> Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is.

> Then I read complaints about how the owners (shareholders) of the company are making pots of money and the employees aren't, and how brutally unfair that is. The employees should be receiving dividend-like cash bonuses and should be receiving salaries that actually afford the cost of living in their geographic location (in addition to legitimate retirement contributions, 40-hour work weeks, generous vacation, and legitimate insurance benefits, which all should simply be regarded as the absolute bare minimum conditions of employment period). Saying it's either stock or no stock is a false dilemma. The same amount of compensation should be shared with the employees, just not necessarily in stock format. I'm also not opposed to someone who chooses to take company stock instead of an equivalent cash bonus. If you weigh up those risks, you're a grown up and can choose for yourself. But for most people, taking a cash bonus and putting it into a simple low-fee index fund or ETF is going to be worth a ton more than their company stock, while also lowering their overall risk, since a market downturn won't affect their regular paycheck and since their regular employer won't affect their return to their outside investments. The point is they should have the choice. > BTW, 20 years ago I read a statistic that Microsoft had made 10,000 millionaires just in the Seattle area alone. BTW I read that someone somewhere won the lottery ... better go buy a ticket.