child comment I was replying to was deleted so adding this to this parent comment: Likewise I've met plenty of engineers that are not profitably replaceable.

child comment I was replying to was deleted so adding this to this parent comment: Likewise I've met plenty of engineers that are not profitably replaceable. Almost every SWE is replaceable, but many it makes no sense to replace and that usually correlates with their tenure working on a particular system. I myself have several years of knowledge I've accumulated working in a specific problem space at the company. It would take a new hire minimum 2-3 years if not more to accumulate the specialized knowledge I have. So if I were to leave tomorrow over pay, they would have to hire a replacement at the market rate (salary and a 4 year equity grant). That replacement would be far less productive than me for minimum 2 years, so they pay out 4 years of equity now to see equal productivity 2 years from now and if they continue the same pay strategy, that new hire will leave after 4 years of equity has vested. They basically get 2 years of productivity 2 years from now for the price of 4 years of equity today. It's just stupid to play chicken with salary when there are considerable opportunities costs for doing so and you're essentially paying double for half. It's not just me either. I see it with folks across the board at the company. The only ones I consider relatively fungible are those that team hop every 1 to 1.5 years.