applied here instead of me making the purchase as an individual.
The whole point of the article is that Google's pricing is terrible compared to the open market. If they actually did any bargaining they did it this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPqAcOnEBUI.
Having competitive rates and having HR helping out the family when an employee dies can be completely orthogonal.
No, because this entirely ignores the dimension of quality. I mean maybe they are right, but it's not considered in the analysis.
The author recommends I buy Geico life insurance for $156/yr.
I have Geico car insurance and have filed claims when people broken into my car. You would not believe the lengths this scum bag company goes to in order to not pay you the money you are entitled to. I don't want my family subject to that if I die.
> I like that this is taken care of for me and that I don't have to spend my personal time trying to research a bunch of life insurance options and figure out what works and what doesn't.
Does Google help the family with detailed claim resolution in the event of an employee's death? I don't have evidence either way, but that seems more personal than I'd expect.
To be honest, I don't know the detailed structure for this as I'm relatively young and have the luxury of it being out of mind at the moment.
What I know is that you will for sure have allies that you wouldn't have on an individual basis.
For example, my wife would be able to call up my colleagues (from my team that I work with every day) and ask for connections to HR or whatever. They would definitely help her because 1) they care about me as a person and 2) they are invested from a game theory perspective, because they also want to know that they'll be paid out if the same thing happens to them.
Most likely, there is some existing structure to actually help, as Google is at the scale where this kicks in non-zero times.
However, I just looked it up on the internal search and as you'd expect, it differs based on your country and its laws. So I can't speak for all Googlers
I get what you're saying, but at 29 what would I have done with life insurance? I had no spouse or children. It seemed like all they were asking is a way to opt out.
True but at the same time, Google has all sorts of weird perks that we can't opt out of and essentially pay a tax for.
For example, some parts of campus have swimming pools and endless treadmill pools. I don't swim so I get zero benefit from this. Meanwhile these things definitely cost some amount of money to service and maintain. We can't opt out of that.
We can't out of Google throwing massive holiday parties that I don't think are a lot of fun.
In the end, it's just kind of a package deal. Given that Google comps relatively well, the point is to just be happy with the money you are making and not stress too much about optimizing <$1000 at a time
I’ve heard from friends in finance that it’s very intentional that firms provide complementary car service (or now, Uber credits) if you’re staying in the office past a certain hour. Sure, they could just pass that to you as cash compensation; they have decades of data to predict how often you would stay late. But it’s one less tradeoff for the employee to need to worry about, which translates into that much more focus.
This is an extreme example - it’s Google saying “we don’t want you to even need to think about the tradeoff of ‘do I spend my comp on a more sunny living space with a quicker commute, or save it so my family can be taken care of if the worst should happen.’” They want that latter part to not be a consideration.
Elite firms invest in their employees’ focus. They’ll always do things like this. Call it paternalistic or morbid, but it’s logical and intentional and not at all about whether it’s efficient vs. additional cash comp.
This is a complete misunderstanding of probability, payoff, and return on investment.
The value of a life insurance policy isn’t in its amortized yearly returns. This policy is not an investment. The policy allows you to pay a negligible amount of money to avoid a devastating situation — family pain and debt that might arise from your death.
Anybody who uses this article as justification to end their life insurance policy is so badly mistaken that it hurts.
Edit — the “buy it yourself” argument is stupid. It doesn’t solve the problem outlined in the article.
Also a bit of survivorship bias. No employee who literally makes use of the perk is around to say how useful it is. Thus we debate how valuable it is if you never actually need it.
The problem outlined in the article is that Google is paying to much... So buying it yourself is the entire point of the article. I don't know how it doesn't solve the problem.
I am guessing the math in the article is wrong and/or the insurance pays for is better than both of the barrel insurance the article suggests you get.
In general insurance has a slightly negative expected value (that plus the time value of money) is how insurers make money. You are paying to reduce variance.
I could just as easily alter the variables for various mortalities to make $150/month seem expensive by that logic. Paying $150 vs $300 per month for life insurance doesn’t suddenly make it “worth it”
It is only available if you are in good health; if you are in bad health than it is impossible to get life insurance at an attractive price. This is fair, because of course folks in bad health are likelier to die sooner. But that makes the value of group life insurance very high to those individuals — it is a wonderful perk for them.
The first $50,000 of group term life insurance is not taxable, so the tax penalty here should be reduced by about 10% [1].
Second, either Google is getting shafted on their premiums (they may be) and over paying by more than 44% ($200/$450 from the article), or on average this is a net benefit to employees over the possibility of opting out. Consider employees with health problems that could never get term insurance on their own. The real story might just be that Google should find a better priced term life provider.
It's worse than that, it's like saying the sandwich cost $20 but actually it only cost them $5 to make the sandwich and you can buy a sandwich down the road for $15.
The perk also includes: 10 years of salary to your spouse, and monies also for your children. Googlers typically aren't going to microptimize expenses this small.
I think this is the real perk -- I remember in ~2008 that sadly, a googler's family had to take advantage of this when they passed. It stood out as the company really taking care of the team. I have no clue if they still do this today but it was certainly a wow moment.
back when google was great, my manager had to call a coworker's parents, who lived in Iran, and explain that their son had been badly injured in a parachute accident and was in the hospital, but that Google would be paying all his bills and we'd do the best to get him back on teh ground so he could eventually return to the office. (said employee left right after to be a VP at a bank. I thought that was a jerk move).
