Should a founder mentality be expected amongst early employees at a certain equity level? Why wouldn't someone want to hire someone who had that mindset, and then appropriately compensate someone for that?
> it's misleading to call equity compensation "getting paid".
Please.A person who has a portfolio worth tens/hundreds of millions of dollars does not have to liquidate it to leverage its value. They can secure cash loans on extremely preferential terms backed by their assets, for one.
Futher, who cares if it's "exactly the same as giving them money" or not? That doesn't change the inequality inherit in such compensation packages, just how they pay taxes.
> [neither reducing cash or equity comp] is going to
> solve the structural problems of the american economy
> such as healthcare being tied to employment.
Sure, that's true, but that's also a fine way to allow wealth inequality to continue unchecked. Jeff Bezos can't be worth over $100B unless his company is vastly underpaying and mistreating its workers.- While "10x less", iPhone still sends your private information (such as location) to Apple on a regular basis[1].
- Apple encrypts iCloud backups with a key they control, not end-to-end[2]. This means that Apple can decrypt and inspect your phone and computer backups.
- According to the article, iOS developers can use their "new privacy-focused ad framework" to "allow anonymously retrieving data without getting a hold of the user or specific information". I don't fully understand that sentence but it sounds a lot like Apple trying to compete directly with Goog + FB in the advertising industry.
- Hardware made in China[3].
1. https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...
2. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
3. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
-----------------------------------------------------
"Cost of Living" adjustments are a red herring, what they really are is really "competition density". There are plenty of tech companies paying great salaries in the bay because they have to, otherwise they would just go work for someone else. On the other hand, if you lived in Oklahoma you aren't going to say no to $LOCAL_OFFER+10k just because bay area salaries are $LOCAL_OFFER+90k.
As long as this disparity exists, I forsee bay area salaries and CoL still being high. Until companies move headquarters out of the bay, the trend will continue.
-----------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in this thread, Consultant32452 states [2] that the real argument is between those who can demand a high salary regardless of geography, and those who can only demand a high salary _because_ of geography.
The mistake is many people in the latter group think they are in the former.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162855 by hn user nemothekid [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23265158 by hn user Consultant32452
I already live in a low COL location and successfully demand Bay Area salary. So obviously I don't see a problem with this. Most people all across the country will see no appreciable change here. The only people who need to be concerned are people who are unable to demand a high salary based on their attributes other than geography.
The mistake is many people in the latter group think they are in the former.