5 ms·

I'm predicting a 5-out-of-5 review, again, and a < 1% raise, again, while my employer posts record profits quarter after quarter, and the executives get 50% rai

I'm predicting a 5-out-of-5 review, again, and a < 1% raise, again, while my employer posts record profits quarter after quarter, and the executives get 50% raises every year. things are gonna collapse soon, so I'm going to chill here until that blows over, while being thankful to have a job, and then I'll probably move on to a company that looks better on paper but proves to be somehow even worse with raises in reality. I regret having kids, because they are going to have a very difficult time.

908B64B197 5y ago
> while my employer posts record profits quarter after quarter, and the executives get 50% raises every year. Just switch to a mostly stock based comp.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  if only it were that easy.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    If you assume your total compensation is static (which it must be if you also assume/control for risk) then it is pretty easy? Just invest whatever you're getting in cash that you wish you were getting in stock. And really ceteris paribus that's better - you can invest it wherever, not just where you work.
    - duped 5y ago
      Outside the tech bubble the vast majority of people don't have the cash flow to do this
      - OJFord 5y ago
        And such people are being compensated in mostly stock as an alternative?
        duped 5y ago
        No? They're spending their income on housing, food, education, and healthcare. People don't have the capacity to put their cash into savings, let alone investments.
        OJFord 5y ago
        Exactly, I don't understand your comment 'some people don't have so much compensation' in response to discussion on the cash/stock split and whether it matters? I don't disagree with you, it's just.. not relevant? Obviously if your compensation is too low to invest anything, you need it all in cash. It will be anyway. My suggestion was that cash is king as it's flexible anyway, so that's not even incompatible.
    - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
      It is inefficient to pay taxes on your salary, buy stocks, and then pay tax on those upon sale.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        Tax-efficient vehicles exist, just as they do and don't for stock received as part of compensation. Depends on jurisdiction and personal situation, what's available to you, etc. not really a good blanket objection.
    - deanmoriarty 5y ago
      With RSU you’ll get your 4 year grant (and refreshers) upfront, so hopefully shares will have substantially grown and more than kept up with inflation by the time they vest years later. This strategy cannot really be reproduced by investing your after-tax paycheck into the stock. It’s “similar” (not really but I like the analogy) to buying a house with cash vs getting a mortgage for the maximum amount you can get away with and slowly paying it off. Massive difference by the end of the investment.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    That's what the top tech companies already do. If your company isn't doing it, that's a red flag that they aren't tech focused and treating tech as a cost center.
- crossroadsguy 5y ago
  Without having a trillion terms and conditions coming in with those those stocks?
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  ^this is the solution no one wants to talk about. Everyone says they want a broader distribution of wealth but still refuse to compensate employees remotely proportionate to shareholders. We can’t keep waiting for taxes or government deficits/spending to redistribute.
missedthecue 5y ago
50% annual raises? How long before they're trillionaires?
- muzani 5y ago
  I assume it matches the company's growth.
brodouevencode 5y ago
This is such a bleak perspective. I pray you change it soon, for your sake. The market will do what it's going to do. Hopefully whatever corrections come do so before the normal folks endure too much more pain. Even if not it's your responsibility to your children to show them that you fight through the struggles. Yes, it's hard. But the human race has been through worse. You can do it.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  maybe your life situation shields you from what I experience, but it seems pretty clear to me that the human race is doomed to fail. if not the entire race, certainly western civilization. almost anyone will crush another human for just a small amount of money. there is no sense of community, overall; we are all just finding new ways to hate each other. we are doomed.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    I can see where you're coming from. Turn on any cable news channel or pick up any major newspaper and the future is scary. But really, is it that bad? Or do they have panic to sell?
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      I bet things are worse than we know. if things were this way and we DIDN'T have streaming services and mobile phones and Facebook, we would be much more aware of it. we're hiding behind the quick dopamine hits and pretending things aren't as bad as they are.
refurb 5y ago
You regret having kids because the future will be “difficult”? You feel the situation is worse than say 1929? 1939? 1968? 1973? 2001? 2008?
- naikrovek 5y ago
  yes, because the context of each of those events is worse than the previous one. each one happened because the greediest among us had been recently allowed to be even better and more efficient at collecting money. today's richest simply can not be satisfied by money. no amount is ever enough, and today's richest are far better at acquisition of wealth than any previous generation. the growth of wealth inequality is the worst it's ever been and shows no signs of slowing down until there is literally no more money to extract.
  - refurb 5y ago
    I’m sorry? The tech crash of 2001 was worse than World War 2? Do I understand you correctly?
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      classic internet trolling: critiquing semantics while being completely oblivious to the pragmatics. you've missed my entire statement and sentiment because of an error. well done. World War 2 wasn't as bad as The Great Depression, of course, because WW2 resulted in a very strong economy for a long period in the US, and until the Dollar ceased being backed by gold, wages for blue and white collar workers raised at the same rate. In fact, I would argue that WW2 doesn't even belong on that list if you're in the US. There were shortages and rationing, but everyone knew it was for a good cause and that it was the right thing to do, including the very few extremely wealthy people of the day. Today's extremely wealthy view you and I as complete fodder, to be used and tossed aside as necessary, if it brings them any closer at all to an increase in the value of their stock portfolio.