Life insurance is actually surprisingly common a perk; I remember even Stripe had it! I guess it's nice to know that your employees' family will be well provided for regardless of their original financial situation.
Maybe this is a healthy dose of paternalism? I feel like there would be more people who regret not buying life insurance in this case than people who regretted the minimal $250 outlay
Let's be real, it isn't a perk, it is a marketable asset for insurance companies to make more money.
A lot of dental insurance falls under a similar category. It is often more expensive to pay for the insurance than it is to pay out of pocket. But then you wonder about what happens if something really bad occurs? Well, a lot of the dental insurance policies (especially for smaller companies) have yearly maximum limits. You're still paying out of pocket.
This is completely standard in every big corporation Ive worked for, both in Europe and North America. I think it’s just a corporate flex: “when you’re with us, you’re covered”
Readit News
I like that this is taken care of for me and that I don't have to spend my personal time trying to research a bunch of life insurance options and figure out what works and what doesn't. I also love that there is some amount of collective bargaining being applied here instead of me making the purchase as an individual. I'll gladly pay a $300/yr premium for that, and the ease of mind that my loves ones will have some advocate inside Google rather than having to go toe-to-toe with the insurance companies themselves to get pay out.
I mean has anyone dealt with other forms of insurance? E.g. Car insurance or home owner insurance or health insurance. Getting these companies to actually pay you when the policy rightly kicks in is like pulling teeth. I wish Google did that for me too.
One time I filed a claim on my car getting broken into. They 'paid' me with a prepaid debit card that had a $300/day limit. Out fucking rageous
Insurance is pretty much a scam
The whole point of the article is that Google's pricing is terrible compared to the open market. If they actually did any bargaining they did it this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPqAcOnEBUI.
Having competitive rates and having HR helping out the family when an employee dies can be completely orthogonal.
The author recommends I buy Geico life insurance for $156/yr.
I have Geico car insurance and have filed claims when people broken into my car. You would not believe the lengths this scum bag company goes to in order to not pay you the money you are entitled to. I don't want my family subject to that if I die.
Doesn't Google accelerate RSUs upon death?
What I know is that you will for sure have allies that you wouldn't have on an individual basis.
For example, my wife would be able to call up my colleagues (from my team that I work with every day) and ask for connections to HR or whatever. They would definitely help her because 1) they care about me as a person and 2) they are invested from a game theory perspective, because they also want to know that they'll be paid out if the same thing happens to them.
Most likely, there is some existing structure to actually help, as Google is at the scale where this kicks in non-zero times.
However, I just looked it up on the internal search and as you'd expect, it differs based on your country and its laws. So I can't speak for all Googlers
For example, some parts of campus have swimming pools and endless treadmill pools. I don't swim so I get zero benefit from this. Meanwhile these things definitely cost some amount of money to service and maintain. We can't opt out of that.
We can't out of Google throwing massive holiday parties that I don't think are a lot of fun.
In the end, it's just kind of a package deal. Given that Google comps relatively well, the point is to just be happy with the money you are making and not stress too much about optimizing <$1000 at a time
And even if they do eventually pay, it matters the hoops they make your family run through and the time they take to pay out.
This is an extreme example - it’s Google saying “we don’t want you to even need to think about the tradeoff of ‘do I spend my comp on a more sunny living space with a quicker commute, or save it so my family can be taken care of if the worst should happen.’” They want that latter part to not be a consideration.
Elite firms invest in their employees’ focus. They’ll always do things like this. Call it paternalistic or morbid, but it’s logical and intentional and not at all about whether it’s efficient vs. additional cash comp.
The value of a life insurance policy isn’t in its amortized yearly returns. This policy is not an investment. The policy allows you to pay a negligible amount of money to avoid a devastating situation — family pain and debt that might arise from your death.
Anybody who uses this article as justification to end their life insurance policy is so badly mistaken that it hurts.
Edit — the “buy it yourself” argument is stupid. It doesn’t solve the problem outlined in the article.
Second, either Google is getting shafted on their premiums (they may be) and over paying by more than 44% ($200/$450 from the article), or on average this is a net benefit to employees over the possibility of opting out. Consider employees with health problems that could never get term insurance on their own. The real story might just be that Google should find a better priced term life provider.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-...
> The tax cost paid by the employee = $200 (additional tax)
> Google paid the insurer $450; without the policy, that cash could be directly paid to the employee = $350 (post-tax)
> Total cost for the insurance: $550
Wait, isn't it like saying "The lunch is free, but if the employer didn't provide lunch they could give me $20 dollars per day instead!"?
Maybe this is a healthy dose of paternalism? I feel like there would be more people who regret not buying life insurance in this case than people who regretted the minimal $250 outlay
A lot of dental insurance falls under a similar category. It is often more expensive to pay for the insurance than it is to pay out of pocket. But then you wonder about what happens if something really bad occurs? Well, a lot of the dental insurance policies (especially for smaller companies) have yearly maximum limits. You're still paying out of pocket.
I certainly don't mind that people I work with and their families are getting dental care instead of me getting a modest annual raise.
Deleted Comment