I'm extremely interested to see how this plays out. Giving large cash bonuses seems like it could wreck morale just as easily as it could boost it. And now when they're hiring in the future, they have to wonder whether the candidate is more motivated by the money or the love. And will the employees expect a similar bonus next year?
I'm not saying he shouldn't've done it. I am, however, extremely curious. This is the sort of thing that I have wondered why more companies don't do.
And now when they're hiring in the future, they have to wonder whether the candidate is more motivated by the money or the love.
I'd be surprised if Mojang didn't hire in the same way as most small companies with huge industry respect (like 37signals or GitHub). That is, head hunting specific people they want rather than the usual free for all job application process.
(Update: I need to clarify that 37signals and GitHub don't always hire through headhunting. They're just the type of company I was referring to.)
That has overtones of the usual scam to get programmers to work for less money. "What you want more money?! Are you not happy here? Aren't you here for the fun? You're not just here for the money are you?"
a more typical way would be to give people equity based on impact with vesting - which, i think, avoids a lot of the morale downsides. i'm curious why he didn't do this instead.
they have to wonder whether the candidate is more motivated by the money or the love
Personally, seeing this makes me want to work for him solely because in addition to seeing him as extremely competent and clever, I now see him as someone who is generous and clearly values those 'under' him. I would take a below-average salary to work in an environment like that, regardless of whether there is ever another big payout.
Dividend is generally taxed at 30% in Sweden so a fair bit of that will be paid in taxes. Depending on how Notch decides to pay out the money to the employees they may have to pay even more.
If it is paid out evenly and as wages it will be about 66k SEK/month per employee, that puts them well into the top tax bracket. Assuming the tax authority counts it as normal income they will be force to pat ~56% income tax a fair bit of social securities and employer tax. Assuming this they might get about (as a guesstimate) 20-25k SEK/m or 240-300k SEK total, after taxes. Not shabby at all, that is close to what an average worker in Sweden earns per year. And that is bonus alone.
None the less; Cheers Notch for thinking about your employees! : )
Edit: Gifts are no longer taxed in Sweden, luckily! but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income or bonus rather than a gift.
I don't see how it can be payed out as wages. The dividend is payed out to Notch. Thereafter, it is his private money, to spend as he see fit. When he hands out the money, it is coming from him, not from Mojang.
I can see how the tax office could disagree with this, though...
Not sure how it's going to work out in the end, but I'd like a followup to this.
I don't play minecraft.
I'm not a fan.
I wouldn't know Notch if I tripped on him.
I gotta say hats off to the man. Doing something good for others at your own ( great ) expense when not compelled to do so is unusual. Most people would have spent it on themselves somehow. wtg man.
iirc, Steve Wozniak did something similar: when Apple went public without giving anything to the early employees, Woz basically gave/sold (cheaply) them stock from his own holdings.
Didn't he pretty much develop Minecraft single-handedly? If so, I don't think it's necessarily "right" to share the profits with employees who joined after the work was done.
It's his money of course, he's free to do what he wants and generosity is always nice to see. To my mind though, it would have made just as much sense to give it to charity or anyone else.
I'd be much more interested to hear that he's giving meaningful equity to new employees. That way they could actually make life-altering money if they help create another big hit like Minecraft.
I doubt his employees will appreciate getting another $3 million split across dozens of employees if they help create a new $100M game.
He developed it alone originally yes, but he retired in November 2011 and since late 2010 it's been developed (in part) by Jens Bergensten (http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Jeb)
Edit: also Mojang has revenue from the pocket edition of the game (for iOS and Android) that Notch has no involvement in, so it's beyond him being the only bread winner for the company.
Sweden has high taxes, depends on how he does it. If the money is first given to him and then he redistributes it then he'll most likely lose $1.5m on tax (50%). Otherwise, no idea.
Now if only more American bosses would take the money they earned with help from their employees and redistribute it to those employees, then maybe the economy (in America) wouldn't be as crazy as it is.
There are alot of people with computers on this planet. It's a testament to not only being a great game/experience out of the box, but also the constant updates and the lack of costly add-on content plaguing other games.
I think actions speak louder than words. Despite Notch getting a some flack among the community for being out-of-touch with Minecraft and some of it also going to his staff, I think this shows that Notch cares about his studio, his work, and staff more than anything else. And certainly unprecedented in among gaming studios and companies.
I have so much respect for Notch and Minecraft. It's the dream that pretty much everyone who wanted to build games has had--turning your game into a massive success both financially and artistically. All without the help of publishers or really the entire professional game industry. Amazing.
Notice how at the bottom of the article it says this move is very surprising 'in this day in age.' Is that just a cliche or was it that people really were more generous in these situations in years gone by?
I mean bankers are giving up their bonuses left right and centre these days ;)
An alternative reading: 'in this day and age' might refer to some future of extravagant wealth only surpassed by the generosity and grace with which the inhabitants thereof adorn themselves.
Assuming that the money is deserved by the employees, this is a very shrewd, selfish^ move on his part. Giving people their just deserts is in everyone's interest, and Notch's long-term reward will be a robust, growing business.
^I use the term to mean what it should mean - "what's good for Notch, long term" - and disavow any connotation about harming others. It's not truly selfish to hurt others.
A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both.
To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.
I might be being naive since he seems to be rather bravado about splitting the money with everyone, but I like to think Notch is doing the absolute best thing for Mojang and probably for himself in the end. I personally would love to work at a company like Mojang for a boss like Notch who disperses the hard work of the company with the company.
