19 ms·
The reference to Hall’s annual salary being “in excess” of $100k is in response to a modification of law passed recently, and addressed in the linked Geekwire a
by techsupporter 6y ago
The reference to Hall’s annual salary being “in excess” of $100k is in response to a modification of law passed recently, and addressed in the linked Geekwire article:
> A new law passed by Washington state last year put restrictions on non-compete agreements, with a series of exceptions, including a provision that allows such agreements to be enforced in cases when an employee earns more than $100,000 a year. Hall earned “well in excess” of that amount in 2019, and was projected to surpass that in his 2020 compensation, as well, Amazon says in its suit.
> The suit shows that the legislation “has done nothing to stop this abusive labor practice by the state’s most influential employers,” said angel investor Chris DeVore, managing partner of Founders’ Co-op and the former managing director of Techstars Seattle, who has been outspoken against non-compete clauses.
Amazon lobbied heavily for that carve-out specifically because it wants to hang non-competes over its employees’ heads.
(The law was passed in response to some fast food franchisees hanging non-competes on their hourly employees but, in its original form, would have barred almost all of them. Obviously Amazon could not stand for that so bought itself an exemption.)
- bokbok8379 6y agoAccording to two salaries on glassdoor, VP of Marketing at Amazon pays around 170k/yr.
- aripickar 6y agoIt doesn’t. Base is 160k/yr, and stock probably is something like 4 mil over 4 years at onset, so he probably made 1.5-2 mil this year.
- mcpherrinm 6y agoAmazon has a hard cap on cash comp at $160k. All further comp is in stock.
- closeparen 6y agoWow! So do high level employees have to sell shares to pay their mortgages and credit cards? Everyone I know pins their lifestyle to base and saves near 100% of equity. Some don’t sell at all. I’m guessing that would change with a hard cap on base. That’s a different kind of exposure, not just to long term performance, but day to day volatility, and specifically during open trading windows.
- tass 6y agoIt depends how much they like to spend
- techsupporter 6y ago> So do high level employees have to sell shares to pay their mortgages and credit cards? Employees at this level tend to have a pretty high level of financial management services to manage scenarios like this. I have two associates, not close enough to call them friends but close enough to have some insights, on the edges of this world. What they do: - Other investments provide so-called passive income and that cash flow plus base salary is used for minimum expenses. - Spending on larger-ticket items and services is budgeted out and is drawn from a variety of lines of credit secured against things like stock or the underlying holdings of those earlier investments. - Most spending is planned in advance, either annually or quarterly, based on past income and future expected income. How much is added on the "future" side is financed by (often very inexpensive) leveraged debt and is calculated based on the risk tolerance of the individual. Securing the debt with assets makes that debt screamingly inexpensive. Paying a handful of percent on debt that will only be borrowed for a few months at a time is, of course, seen as a reasonable cost to smooth out cash flow and leave the other money invested at a much higher return. One other person I know who is not a higher-level employee but structures his spend very rigidly goes one step further and prepays all of his non-housing bills out of his annual bonus and one of the stock awards during the year. His annual salary and any other stock awards pay for housing, food, and savings.
- viscanti 6y ago> Paying a handful of percent on debt that will only be borrowed for a few months at a time is, of course, seen as a reasonable cost to smooth out cash flow and leave the other money invested at a much higher return. It's not just that. They also get to avoid paying capital gains taxes on their shares. So they can borrow against those shares to buy income generating assets that more than cover the interest costs and they can do so while avoiding having to pay the taxes on those gains (especially important when those gains are still short term capital gains where they would be taxed as income).
- bmcfeeley 6y agoThat is not true for at least SDE positions. See: https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Amazon&track=Software%20Engineer https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Amazon&track=Software%20Engi...
- joshuamorton 6y agoThat agrees with GP. Base salary is capped at 160K.
- bmcfeeley 6y agoThere are a large number of salaries reported in excess of 160K therein.
- dagnabbit 6y agoIt is absolutely true. Seattle area roles are capped at $160k cash; the rest is in RSUs. (or if you're a new hire, in your new hire bonus).
- tidepod12 6y agoAFAIK there's an exception for some geos like the Bay Area (and maybe NYC?) where salary can go as high as $180k (or maybe $185k.. I don't know the exact number). That might be why levels.fyi reports higher than $160k (or it could just be lies) but the general gist is correct. Amazon has a hard cap on their salaries. Any pay over ~$180k (or whatever the number is) is given out as either cash bonus or as stock.
- Zaheer 6y agoEx-Amazon here. This is right - Bay Area cap is $185k.
- bmcfeeley 6y agoSure, no arguments here about the existence of a top end — that’s moving the goalposts though. There is not a hard cap at 160K. As an aside, is this materially different than any other FAANG? All the offers I’ve seen when browsing tools like levels.fyi scale much faster in stock/bonus compensation than in salary.
- dantheman 6y agoThat's not true.
- whycombagator 6y agoI think that might only be reflective of base pay and not including stock. I would have guessed the total comp is multiples of the glassdoor figure
- mh8h 6y agoThat's the base salary. Amazon has a cap on the salary. The rest of the compensation comes from bonuses and RSUs.
- ex3ndr 6y agoHow on the earth such lobbism is legal?
- dathinab 6y agoBecause of previously done lobbyism...
- lend000 6y agoWhat's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? There will always be those acting to corrupt and change the system -- the important part is to have a system that is designed to resist corruption (with things like fundamental rights like the Bill of Rights and courts to analyze and rule on the validity of laws) and attempting to elect politicians that don't introduce legislation that goes against those laws in the first place.
- rurp 6y ago>What's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? The difference is money. Lobbying is effective for groups that have a lot to spend. So for almost any pro-business issue lobbying can have a strong effect. That might be ok, but there's no similarly effective mechanism to push issues that don't result in direct profits to the people that care about them. There are countless issues that are very important and should be addressed, but that don't have any direct financial beneficiaries and so are often ignored in US politics.
- jedimastert 6y agoSo this is a thought that I see, and I feel like I have a different definition of "lobbying". The lobbying that I'm aware of is just paying people to go bother Senators. What am I missing that would make that illegal?
- itsoktocry 6y agoExactly. This is how legislation is passed: you send people to talk to the lawmakers about your issue and convince them to do something about it. Like everything else in this world, having money to spend helps. Of course, because we're talking about money and people and relationships, there's inherently some corruption that seeps through, but most of the laws (and lobbying) is pretty boring stuff. Without lobbying most lawmakers would have no clue about some issues. How could they?
- gowld 6y agoThat's not quite fair. Fast-food employees and highly paid professionals who work deeply in trade secrets have significant differences in their employment situation vis a vis non-compete agreements.
- tracker1 6y agoThere are still non-disclosure agreements and trade secrets laws. Non-competes are not needed for that. Non-competes only exist to discourage employees from being able to leave a company.
- koheripbal 6y agoThe point is that someone making $100K+ per year, especially in this case where it's more like $1MM+, DOES NOT NEED GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.
- tracker1 6y agoSince pretty much everyone in this site (at least in the US) makes over $100k/year ... are you okay with not being able to work for a year and a half without pay? edit: Since you make over 100k, you're also considered a white-colar employee... Your boss has decided the work-week is now 60-hours a week, and you don't get paid extra for it. Oh, and if you don't perform, you're fired. And if you try to work for a competitor, you will be sued and a protective injunction against you being able to work for the new job will be given. And that's all a-ok by you, because you make what most would consider to be a wealthy lifestyle.