Submitted by brooklynlad t3_117lfu9 in technology
Comments
IrrelevantPuppy t1_j9d3ug1 wrote
It’s literally holding us back as a species. The ruling class of humanity doesn’t do any ruling or decision making anymore. They sit on their mountains of money and demand exponential growth and profits relentlessly and the world bends backwards to make them perceive they are effective slave drivers.
GhostofDownvotes t1_j9dxnmw wrote
> It’s literally holding us back as a species.
This must be a really hot take after five rounds of beer pong and three joints. I felt my fedora tip just from the photons emitted by the screen. What happened to this site LMFAO.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fgvzm wrote
It started so long ago that most people have left due to toxicity and those remaining are toxic and too young to understand history or so far up academia's ass still that they have no actual experience to draw from. Either way, Reddit is fucking terrible. It's not what it used to be that's for damn sure
GhostofDownvotes t1_j9fk6pj wrote
Tbh, Reddit probably stayed mostly the same and it’s you who grew up.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fkixg wrote
Could be. Started here as a freshman in college, and now it's been almost 15 years since then lol
GhostofDownvotes t1_j9fkpn0 wrote
Yeah, I mean, you probably had a few really stupid ideas back then. I know I did.
DanielPhermous t1_j9d8xwn wrote
> It’s literally holding us back as a species.
What would you suggest instead? Businesses usually need some investment to get started. Where should that money come from and how?
IrrelevantPuppy t1_j9dbj4g wrote
That’s fair, it’s literally too late. We’ve become addicted to capitalism, you cant imagine anything being done without it, and that’s how most people work. Any other proposition will sound ridiculous to you, because all we have ever known is capitalism. There’s other options, we just can’t imagine how they could be realistic, because this is the world we know. It’s not possible to fix this without a cataclysm. We need aliens, an Ai overlord, or some kind of benevolent dictator superhuman to snap us out of this.
We will never be able to get past the “oh I see how it’s beneficial to all humanity, but how does it profit me in the short term?” barrier without something inconceivable happening to all of humanity. We’re gonna stagnate like this for the foreseeable future, if not forever. If the rich have any sway, they do, and it’s all of it, it will never change.
VelveteenAmbush t1_j9dep2g wrote
> Any other proposition will sound ridiculous to you, because all we have ever known is capitalism.
We've seen some other propositions. The problem is that they all end in immiseration and authoritarianism, and the logic of why they do makes sense, so the proponents of further experiments have their work cut out justifying why their path won't lead to the same place, and they should think about how to run small-scale experiments to prove their ideas before putting whole societies at risk.
9-11GaveMe5G t1_j9dijmb wrote
> >We've seen some other propositions. The problem is that they all end in immiseration and authoritarianism,
Hey I don't know if you noticed, but the last president, who is on the record as a huge fan of authoritarians like Putin and Kim jong Un, literally tried a fascist takeover of our country, which would have installed him as the authoritarian leader. So if "authoritarianism" scares you, simping for capitalism ain't the way to prevent it
Adorable-Effective-2 t1_j9e098h wrote
Pretending the dangers of authoritarianism we’ve seen recently somehow equals the historical INSTANT fall into dictatorships we’ve seen out of any planned economic states ie “communist” ones
VelveteenAmbush t1_j9dk32x wrote
An alternative take is that even with a nutty would-be authoritarian president who literally tried to overturn an election, the system was resilient enough to toss him out of power right on time, with no indications that he came anywhere close to succeeding.
But yes, I agree that Kim Jong-Un is a good example of what you get with alternatives to capitalism.
EnchantedMoth3 t1_j9drga4 wrote
Stakeholder > stockholder. We need market reform. 85% of the markets are owned by 10% of people. When workers perform well, and their company makes profit, the company uses those profits to buy back stocks. Effectively, the value of labor is funneled to the top in our current system. To fix this, we need fiscal policy that focuses on workers, rather than capital. I’ve no issue with people investing in companies, and getting rewarded for the success their capital helps create, but it should more of a risk than it is today. In this iteration of our system, all of the risk has been outsourced to the workers. Wall-Street doesn’t lose, the American tax-payers are always their to bail them out, whether we want to, or are even told about it, or not. So, the people providing the labor, creating the value, and taking all the risk…those people should be able to own homes, afford health care, afford to raise a family, to dream, and work hard to achieve that dream. But that’s not the current reality in our shareholder first markets. Eventually, this devolves into oligarchy, or some form of autocracy, most likely to play out via fascism…especially if you allow outside money into politics, because the working class loses power, they lose economic equality, which all other equality follows, and governments fail, due to caring for only a single group.