It seems to me that executives like Gates, Page, Brin, or Jobs who take $1 salaries (discounting their travel subsidies and Jobs's Gulfstream) are better for their companies in a number of ways than someone taking a lavish salary. I'm not saying the latter is wrong, but it seems like the "selfless" executive at the very least demonstrates the need for the company to do well--a real connection between vision, company, and leadership.
I hope good things come for both Notch and Mojang as a result of his sharing the wealth, their focus on satisfying their customers, and their general attitudes of honesty and openness.
I applaud these guys.
It's more about the money per se - it's about having a share of company profits. This, I find, is what a lot of companies get wrong. We go by the same old mentality that an "employee" should simply be compensated with a fixed amount. But why? People who work on the product should have a significant share of the profits as well. Allegedly a regular employee is "taking less risk" by having a fixed salary as opposed to the "risk takers" at the top - but in this day and age where there is no more guaranteed long-term job stability, that is not true anymore. And the continuing success of the company's products depends directly on the good work of its employees.
It'd be more awesome and effective (in terms of morale and team) to pay those in shares. Nothing boost productivity and care like owning a bit of a company. Even if it's just a tiny bit.
Speak for yourself. Other things being equal, I'd much rather get cash than shares in the company I work for. If the company goes bust, then I'm out of a job and my shares are worth nothing. If I want to invest in equity, then I will buy stocks in other companies and have a more diversified portfolio.
Of course, the situation would be different if I were a co-founder or a key employee with significant influence on the company's direction.
[+] [-] lincolnq|14 years ago|reply
I'm not saying he shouldn't've done it. I am, however, extremely curious. This is the sort of thing that I have wondered why more companies don't do.
[+] [-] jlarocco|14 years ago|reply
I love developing software, and I even spend some of my free time doing it. But if I didn't need the money, I'd spend most of my days skiing.
[+] [-] petercooper|14 years ago|reply
I'd be surprised if Mojang didn't hire in the same way as most small companies with huge industry respect (like 37signals or GitHub). That is, head hunting specific people they want rather than the usual free for all job application process.
(Update: I need to clarify that 37signals and GitHub don't always hire through headhunting. They're just the type of company I was referring to.)
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
If money destroys morale then why wouldn't the owner earning such massive amounts of money also destroy his morale?
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krig|14 years ago|reply
Seems like a strange argument to me.
[+] [-] dustingetz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bodegajed|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgieporgie|14 years ago|reply
Personally, seeing this makes me want to work for him solely because in addition to seeing him as extremely competent and clever, I now see him as someone who is generous and clearly values those 'under' him. I would take a below-average salary to work in an environment like that, regardless of whether there is ever another big payout.
[+] [-] batista|14 years ago|reply
This is not a romance. If your employees are not motivated by money, you're doing it wrong.
You want them to work on the NON INTERESTING problems too.
[+] [-] Chrono|14 years ago|reply
If it is paid out evenly and as wages it will be about 66k SEK/month per employee, that puts them well into the top tax bracket. Assuming the tax authority counts it as normal income they will be force to pat ~56% income tax a fair bit of social securities and employer tax. Assuming this they might get about (as a guesstimate) 20-25k SEK/m or 240-300k SEK total, after taxes. Not shabby at all, that is close to what an average worker in Sweden earns per year. And that is bonus alone.
None the less; Cheers Notch for thinking about your employees! : )
Edit: Gifts are no longer taxed in Sweden, luckily! but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income or bonus rather than a gift.
[+] [-] orjan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJ007|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GoodIntentions|14 years ago|reply
I gotta say hats off to the man. Doing something good for others at your own ( great ) expense when not compelled to do so is unusual. Most people would have spent it on themselves somehow. wtg man.
[+] [-] iacvlvs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staunch|14 years ago|reply
It's his money of course, he's free to do what he wants and generosity is always nice to see. To my mind though, it would have made just as much sense to give it to charity or anyone else.
I'd be much more interested to hear that he's giving meaningful equity to new employees. That way they could actually make life-altering money if they help create another big hit like Minecraft.
I doubt his employees will appreciate getting another $3 million split across dozens of employees if they help create a new $100M game.
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
Edit: also Mojang has revenue from the pocket edition of the game (for iOS and Android) that Notch has no involvement in, so it's beyond him being the only bread winner for the company.
[+] [-] therealarmen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jeremyarussell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odiroot|14 years ago|reply
Not even trying to troll, just asking.
[+] [-] bond|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muhfuhkuh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rplnt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keithvan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdicola|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|14 years ago|reply
I mean bankers are giving up their bonuses left right and centre these days ;)
[+] [-] Willwhatley|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxharris|14 years ago|reply
^I use the term to mean what it should mean - "what's good for Notch, long term" - and disavow any connotation about harming others. It's not truly selfish to hurt others.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both.
To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.
[+] [-] jordan0day|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bicknergseng|14 years ago|reply
It seems to me that executives like Gates, Page, Brin, or Jobs who take $1 salaries (discounting their travel subsidies and Jobs's Gulfstream) are better for their companies in a number of ways than someone taking a lavish salary. I'm not saying the latter is wrong, but it seems like the "selfless" executive at the very least demonstrates the need for the company to do well--a real connection between vision, company, and leadership.
I hope good things come for both Notch and Mojang as a result of his sharing the wealth, their focus on satisfying their customers, and their general attitudes of honesty and openness.
[+] [-] vic_nyc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justjimmy|14 years ago|reply
Now that would be interesting to see.
[+] [-] nandemo|14 years ago|reply
Of course, the situation would be different if I were a co-founder or a key employee with significant influence on the company's direction.
[+] [-] tatsuke95|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarkMeld|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malkia|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lyime|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonfa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/16/mojang-foun... (paragraph #3)