3 ms·

I read the article, based on the title, thinking "I wonder what the author is going to address regarding employee compensation." Was it addressing performance?

I read the article, based on the title, thinking "I wonder what the author is going to address regarding employee compensation." Was it addressing performance? Or perhaps socially valuable contributions which have been traditionally under-compensated (such as teaching)? No. It was bemoaning how stock options offered to employees by a corporation might, might, be "worth less" when restricted sale is applicable. Just so we are all on the same page, here is the definition of "stock option" as provided by Merriam-Webster: > 2 : a right granted by a corporation to officers or employees as a form of compensation that allows purchase of corporate stock at a fixed price usually within a specified period (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock%20option http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock%20option) The article then went into great depth skillfully supporting the author's thesis, done from the perspective of a partner at Y Combinator. All well and good, but what wages do "other people" make? According to here: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_weal... The median household income in 2010 was $49,445 USD. The census does not mention stock options, though I think it reasonable to assume most US workers do not receive such consideration. Within this thread, "MCRed" shared their experience with stock options: > Over many years as an employee for startups, I was employee number 24 of a $30M cash acquisition exit. The result was 6 figures, but just. Effectively it was a year's salary. Since "MCRed" states the options were worth "a year's salary", it is safe to state that "MCRed" made at least $100,000 USD per year. And "varelse" writes: > Given that a seasoned and in-demand engineer can make anywhere from $250K to $500K annually working for a big co, without a 3-letter title and 3-letter title equity, there seems little incentive to accept $150K or less and ~0.5% or less equity. All of this leads to this simple, direct, question: how much do you think people outside of "tech" make in their jobs? Based on the median household income quoted above, the likelyhood is 1/5 to 1/10 what "varelse" estimates (which I think is high nationwide) and minimally 1/2 what "MCRed" was once given above and beyond a paycheck for at least the same amount. We, all of us in tech, need a reality check. There are literally millions of people in the US along (not including 6.5+ billion other people in the world) which do not come close to "just" the base salary many of us enjoy. And before anyone says "but the market demand...", I say be honest with yourself. And yet many are boo-hoo'ing over "gee, I didn't get Even More(TM)!" I tell ya what. Stop by the Walgreen's on Market and 9th (IIRC) in San Francisco and ask someone working there whether or not their stock options offerred to them when hired was worth it for making $50,000 USD less per year. For bonus points, present the same question to the Uber driver dropping you off. PS: "MCRed" and "varelse" are only two representative examples. Other statements in this thread would serve equally well and I bear no malice toward either "MCRed" or "varelse."

Retra 11y ago
Who are you making that argument to? If your company is making absurd profits, you should be tap into it as an employee. Comparing your earning to people elsewhere isn't going to mean anything unless the money is there as well. And saying "Oh, but other people don't make any money" doesn't mean that they shouldn't make money. Or that people in the tech sector developing the social tools and economic methods to make for fairer compensation wouldn't also apply elsewhere. You're not going to convince people that they should except peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry because "there are starving children in Africa(TM)." That's not a progressive argument.
- AdieuToLogic 11y ago
  > Who are you making that argument to? The commentary is meant for all, which is why I posted it on its own and not in response to a particular person. This is also why I said "'MCRed' and 'varelse' are only two representative examples. Other statements in this thread would serve equally well and I bear no malice toward either 'MCRed' or 'varelse.'" My intent was to give a different perspective to a person reading it. > If your company is making absurd profits, you should be tap into it as an employee. No, a company which employs a person agrees to remunerate the employee at the rate agreed upon by both parties. The amount of profit a company makes is only relevant to this in the context of how long the employee's check(s) will cash. > You're not going to convince people that they should except peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry because "there are starving children in Africa(TM)." That's not a progressive argument. This is a straw man[1] as I said nothing about convincing people to accept "peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry." What I did say is that people in tech (myself included) need to have perspective that not everyone makes the kind of money we make. Ignoring this leads to situations such as the rally in SoMa last month entitled "evict techies" and other similar expressions of resentment. Feel free to ignore this perspective, me, or anything anyone else says or does. It matters not to me. Based on the reception my original post has received, it looks like I need to learn to do the same. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Retra 11y ago

Who are you making that argument to? If your company is making absurd profits, you should be tap into it as an employee. Comparing your earning to people elsewhere isn't going to mean anything unless the money is there as well. And saying "Oh, but other people don't make any money" doesn't mean that they shouldn't make money. Or that people in the tech sector developing the social tools and economic methods to make for fairer compensation wouldn't also apply elsewhere. You're not going to convince people that they should except peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry because "there are starving children in Africa(TM)." That's not a progressive argument.

AdieuToLogic 11y ago
> Who are you making that argument to? The commentary is meant for all, which is why I posted it on its own and not in response to a particular person. This is also why I said "'MCRed' and 'varelse' are only two representative examples. Other statements in this thread would serve equally well and I bear no malice toward either 'MCRed' or 'varelse.'" My intent was to give a different perspective to a person reading it. > If your company is making absurd profits, you should be tap into it as an employee. No, a company which employs a person agrees to remunerate the employee at the rate agreed upon by both parties. The amount of profit a company makes is only relevant to this in the context of how long the employee's check(s) will cash. > You're not going to convince people that they should except peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry because "there are starving children in Africa(TM)." That's not a progressive argument. This is a straw man[1] as I said nothing about convincing people to accept "peanuts from a multi-billion dollar industry." What I did say is that people in tech (myself included) need to have perspective that not everyone makes the kind of money we make. Ignoring this leads to situations such as the rally in SoMa last month entitled "evict techies" and other similar expressions of resentment. Feel free to ignore this perspective, me, or anything anyone else says or does. It matters not to me. Based on the reception my original post has received, it looks like I need to learn to do the same. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man