You talk about other systems that end in autocracy, and/or misery but capitalism does too. All economic systems trend towards the consolidation of power and wealth. It is the end-stage of all economics. A lot of older civilizations would reset their economies every x years, due to this.
That is the result of the introduction of humans into theory. It’s the result of the types of people who seek money and power. Greed is just another addiction, no different than heroin, and different people are more susceptible to it. It is the the role of your chosen governmental system to hold this trend back. Ultimately however, it falls on the workers, the citizens, to hold those in power responsible. Capitalism has killed just as many people as communism, don’t kid yourself otherwise. Capitalism is to blame for immense global suffering, and I’ll remind you, America has backed nearly every authoritarian dictator globally…hell, we sat most of them on the throne to further capitalism, and enrich a few. War is a racket of the rich. We export a lot of the consequences of our system, from pain and suffering, to pollution. Out of sight, out of mind.
That being said, I do think a form of capitalism is probably the best choice for a society, with some aspects of socialism sprinkled in. The answer ultimately lies in regulations, and making economic equality the top priority. You cannot allow a certain group to amass wealth untold, or else you increase the number of those in society who can be bought, because they have no chance of ever earning the amount they’re offered.
VelveteenAmbush t1_j9fw9d7 wrote
> You talk about other systems that end in autocracy, and/or misery but capitalism does too.
No it doesn't, that's crazy. The United States is the longest continuous democracy in the entire world.
> The answer ultimately lies in regulations, and making economic equality the top priority.
No, the richest and most powerful countries with the highest median quality of life are the ones that prioritize growth, not equality. Prioritizing equality gets you the Soviet Union. Prioritizing growth gets you the United States.
> Greed is just another addiction, no different than heroin
The difference is that greed, when channeled through capitalism, creates value for everyone. Jeff Bezos wasn't an altruist when he founded Amazon, but the result is that everyone in the United States can have just about anything they want delivered to their door in a couple of days for free. Steve Jobs was a greedy, rapacious capitalist, but he gave us the iPhone. Etc.
Rickety_Crickel t1_j9evy8l wrote
There’s plenty of money sitting in corporate vaults overseas. We take that money and set up funds that people in the US can borrow at low to no upfront cost to start businesses. Also we enforce tax law already on the books so this situation doesn’t happen again. And enforce monopoly laws so Kroger doesn’t buy up every locally owned grocery store off of taxpayer dollars.
It’s not rocket science to fix what’s broken, it just requires us to admit that our system sucks ass and we deserve better than a handful of rich assholes hoarding wealth at our expense. We should use that money to help people innovate, not just give away money to rich investors that don’t care if your neighborhood or town or even country fails because they’ll make money off of you either way.
This would be the status quo if not for our politicians being owned by corporations through legalized bribery. So it’s less about what we could have than what we should / would have if not for donkey brained levels of corruption that rival any other country throughout history.
DanielPhermous t1_j9eyvz5 wrote
> It’s not rocket science to fix what’s broken
Maybe but as your first line is to advocate for wholesale theft and breach the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, I feel it's just possible that your solution is perhaps ill-considered and overly simplistic.
Rickety_Crickel t1_j9gaiao wrote
The alternative is to let the rich continue to accumulate more wealth that does nothing while the rest of humanity starves. Corporations shouldn’t have the right or ability to hoard wealth overseas to avoid paying their fair share.
If it doesn’t bother you that you personally paid more in taxes than many millionaires and billionaires I don’t think anything is a convincing argument because the status quo and it’s inevitable future is acceptable. It’s not acceptable to me.
DanielPhermous t1_j9h6vks wrote
> The alternative is…
Sure. It’s either the current system or your absurd plan. There are no other possible options whatsoever.
> If it doesn’t bother you that…
I never said it didn’t. I just think your solution is childish and unworkable.
Longjumping_Worry184 t1_j9dfjhf wrote
It's a problem with paying your workers in RSUs. If you run the business to optimize stock price and the line always goes up then your workers always make more year over year without increasing their cash base. Of course the market doesn't always go up, so you have this situation where workers perform great, but stock went down so they effectively make less than last year because a significant portion of their total comp comes from stock vests.
Even worse for newer workers who are just now vesting shares they got 2 years ago when the stock was worth twice as much. They've put up with a lot of shit to make it to vesting and the stock and that payday is half as much as was calculated two years back
Prestigious_Push_947 t1_j9dze2t wrote
Sure, but as a worker you'll also get an RSU refresh this year at a lower price. When the stock goes up, you'll make a ton more, and I'm sure there won't be articles about the huge raises everyone is getting. This is just part of the game with RSU based comp.
