Comment by 0xy
6 years ago
>I mean if we take facebook as an example, you can't negotiate pay
Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible.
>Which is the same as what it would be if it was unionised
Firstly, no. The scale is wide and you are placed somewhere between the low and high points of the scale for your level. Not every L5 engineer earns the same thing. Secondly, total compensation is what matters.
>Also, you have chosen two professions that are run by public organisations, so pay is always going to be low
Tech contractors for public organisations in my area are paid more or less market rate.
>However in other countries, teachers unions are very effective at settling compensation
Not for top performers, they are paid the same as low performers.
>The UK for example has reasonably well paid teachers
If you are the best teacher in the country, you get severely underpaid.
>Statistics say that in practice your probably earning close to median for tech
I earn 110% more than the median wage for my particular level, according to Glassdoor/Levels/etc. I don't think I'm special, but I think I perform highly and are paid in kind for that. Given I'm capable of analysing my own impact, it's pretty clear I'm paid a fraction of the value I provide to the company too.
Regarding stock units, if I had sold my AMZN RSUs as soon as they vested, I would have missed out by a lot of pay.
History is full of rock solid tech giants who have faltered. Amazon isn't invincible and cannot climb forever. In fact, they're under more competition than ever before.
Just because this worked for you doesn't mean it's a good strategy at every company every time.
My view of RSUs was always to see them as a bonus, money that is nice to have but that I don't need. If I can't live my life with the base pay, I don't tke the job.
Sure, AMZN exploded over the last years, no idea why so. I had doubts i would ever go above 1k, not to speak about approaching 3k.
> Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible.
I got stock 10 years ago at $13/share and now it's worth $201/share. I don't feel irresponsible for still holding it.
> Stocks basically are pay, because anyone who doesn't immediately sell them as they vest is fiscally irresponsible.
citation needed
Unless their financial calculus led them to conclude that they needed to buy exactly that much stock of their company as they received as stock compensation, they should be selling and redistributing as they see fit.
There are very few companies who can consistently outperform index funds. Of course there are exceptions, but there aren't many and I'd wager they won't be forever.