5 ms·

Why is the implication misleading? Because there’s a vest period on their total compensation? Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even i

by abduhl 3y ago

Why is the implication misleading? Because there’s a vest period on their total compensation? Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? Why have it be different for a city employee?

woodruffw 3y ago
> Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? This isn't how pensions or civil retirement plans work. Contributions during an individual's career result in predictable and proportional fractional payouts after retirement or leaving the civil system. Again: the implication is that civil servants are somehow making out like bandits here, when 71k take-home is well below the average SF salary[1]. Edit: And to tie a knot around it: no tech job I'm aware of includes the "market" value of their insurance plan or matching schemes in their TC numbers. These would be closer analogues for what's happening here. [1]: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA
- abduhl 3y ago
  So you’re saying that contributions, which are paid for by the employer, result in predictable and proportional payouts after some vesting period. I see. So why shouldn’t it be considered a part of total compensation? The rest of the benefits not being included in TC I agree with.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I realized I made a mistake in this thread: I'm conflating TC and take-home, when my point really only applies to take-home. Sorry for that! You're right that pension benefits can be reasonably included in a TC calculation; I'd still argue that the article's framing is meant to imply that TC here reflects a larger take-home than it actually does, as well as malfeasance on SF's part (rather than ordinary and boring funding obligations).
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Equity belongs to your estate after your death, and will be a permanent obligation of the company (unless it buys back the shares). At best a pension can be partially transferred to your spouse after your death, but after the death of both you, and if you elected the option of a reduced pension to have it apply to your spouse, your spouse, the pension disappears entirely from your estate. This makes comparing a pension to equity, or even a 401(k), problematic in respects. A pension is an annuity, and should be calculated as such.

by abduhl 3y ago

woodruffw 3y ago

> Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? This isn't how pensions or civil retirement plans work. Contributions during an individual's career result in predictable and proportional fractional payouts after retirement or leaving the civil system. Again: the implication is that civil servants are somehow making out like bandits here, when 71k take-home is well below the average SF salary[1]. Edit: And to tie a knot around it: no tech job I'm aware of includes the "market" value of their insurance plan or matching schemes in their TC numbers. These would be closer analogues for what's happening here. [1]: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA

abduhl 3y ago
So you’re saying that contributions, which are paid for by the employer, result in predictable and proportional payouts after some vesting period. I see. So why shouldn’t it be considered a part of total compensation? The rest of the benefits not being included in TC I agree with.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I realized I made a mistake in this thread: I'm conflating TC and take-home, when my point really only applies to take-home. Sorry for that! You're right that pension benefits can be reasonably included in a TC calculation; I'd still argue that the article's framing is meant to imply that TC here reflects a larger take-home than it actually does, as well as malfeasance on SF's part (rather than ordinary and boring funding obligations).

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

Equity belongs to your estate after your death, and will be a permanent obligation of the company (unless it buys back the shares). At best a pension can be partially transferred to your spouse after your death, but after the death of both you, and if you elected the option of a reduced pension to have it apply to your spouse, your spouse, the pension disappears entirely from your estate. This makes comparing a pension to equity, or even a 401(k), problematic in respects. A pension is an annuity, and should be calculated as such.