Sure, but it has plenty of other desirable outcomes (some of which are more for your employer than you): 1. There is a risk that the stock loses value but stoc

Sure, but it has plenty of other desirable outcomes (some of which are more for your employer than you): 1. There is a risk that the stock loses value but stocks generally have positive EV. 2. Since stocks vest over time there is some intrinsic value in being able to simply walk away if the stock crashes (dropping your comp going forward) but being able to stay if the stock surged (greatly increasing your comp compared to your market rate). It’s kind of like having a long-dated option. 3. It generally takes months to a couple years for stocks to change in value enough for it to put you over market rate. It takes similar amounts of time for you to fully ramp up and start adding value to the company. Generally you tend to get into golden handcuff range right around the time you start settling in. Getting paid above-market in a role where you’re doing well is great. 4. You may not have enough influence to really move the stock up but you often do have enough influence to move it down (like being sloppy or doing something destructive like leaking). 5. From the employer perspective, aligning your financial interests with the board/founders/investors/execs probably means you’re unlikely to try to unionize or get angry at the company when it gives you only a 5% salary bump in a year where the stock increased 100%. Generally speaking the worker:exec relationship is less combative since there’s less of a conflict of interests. As an employee there are nice aspects of this, like the whole company having a more collegiate or team-like atmosphere.