Total Comp Accuracy
So on blind - you hear these crazy Google and FB figures of 550K+. So if an FB employee was there for 4+ years and someone else comes from a non tech industry that doesn’t have stock the figures become jarring. So let’s say someone working in finance from 2010-2017 and then joined FB. FB gives them 190K base. 400K stock grant and 20 sign on. Then some other FB engineer that has been there for 4 years received 400K and annual refreshers of 80K with base of 180K. The stock has gone up 4X in 4 years. That FB person on blind will say that their total comp is 180K + 400K + 80K + whatever bonus making an annual TC of 660K. Mr finance guy will then be on blind and say wtf my comp is 190 + 100K =290K year 1 whereas FB engineer really is saying what his comp is now that he’s been with company for 4 years and it has appreciation. Finance guy actually isn’t underpaid but there’s a huge jarring difference because ppl are calculating differently. So not sure why people on blind report the former FB comp when the latter is actually a better indicator because people are here to compare potential and how long you’ve been with the company with appreciation isn’t an apples to apple comparison. Microsoft people are paid less but not to the extent people are saying here on blind.
Yes, a major fraction of comp is appreciation of stock. Price for labor is negotiable and situational and not a uniformly applied formula based on a concrete objective merit
550 tc yr @ fb is achievable for mid early career in engineering given appreciation of stock. Other perks like child care credit, paid vacation, and 401k matching also add up
Without appreciation of stock 550K is not possible correct ?
Depends on level, which would probably take L6 and above for technical roles.
Yo, but why are you very particular about changing the method used by tens of thousands of Blind app folks?
Because it’s incorrect and therefore you have no reference what ppl are actually making.
I thought vested stock * (1+stock price rise) is exactly what people are 'actually making'
TC should be everything you know you will receive year-over-year. Base + current face value of RSU/refresher so long as it is vesting in the year you’re speaking of. Signing bonus is one-time lump sum and shouldn’t be part of YoY TC. It does make the TC look more attractive. I understand it being mentioned separately when someone is talking about an offer. As does annual bonus. Unless it’s contractual, you don’t know what you’re getting. You just know the target numbers.
If you want to be smart about it, assume nothing beyond base is real. Base is your actual cash flow. Stocks go down as well as up. Treat bonus and stock as your potential upside. And if you really want to retire young, don't treat stock as income - treat it as long term savings and be smart about how much you let accumulate in the one place.
Estimating what’s going to be on W2 should be the reference.
OP, thanks for this thread. This is why I always tell candidates to take online salary forums / databases with a grain of salt, because whatever the "average" comp appears to be for a given role may have a lot of appreciated stock baked in. Especially if you're coming from finance / consulting / law firms, you don't make huge money in year one at a tech company. In fact I know plenty of people here at Google who gripe about their year one comp. But then by year two and certainly by year four, most people feel very well paid.
Mr finance guy should get 400*4 K RSU provided he did well in the interview. Why? Because market cap of company is now 4x compared to what it was 4 years ago.
Company doesn’t have the market cap as money to play with, that’s only value if all stock across all owners. A company actually IPOs to raise money, and then after that, they don’t make money on their stock. You give a package based on current valuation, and the risk is absorbed by the employee in whether it’ll grow or not. In the case of Facebook and OPs point, people here on Blind should really give their offer value, not current comp because it can lead others to think a company pays some insane value when it’s really just stock growth.