InvestigatorOk9354 t1_j9dzwrw wrote
That's the gamble, you make less money this year and hope for a refresh, then in two years if you're still there you could get a big payout (assuming you don't get PIP'd and there aren't more layoffs in the meantime).
I've heard there are basically no raises/refreshes this year though because of the layoffs, hiring freeze, and other cost cutting... so it may just be an extra rough year to justify staying at Amazon
Prestigious_Push_947 t1_j9e0s2k wrote
Yeah, no refreshes would be rough. Honestly, you couldn't have paid me to work for Amazon in the first place because they're so renowned for how poorly they treat people. I do know that a lot of people in my field went there because they've been paying significantly above market for the last couple of years; spectacular comp is the only reason to work for an outfit like that. If RSUs are cratering and you're not issuing refreshes, you're going to lose tons of people. Then again, I'm sure that's what management wants.
Tainen t1_j9g97yg wrote
the RSU refresh does not hit for a couple years. so this year, no, you don't get additional compensation, you are stuck with 40-50% less compensation.
Prestigious_Push_947 t1_j9im0sc wrote
This really depends on the company. Most don't require a couple years before refreshes start vesting. Also, comp doesn't go up til after the stock goes up, so it's never guaranteed when your comp will get better again. Like I said, this is the game of RSU based comp. If you treat RSU's like regular income, you're an idiot.
Tainen t1_j9iwgv7 wrote
yeah, I’m talking about Amazon, given the title of the post. I turned down an offer at Goog and came from Msft for 13 years. Unfortunately Amazon has the worst stock grant program of the 3. There is essentially no addressing down year stock performance, you hold on tight and hope it does better in future years, or you quit and go get paid somewhere else.
Bright-Ad-4737 t1_j9ea828 wrote
Ideally you want to make everyone happy, employees, costumers, vendors, but of course that includes the shareholders, after all, they own the business.
timberwolf0122 t1_j9et0cf wrote
But the workers make the money and do the vast majority of the work. During to good times owners get to reap the rewards and take responsibility for the success, during the bad time they should also absorb that too as much as is possible, and take responsibility
somegridplayer t1_j9f2uc8 wrote
Shareholders make a dollar I make a dime, this is why I shit on company time.
AlleKeskitason t1_j9kbh95 wrote
Or you could just buy company shares and get paid for taking a shit.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fbhle wrote
You fundamentally don't understand capitalism, or if you do are just woefully misguided. Holy shit. The workers wouldn't have a job without shareholders. There would be no "work" to do and no money to earn. I'm not some corporate shill, but I also didn't stake millions to start a business. If you take risk then you get reward.
If you don't like being an employee then start a business, take the risk with your own capital, and run it however you like. Otherwise, kindly learn some history and economics
timberwolf0122 t1_j9folig wrote
Because every company has shareholders/s
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fouaw wrote
Yes every company does. Even private companies. Money/capital has to come from somewhere to start. A single owner is a shareholder...
timberwolf0122 t1_j9foxqj wrote
That’s not quite the same as a publically traded company when one thinks of shares now is it
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fqngo wrote
It's the same concept, regardless of your claimed minute differences.
timberwolf0122 t1_j9gkcnd wrote
Well, no. A privately held business doesn’t have to make a bunch of randos with an E*trade account happy.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9gl6e3 wrote
The privately owned business usually still has investors. Almost nobody has enough capital on their own to create a large business without raising capital.
Bright-Ad-4737 t1_j9frjrl wrote
It's not a balancing act. Employees get compensated via their salaries and bonuses. Shareholders get compensated via their ownership of the business, the value of their shares and dividends.
timberwolf0122 t1_j9gm4a5 wrote
So why should the people doing the work take a pay cut?
Bright-Ad-4737 t1_j9gqgnu wrote
No idea. I have no clue how Jassy thinks, or how they're going to get out of their situation. Amazon seems like it's kind of an overgrown basket case right now. Maybe they should just start spinning off all the segments/businesses.
timberwolf0122 t1_j9hepuz wrote
I think this is yet another case for unions
1wiseguy t1_j9dlf4t wrote
Do you understand that the shareholders own the company?
