31–40 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct. Source: Current AMZN employee
Correct, however they also give 2 signing bonuses, that bring you to an "equivalent" total compensation, so at least you are getting straight cash, not hoping for a stock payout that may not come.
So SNAP lays off another 7% of their workforce to save $34M a year whilst their CEO pockets $638M in compensation (3rd highest CEO payout ever) before they're remotely close to profitability. Not sure if company-wide layoffs and paying their CEO more are going to achieve their growth/profitability aspirations.
The logical conclusion of today's corporate structure is a company with a single employee, the CEO, who is paid all the profits, while all the actual labour is performed by zero-hour sub-minimum-wage contractors, all either funded by VC money or floated but posting zero dividends.
This is why the 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule which companies like Snap have is so problematic. Snap is laying people off and are saying that they expect to save a large amount of costs related to stock based compensation because of it (given they are a business I don't blame them for this line of thinking). However, from the laid off employee perspective this is pretty bad: 1) they worked hard to get Snap to this poi…
> 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule What does this mean?
So you'd get 10 percent of your options after one year, another 20 percent at the end of your second year, another 30 percent at the end of your third, and the remaining 40 percent at the end of your fourth year.
Note that in order to collect even half of your options, you need to work there for three years.
This is why the 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule which companies like Snap have is so problematic. Snap is laying people off and are saying that they expect to save a large amount of costs related to stock based compensation because of it (given they are a business I don't blame them for this line of thinking). However, from the laid off employee perspective this is pretty bad: 1) they worked hard to get Snap to this poi…
> 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule What does this mean?
It means that you have barely more than a quarter even after two years, and barely more than half after three.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel so underpaid right now it's not even funny.
Even considering insurance/benefits, stock options, and various bonuses, 400K/year is a lot more compared to 150K.
The employer pays payroll taxes, needs to pay rent on square footage for the office to support the employee, etc. That's all going into cost per employee, but isn't money the employee sees directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule What does this mean?
I suspect (and somebody else please correct me if I'm wrong) that it refers to how much of your options vest over a period of time. So you'd get 10 percent of your options after one year, another 20 percent at the end of your second year, another 30 percent at the end of your third, and the remaining 40 percent at the end of your fourth year. Note that in order to collect even half of your options, you need to work t…
Source: I had an offer from Snap 3yrs back which I rejected because of this.
and get a better return in 7days,i can help you manage your account with the
minimum of $300 assure you get $3300.Contact us here $200 get $3200 $300 get $4300 $500 get $6400 $1000 get $10,000 $1,500 get $15,400 $2000 get $20,800 All in weekly profits and 100% guaranteed.(payout is assured)you can also
monitor your account whenever you want. contact us on besonmark458@gmail.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating two very different things as it pertains to their actual business. The CEO compensation is coming from diluting shareholders, he's receiving stock compensation there. That $638m doesn't cost them cash. Is it morally obnoxious to be rewarding an outsized pay package on a business that is financially struggling to survive? Of course, it's reprehensible in my opinion, however that value judgment is ent…
I don't see how they are "very different things". That stock has a monetary value, does it not? They could offer it to their employees in exchange for a salary reduction totaling those $34M/year. Alternatively, they could have sold that stock. Or taken a loan using that stock as collateral.
It doesn't really matter. If the business is unsustainable then all such moves won't cut it anyway. Businesses typically lay people off when things aren't going well, and things aren't going well for snap.
They could pay them that money today but what about tomorrow?