Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by throwaway2048 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

throwaway2048

Return from investment is nothing like salary.

View on HN

Many workers are paid a majority of their income in the form of stock from the company they work for.

Suing your employer for wage theft because

1. They are still paying your salary, and

2. They are still granting you stock, but

3. They have suspended dividends on the shares you were granted

seems like a reach. I'd definitely be interested in reading about it if someone actually tries it, though!

Not sure who you're replying to. I didn't mention suing anyone or any idea of wage theft.

You suggested paying a dividend was similar to paying employees. When throwaway2048 challenged this, you brought up stock-based compensation. Surely if such compensation (including dividends) was an obligation in the same way as wages, then the employee would have some recourse when it's interrupted. In other words, they could sue.

> ...if such compensation (including dividends) was an obligation...

But I don't think it's an obligation. Not sure where you're reading that from what I said.

Sock compensation is often discretionary, and dividend payments as well. Not an obligation.

Then, Like I said, its nothing like salary, which is absolutely an obligation.

> Then, Like I said, its nothing like salary, which is absolutely an obligation.

But I'm never argued it was a salary or an obligation. Literally never used either of those two words. I think you're arguing against something nobody said.

It's money you'd be paying a person. It doesn't matter if it was 'like a salary' or an 'obligation' or not. What difference do you think that would make? Preventing companies paying dividends is prevent them paying people. Real people!

How many as a percentage of workers in the USA? How many of those are earning below 200k a year?

Most workers who receive majority of their income in the form of stock are in a very high income bracket and should not receive any government bailouts directly or indirectly.

> Many workers are paid a majority of their income in the form of stock from the company they work for.

A very small "many." I'd imagine that class consists mostly of highly-placed executives (who can be assumed to be rather wealthy) and some number of people playing the startup lottery.

I think at many large enterprises getting paid in stock is standard for even junior line-worker hires. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, etc. People a few years into their career are often paid a majority in stock.

> I think at many large enterprises getting paid in stock is standard for even junior line-worker hires. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, etc. People a few years into their career are often paid a majority in stock.

Maybe at FAANG companies (whose FTE workers tend to be very well off) and some other companies with a startup lineage, but I highly doubt this is very widespread.

I, for one, would frankly refuse a compensation package that was majority stock, unless the salary was already good. It'd be too much like those Enron employees who filled their 401ks with Enron stock -- too many eggs in one basket.

If someone who's otherwise well-compensated complains about missing out on dividends on their stock, I have the world's smallest violin here, ready to play a song for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com