If you own a coffee shop, are you going to run it in a way that makes you happy, or some other way?
timberwolf0122 t1_j9esjvh wrote
I’d run it so it’s profitable, but if there was a dip i don’t think id ask my staff to take a pay cut to keep my salary at 100%
nrfmartin t1_j9cveua wrote
Yea, and they are losing talent because of it. Myself and a few others have jumped ship due to a destroyed stock plan and miniscule raises. I thought they might issue more stock this year to make up for it, but apparently not. Guess I made the right call.
leaky_wand t1_j9cwqev wrote
Well at least the cushy work culture makes up for it.
^/s
[deleted] t1_j9d0w3m wrote
[deleted]
darwinkh2os t1_j9dq5jr wrote
I've got a bit under a year left of sign-on that pays out monthly before the monthly-take-home cliff. Then I will take home base pay and will have to risk twelve months of work without RSUs to get the year-three RSU pay-out. And that's if I don't get laid off or face a fun set of MBRs and COEs in that interim.
So I'll have this year of still-cash compensation and decide in that year what to do for next year.
It has been very very hard to not think of my current inflated compensation as "salary." But I'll try to lower my expectations again.
falcorn93 t1_j9dyti5 wrote
I'm fairly certain the vest is every 6 months after year 2, so you get a 20% initial grant vest at years 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4
darwinkh2os t1_j9dzn6w wrote
Oh happy days! That actually makes the cliff a bit more manageable for me. I really don't like applying for jobs and so have been dreading it.
Elliott2 t1_j9fc1sv wrote
didnt your HR lay this out for you. Ive been in talks with tesla, and one of the first things they told me was how the options/RSU vesting works.
BaseRape t1_j9dssxw wrote
It's not april
brooklynlad OP t1_j9cawnd wrote
Paywall Bypass: https://archive.is/EqtGD
Amazon Corporate Workers Face Pay Reduction After Shares Slip
- Stock-heavy compensation plan means employees to receive 15% to 50% below projected pay targets
The steep decline in Amazon.com Inc.’s stock over the past year is roiling the technology company’s stock-heavy compensation plan, resulting in employee pay coming in significantly lower than target compensation, according to people familiar with the matter.
Amazon pays its corporate employees a large chunk of their annual salaries in restricted stock units, and a prolonged slump in the company’s shares is causing pay for 2023 to be between 15% and 50% lower than the projected targets Amazon gave to employees, some of the people said.
“Our compensation model is intended to encourage employees to think like owners, which is why it connects total compensation to the company’s long-term performance,” an Amazon spokesman said in an emailed statement. “That model comes with some year-to-year upside and risk because the stock price can fluctuate, but historically at Amazon, it’s had a history of working out very well for people who’ve taken a long-term view."
Amazon has historically given less base-pay compensation to employees than its big-tech peers but made up the difference with stock awards that vest over several years. Employees say the longer an Amazon employee stays with the company, the more their compensation can depend on stock awards, with stocks making up 50% or more of total income for some.
Over the past year, Amazon’s shares have declined more than 35% amid a broader technology slowdown and slower growth on Amazon’s retail side of the business. When Amazon issues restricted stock units to employees, it is predicated on the longstanding assumption shared in compensation conversations that Amazon’s shares would appreciate at least 15% each year, the people said.
Until recently, that had largely been true. Between 2017 and early 2022, the stock price increased on average about 30% each year. But Amazon’s stock is currently trading around $96 per share and some employee pay packages are structured under the assumption that Amazon’s shares would be around $170 per share, some of the people said.
Because of the decline, Amazon’s human-resources team recently sent training documents to managers about how to communicate what effectively amounts to a pay cut to its employees, according to training materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. According to the materials, managers should focus on employees being invested in the long-term performance of the company and hold on to the restricted stock longer until there is a recovery in the company’s stock price.
At a recent all-hands meeting at Amazon’s Seattle headquarters, Amazon Chief Executive Andy Jassy addressed the situation, according to a recording of the meeting reviewed by the Journal. “I know that this is and feels like a really difficult time. We have a very uncertain economy, we just had to say goodbye to 18,000 of our teammates, the market is in a funky spot,” he said, adding that Amazon and other companies have seen an impact on their stock prices. “The result is compensations are impacted. And that is difficult. All of that is difficult. But I am quite optimistic that we have the chance to emerge from this challenging time in a relatively stronger position than we entered it.”
Last year, amid a war for talent and a slumping stock price, Amazon raised the cap for the cash component of Amazon salaries from $160,000 to $350,000. This year, the company plans on issuing raises from 1% to 4%, according to some of the people. The company won’t issue more restricted stock to employees to help them meet their target compensation for this year, some of the people said.
