5 ms·

Seems like a strawman, as no company is giving you the cash as a lump sum payment like that up front. Even if you get the option, which mostly you don't, it's b

Seems like a strawman, as no company is giving you the cash as a lump sum payment like that up front. Even if you get the option, which mostly you don't, it's between: 1. A grant at $Xk, converted to shares on start date and vesting proportionally over 4 years or... 2. A salary bump equivalent to the grant in (1), paid out ~bi-weekly at (1/104)*$Xk. 104 being the amount of bi-weekly pay periods to occur over a 4 year span.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
It's not a strawman, it's a direct response to grandparent comment in this thread, who said: > getting the $100k worth of stocks a year is at least as good as just getting the cash I am arguing that getting $100k worth of cash is always at least as good as getting $100k worth of stocks. You're saying that it's not realistic to have the option to get cash instead of stocks, and that's true but it's besides the point.