3 ms·

My company also does not have a 1 year cliff and it's wonderful. I switched a few months ago from a company that did. It was a farce how my old company, at the

My company also does not have a 1 year cliff and it's wonderful. I switched a few months ago from a company that did. It was a farce how my old company, at the end of the year, would say your compensation for next year is $X but part of X was paid out over the next 4 years with a 1 year cliff each year. Just one of many reasons why I left. My current company pays out equity every 3 months and it's incredible. The only good thing my old company did was pay every week instead of every 2 weeks. I know most companies do every 2 weeks; I was surprised at how large a difference getting paid every week vs every 2 weeks makes. Not sure why the extra week between is so impactful but it really is.

scribu 5y ago
> I was surprised at how large a difference getting paid every week vs every 2 weeks makes. In what way?
- briefcomment 5y ago
  I would think, psychologically, it feels more of a two way relationship, rather than one way (i.e. you working constantly for the company with them only occasionally reciprocating)
- crooked-v 5y ago
  While this isn't much of a company relationship thing: If you're getting paid every 2 weeks, sometimes you'll get paid the first/third week of the month and sometimes the second/fourth, which can be a pain if you're trying to keep a consistent amount in a checking account while also having bill pay and auto-transfers to savings/investment accounts. Or, tl;dr, it makes it easier to automate money without leaving a large buffer of cash in a checking account.
  - davidgay 5y ago
    And in other parts of the world, they just pay monthly. Avoids that problem...
    - crooked-v 5y ago
      That would be good too when it comes to that predictability.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      Or daily. That's probably the best option.
  - sneak 5y ago
    How is having an extra 2-4 weeks of income in checking "a large buffer of cash"? This seems like a silly thing.
    - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
      I think what you want in checking -- if your circumstances allow for this kind of money-shuffling, at the least -- is more along the lines of 4 weeks of expenses, not 4 weeks of income, which would (hopefully!) be considerably higher. I'm not sure I'd call it a "large buffer," but even if you're not in the "shove absolutely everything you can into index funds and live like a pauper despite the fact that you're making $250K+ a year so you can retire at 35" camp, the more money you have in higher-return places, the better, so you probably don't want it in the checking account. (And probably don't want a lot in a low-interest savings account.)

scribu 5y ago

> I was surprised at how large a difference getting paid every week vs every 2 weeks makes. In what way?

briefcomment 5y ago
I would think, psychologically, it feels more of a two way relationship, rather than one way (i.e. you working constantly for the company with them only occasionally reciprocating)
crooked-v 5y ago
While this isn't much of a company relationship thing: If you're getting paid every 2 weeks, sometimes you'll get paid the first/third week of the month and sometimes the second/fourth, which can be a pain if you're trying to keep a consistent amount in a checking account while also having bill pay and auto-transfers to savings/investment accounts. Or, tl;dr, it makes it easier to automate money without leaving a large buffer of cash in a checking account.
- davidgay 5y ago
  And in other parts of the world, they just pay monthly. Avoids that problem...
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    That would be good too when it comes to that predictability.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    Or daily. That's probably the best option.
- sneak 5y ago
  How is having an extra 2-4 weeks of income in checking "a large buffer of cash"? This seems like a silly thing.
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    I think what you want in checking -- if your circumstances allow for this kind of money-shuffling, at the least -- is more along the lines of 4 weeks of expenses, not 4 weeks of income, which would (hopefully!) be considerably higher. I'm not sure I'd call it a "large buffer," but even if you're not in the "shove absolutely everything you can into index funds and live like a pauper despite the fact that you're making $250K+ a year so you can retire at 35" camp, the more money you have in higher-return places, the better, so you probably don't want it in the checking account. (And probably don't want a lot in a low-interest savings account.)