top | item 47184112

(no title)

happyopossum | 2 days ago

You can call it a 'party' if you want, but a company-wide in-person event is a) valuable, and b) expensive.

Calling an all-hands a party without any supporting evidence feels willfully negligent.

discuss

order

baq|2 days ago

$68M/10000 employees = $6800/1 employee

A lot? Not a lot? Don’t know anymore.

mmcclure|2 days ago

It's on the high side, but...honestly not absurd? "Party" implies one night rager, but the source says "in-person company event." That seems more like a multi-day company onsite to me, and the total bill per person there probably includes travel, accommodations, food on top of any overall event costs.

Bringing a remote employee to SF just to work out of an office for a few days can easily cost a few grand.

mpeg|2 days ago

I've been to all hands where it probably cost that much just in travel: business class LHR to SFO, hotel for a few nights, dinners, drinks, entertainment, venue, guest speakers, and on and on.

It doesn't seem excessive, the networking in these things is often really worth it

layer8|2 days ago

At the cited $340000 salary, it amounts to around the same as one extra week of vacation for everyone.

dangoor|2 days ago

Seems plausible. Travel (some international), hotels, taxis, venues, food, and entertainment. It adds up. Probably not a single day event.

Aurornis|2 days ago

For an event where many employees have to be flown in and stay at hotels in an expensive city? That's normal.

Hosting in-person events for 10,000 people is expensive even without having to transport and house anyone.

nerdsniper|2 days ago

That actually sounds pretty reasonable.

darth_avocado|2 days ago

Maybe it’s just me, but I think being able to retain more employees is more valuable than flying the entire company for an in person event.

frde_me|2 days ago

One could argue a smaller number of employees that are more motivated and feel connected to their coworkersis better than a more employees that are all isolated and "meh".

Hamuko|2 days ago

Can it be that valuable when 40% of the participants aren't?

layer8|2 days ago

Maybe it served to find out which of them weren’t valuable. ;)