No one *wants* to work for you anymore. You don't need to recruit. If someone is desperate enough they'll let you know.
No one *wants* to work for you anymore. You don't need to recruit. If someone is desperate enough they'll let you know.
You're in quite the bubble. Lots of folks I know would work at Amazon. Friends have joined the computing groups (Lambda, ECS, EKS) to work on observability, scale, security. It's important work with broad impact.
It is quite sad how many in our industry are either sufficiently clueless or sufficiently indifferent that they would eagerly go work at the CIA's sysadmins, especially under the guise of "important" or "impact" (quite literally in the case I mentioned).
Not all Americans loath their country and the institutions that help maintain it - imperfect though they may be.
They're the department with an image of white-collar intelligence collection and a huge sideline in dirty fighting to maintain American hegemony. That's who they are, have been and who they will be.
“I’ve done a lot more for a lot less” - The Office.
Obviously there are many factors in play so that might not always be the case.
Also per my other comment on this thread, sounds like Netflix really blows away all others because there is no shenanigans around RSUs, cliffs, unexpected appreciation, etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong since I am definitely no expert at this game.
Disclaimer - I’m very average and work at Amazon
Versus Facebook, Amazon, and Google having a more one-size-fits-all approach to hiring.
In that sense, is Netflix basically untouchable in terms of compensation, if F/A/A/G (and other companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Microsoft, etc.) can only be competitive via unexpected or non-guaranteed stock appreciation?
Plus if you reach a "cliff", you end up with just your base salary - which seems like it's not too much better than a non-tech Fortune500 company?
Is my understanding wrong?
If the stock significantly depreciates there will be layoffs anyway.
I _thought_ Netflix comps with a cash salary and if that’s the case it’s worth less than equity. The salary depreciated over the course of 2020 while an equity grant would have appreciated from the start.
Would cash+equity comp still be preferable to an all cash Netflix comp in that case?
I guess the gist of my question is:
Non-Netflix FAANG level company salary + stock without appreciation >= Netflix all-cash salary?
As for Netflix, they do give you option of choosing to split your salary every year i.e all cash, all options, some cash and some options as you see fit.
Or is it still competitive without taking such appreciation into account?
Please correct me if I am wrong here.
This depends on the company. My understanding is that Amazon does keep stock price in mind when doing vesting of stock. If your personal projected comp is above the "intended" level (due to a large share price increase), your stock award in a given year will be smaller.
So your stock vest in year 3 might be smaller because growth was high (or your initial offer was above-market). Google and Facebook don't do this. Each year is modeled independently. Microsoft also models years independently afaik, but their stock vests slightly differently.
I asked for X comp, say 100K total for 4 years, including stock. The recruiter calls me back, says she got the total I wanted, I write down the numbers and it totals to 90K. I ask her why the math does not check out and the answer was that the 'missing' 10K is the projected stock growth.
Haven't seen anything like that in other negotiations.
This 22% tax rate is the default rate applied by your RSU brokerage which often leaves you owing taxes to the IRS. IRS treats RSU at vesting as regular income. For the tax purposes it is same as if you received their equivalent in cash and then used it to purchase the same number company shares [0].
[0] https://www.cordantwealth.com/rsus-tax-saving-and-hedging/
If anything you only benefit from being in Washington and not paying half of that 500k in income tax: