4 ms·

Google famously underpays as it leverages it's name. Startups can't really compete on total compensation because so much is tied to equity which can be made liq

Google famously underpays as it leverages it's name. Startups can't really compete on total compensation because so much is tied to equity which can be made liquid in the case of big tech. At the same time, startups don't want to give away their equity and are fairly conservative about it. I don't see this changing. The current situation will resolve itself in 1-2 yrs and we will be back again.

VirusNewbie 4y ago
G underpays compared to other FAANG and unicorns but does pay way more than microsoft and just about every other large and small company.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  G, combined with its benefits, does NOT underpay compared to Amazon. Amazon's vesting schedule is so toxic that 90% or more google engineers have higher total comp, better benefits, and better WLB than Amazon.
  - mcqueenjordan 4y ago
    Amazon compensates your first year (the low % vesting year) with an entirely equivalent amount in full cash. Which is arguably better -- so I don't get your point.
  - bradjohnson 4y ago
    Disclaimer: I currently work for Amazon but I would argue that their vesting schedule is their strongest selling point, especially in the current market. If you got into Amazon relatively recently, you're in a strong position for your take home pay. The backloaded stock gives you stability up front with their high signing bonus, and high growth potential for TC assuming stock growth in two years. My pay is basically equalized over 4 years at current stock prices when I began, so my expected 4 year outlook without raises/performance bonuses/stock appreciation is: Y1: ~70% Base, ~26% Bonus, ~4% Stock (5% total initial grant) Y2: ~70% Base, ~18% Bonus, ~12% Stock (15% total initial grant) Y3: ~70% Base, ~0% Bonus, ~30% Stock (40% total initial grant) Y4: ~70% Base, ~0% Bonus, ~30% Stock (40% total initial grant) Rough numbers, you get it. Not everyone has the same deal, but from what I've seen @ Amazon this is pretty standard and honestly significantly better than having to deal with the volatility of a 1 year initial vesting cliff like most public companies.
    - nkjnlknlk 4y ago
      It depends how old you are, how senior you are, and how likely you are to switch companies in a shitty situation. It works for a specific (perhaps more stable) archetype of engineering hire for sure!
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Why does it depend? You got your full market compensation in mostly cash for the first two years.
        nkjnlknlk 4y ago
        I misread and didn't realize the schedule changed from the offers I received 2+ years ago. This compensation structure is definitely my preference.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I was hired in 2020. My structure was - Year 1: base + high prorated signing bonus + 5% stock vest - Year 2: base + slightly lower signing bonus + 15% stock vest - Year 3 and 4 - base + 40% stock vest If the stock doesn’t move, you should make about the same amount Years 1 through 4 or slightly more.
        nkjnlknlk 4y ago
        That's awesome. Definitely wish I was in that situation right now. :)
      - bradjohnson 4y ago
        At my last company, the stock price when I joined was at $150/share, it rose to over $200/share and crashed to under $30/share by the time my initial vesting date came. I lost six figures of expected TC based on my original offer (over half my total compensation). Since it was a 1 year cliff, I couldn't do anything to diversify or limit my risk because my RSUs were not mine until they vested. Lesson learned, but I don't think there's an archetype of engineer that prefers that kind of risk profile over large cash payments each month. My downside for Y1 at Amazon is 4% of the agreed upon TC.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I work for Amazon. Anyone who was hired over the past two years would have been more than happy to receive a large stable cash prorated signing bonus over the past two years than stock.
makestuff 4y ago
Yeah, in the past few years startups have become super stingy with equity. In the best case you end up making the same you would at a big tech company, and the worst case you end up with nothing. I interviewed at several, and after doing the math they would all need to 10x with minimal dilution, and have an exit within 5 years to make any money. Once you realize the odds of that happening, it becomes pretty obvious that you are not being given a good deal.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  This 2019 discussion thread where HN was pushing back at a pre-YC head Garry Tan, especially this subthread, was a memorable example of devs complaining en masse about startup equity stinginess. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866560
scarface74 4y ago
Equity means statistically very little in a startup. The chance of any startup succeeding where “success” means that the investors don’t lose money is 1 out of 10. The chance of a qualified person who takes a below market compensation in exchange for “equity” not being better off by working for one of the public tech companies is even slimmer.