908B64B197 5y ago

> while my employer posts record profits quarter after quarter, and the executives get 50% raises every year. Just switch to a mostly stock based comp.

naikrovek 5y ago
if only it were that easy.
- OJFord 5y ago
  If you assume your total compensation is static (which it must be if you also assume/control for risk) then it is pretty easy? Just invest whatever you're getting in cash that you wish you were getting in stock. And really ceteris paribus that's better - you can invest it wherever, not just where you work.
  - duped 5y ago
    Outside the tech bubble the vast majority of people don't have the cash flow to do this
    - OJFord 5y ago
      And such people are being compensated in mostly stock as an alternative?
      - duped 5y ago
        No? They're spending their income on housing, food, education, and healthcare. People don't have the capacity to put their cash into savings, let alone investments.
        OJFord 5y ago
        Exactly, I don't understand your comment 'some people don't have so much compensation' in response to discussion on the cash/stock split and whether it matters? I don't disagree with you, it's just.. not relevant? Obviously if your compensation is too low to invest anything, you need it all in cash. It will be anyway. My suggestion was that cash is king as it's flexible anyway, so that's not even incompatible.
  - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
    It is inefficient to pay taxes on your salary, buy stocks, and then pay tax on those upon sale.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      Tax-efficient vehicles exist, just as they do and don't for stock received as part of compensation. Depends on jurisdiction and personal situation, what's available to you, etc. not really a good blanket objection.
  - deanmoriarty 5y ago
    With RSU you’ll get your 4 year grant (and refreshers) upfront, so hopefully shares will have substantially grown and more than kept up with inflation by the time they vest years later. This strategy cannot really be reproduced by investing your after-tax paycheck into the stock. It’s “similar” (not really but I like the analogy) to buying a house with cash vs getting a mortgage for the maximum amount you can get away with and slowly paying it off. Massive difference by the end of the investment.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  That's what the top tech companies already do. If your company isn't doing it, that's a red flag that they aren't tech focused and treating tech as a cost center.
crossroadsguy 5y ago
Without having a trillion terms and conditions coming in with those those stocks?
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
^this is the solution no one wants to talk about. Everyone says they want a broader distribution of wealth but still refuse to compensate employees remotely proportionate to shareholders. We can’t keep waiting for taxes or government deficits/spending to redistribute.

missedthecue 5y ago

50% annual raises? How long before they're trillionaires?

muzani 5y ago
I assume it matches the company's growth.

brodouevencode 5y ago

This is such a bleak perspective. I pray you change it soon, for your sake. The market will do what it's going to do. Hopefully whatever corrections come do so before the normal folks endure too much more pain. Even if not it's your responsibility to your children to show them that you fight through the struggles. Yes, it's hard. But the human race has been through worse. You can do it.

naikrovek 5y ago
maybe your life situation shields you from what I experience, but it seems pretty clear to me that the human race is doomed to fail. if not the entire race, certainly western civilization. almost anyone will crush another human for just a small amount of money. there is no sense of community, overall; we are all just finding new ways to hate each other. we are doomed.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  I can see where you're coming from. Turn on any cable news channel or pick up any major newspaper and the future is scary. But really, is it that bad? Or do they have panic to sell?
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    I bet things are worse than we know. if things were this way and we DIDN'T have streaming services and mobile phones and Facebook, we would be much more aware of it. we're hiding behind the quick dopamine hits and pretending things aren't as bad as they are.

refurb 5y ago

You regret having kids because the future will be “difficult”? You feel the situation is worse than say 1929? 1939? 1968? 1973? 2001? 2008?

naikrovek 5y ago
yes, because the context of each of those events is worse than the previous one. each one happened because the greediest among us had been recently allowed to be even better and more efficient at collecting money. today's richest simply can not be satisfied by money. no amount is ever enough, and today's richest are far better at acquisition of wealth than any previous generation. the growth of wealth inequality is the worst it's ever been and shows no signs of slowing down until there is literally no more money to extract.
- refurb 5y ago
  I’m sorry? The tech crash of 2001 was worse than World War 2? Do I understand you correctly?
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    classic internet trolling: critiquing semantics while being completely oblivious to the pragmatics. you've missed my entire statement and sentiment because of an error. well done. World War 2 wasn't as bad as The Great Depression, of course, because WW2 resulted in a very strong economy for a long period in the US, and until the Dollar ceased being backed by gold, wages for blue and white collar workers raised at the same rate. In fact, I would argue that WW2 doesn't even belong on that list if you're in the US. There were shortages and rationing, but everyone knew it was for a good cause and that it was the right thing to do, including the very few extremely wealthy people of the day. Today's extremely wealthy view you and I as complete fodder, to be used and tossed aside as necessary, if it brings them any closer at all to an increase in the value of their stock portfolio.