VirusNewbie 4y ago

G underpays compared to other FAANG and unicorns but does pay way more than microsoft and just about every other large and small company.

Der_Einzige 4y ago
G, combined with its benefits, does NOT underpay compared to Amazon. Amazon's vesting schedule is so toxic that 90% or more google engineers have higher total comp, better benefits, and better WLB than Amazon.
- mcqueenjordan 4y ago
  Amazon compensates your first year (the low % vesting year) with an entirely equivalent amount in full cash. Which is arguably better -- so I don't get your point.
- bradjohnson 4y ago
  Disclaimer: I currently work for Amazon but I would argue that their vesting schedule is their strongest selling point, especially in the current market. If you got into Amazon relatively recently, you're in a strong position for your take home pay. The backloaded stock gives you stability up front with their high signing bonus, and high growth potential for TC assuming stock growth in two years. My pay is basically equalized over 4 years at current stock prices when I began, so my expected 4 year outlook without raises/performance bonuses/stock appreciation is: Y1: ~70% Base, ~26% Bonus, ~4% Stock (5% total initial grant) Y2: ~70% Base, ~18% Bonus, ~12% Stock (15% total initial grant) Y3: ~70% Base, ~0% Bonus, ~30% Stock (40% total initial grant) Y4: ~70% Base, ~0% Bonus, ~30% Stock (40% total initial grant) Rough numbers, you get it. Not everyone has the same deal, but from what I've seen @ Amazon this is pretty standard and honestly significantly better than having to deal with the volatility of a 1 year initial vesting cliff like most public companies.
  - nkjnlknlk 4y ago
    It depends how old you are, how senior you are, and how likely you are to switch companies in a shitty situation. It works for a specific (perhaps more stable) archetype of engineering hire for sure!
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Why does it depend? You got your full market compensation in mostly cash for the first two years.
      - nkjnlknlk 4y ago
        I misread and didn't realize the schedule changed from the offers I received 2+ years ago. This compensation structure is definitely my preference.
        scarface74 4y ago
        I was hired in 2020. My structure was - Year 1: base + high prorated signing bonus + 5% stock vest - Year 2: base + slightly lower signing bonus + 15% stock vest - Year 3 and 4 - base + 40% stock vest If the stock doesn’t move, you should make about the same amount Years 1 through 4 or slightly more.
        nkjnlknlk 4y ago
        That's awesome. Definitely wish I was in that situation right now. :)
    - bradjohnson 4y ago
      At my last company, the stock price when I joined was at $150/share, it rose to over $200/share and crashed to under $30/share by the time my initial vesting date came. I lost six figures of expected TC based on my original offer (over half my total compensation). Since it was a 1 year cliff, I couldn't do anything to diversify or limit my risk because my RSUs were not mine until they vested. Lesson learned, but I don't think there's an archetype of engineer that prefers that kind of risk profile over large cash payments each month. My downside for Y1 at Amazon is 4% of the agreed upon TC.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I work for Amazon. Anyone who was hired over the past two years would have been more than happy to receive a large stable cash prorated signing bonus over the past two years than stock.

makestuff 4y ago

Yeah, in the past few years startups have become super stingy with equity. In the best case you end up making the same you would at a big tech company, and the worst case you end up with nothing. I interviewed at several, and after doing the math they would all need to 10x with minimal dilution, and have an exit within 5 years to make any money. Once you realize the odds of that happening, it becomes pretty obvious that you are not being given a good deal.

Apocryphon 4y ago
This 2019 discussion thread where HN was pushing back at a pre-YC head Garry Tan, especially this subthread, was a memorable example of devs complaining en masse about startup equity stinginess. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21866560

scarface74 4y ago

Equity means statistically very little in a startup. The chance of any startup succeeding where “success” means that the investors don’t lose money is 1 out of 10. The chance of a qualified person who takes a below market compensation in exchange for “equity” not being better off by working for one of the public tech companies is even slimmer.