Amazon is in the midst of one of the toughest financial stretches in the company’s history. In November, it began the largest round of layoffs the company has ever deployed as Amazon adjusted to weakening retail demand coupled with years of mass hiring. By January, the company had laid off 18,000 corporate employees, the highest number of any technology company in this recent wave of layoffs.
The number added to other cuts made across the tech industry. Companies large and small have laid off workers in recent months, including at Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Meta Platforms Inc. and Microsoft Corp. Since the start of the year, more than 107,000 employees have been laid off across the tech sector, according to Layoffs.fyi, which tracks layoffs.
In addition to eliminating current positions, Amazon also rescinded job offers from some candidates who had accepted them and hadn’t yet started, and delayed the start date for some incoming college hires by six months. The Information earlier reported the rescinded offers.
“As part of our annual operating plan review process and in light of the challenging economic conditions, we made the difficult decisions to eliminate some roles in particular businesses for which we had extended offers but the candidates had not yet joined the company, and to delay start dates for some of our college hires by up to six months,” said the Amazon spokesman in a statement.
The company recently announced plans to require workers to be in the office at least three days a week by May 1, shifting from a policy that enabled team directors to decide how often staff would be in the office.
mrnoonan81 t1_j9cupix wrote
> Our compensation model is intended to encourage employees to think like owners
How about the owners think of them as employees. If they were receiving competitive compensation before, that means the competition will now scoop them up.
fbuslop t1_j9dy7cj wrote
>How about the owners think of them as employees
But they are owners, they should think like one too because they chose to take compensation in form of RSUs. Plenty of opportunity for them to make a high base salary where they can think like "employees". These people are high income earners, they were loving the RSU pay structure beforehand.
GothicToast t1_j9f56ek wrote
Exactly. They want all of the upside with none of the downside. Life's tough.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fa2oi wrote
If you work for Amazon, your life isn't tough. Work may be tough, but this is a first world problem that we shouldn't even be discussing. Stupid article
Longjumping_Worry184 t1_j9dhpy3 wrote
There's a super cringrey article out there about Amazon hiring missionaries not mercenaries, meaning they want believers who want to do the work rather than someone chasing large paychecks. This came back to bite Amazon as their VP cash base was capped at 165k like all other roles, and they were losing good VPs to competors who were paying larger cash salaries and not having to wait 2 years for stock to vest. This is part of why the highly publicized base raise to 350k happened last year.
mrnoonan81 t1_j9dl4tw wrote
Did they never grow out of the dot-com startup mentality?
frolie0 t1_j9dpxtk wrote
They didn't have to. Their stock has been in hyper growth mode and people were making a fucking killing there. The RSUs over cash was totally worth it at that point. But now the scales have tipped and it's quite the opposite.
mrnoonan81 t1_j9duhul wrote
I wasn't quite referring to their compensation strategy, but the "missionaries over mercenaries" mentality.
GothicToast t1_j9f50zb wrote
> The company won’t issue more restricted stock to employees to help them meet their target compensation for this year, some of the people said.
Nor should they. That's the whole point of receiving stock as compensation. When the company does well, you can exceed your target via an increased stock price. The flip side is of the company doesn't do well, you may not meet your target. This should obvious when you take the job. If you want a job where there is no variation above or below your target, then take a job that pays 100% in base salary.
SpareWalrus t1_j9fi4xu wrote
I agree. I don’t get why people feel they can complain when they agreed to this compensation model. Inherently there is risk and you accepted that risk.
LandooooXTrvls t1_j9fnjbe wrote
They’re upset because Amazon recruiters told them employees would be issued more stock if the price ever put them below band.
So, I agree with what y’all are saying but recruiters put their foot in their mouth when they told ppl this.
GothicToast t1_j9frp00 wrote
That is totally crazy, but not totally surprising.
I am a compensation consultant in "big tech". I am often asked to build out YoY Comp models (typically at the Director level) for recruiters to use during their offer.
These models make tons of assumptions about future performance and future stock price. They're not meant to guarantees and they're not meant to be shared with the candidate. I've had recruiters share these models with candidates multiple times, which then puts us in a tough spot and creates a negative experience for the candidate when we go back and say this wasn't actually your comp.
LandooooXTrvls t1_j9fs8ry wrote
That’s exactly what happened here. It’s been a gold rush for getting good recruits so recruiters bent the rules a bit to finish the deal. Now Amazonians are upset that recruiters told them something that the company may have not agreed to. It’s also possible Amazon did plan to honor this and are going back on their word too.
arathald t1_j9g7lnw wrote
I agree with you in general, and it’s difficult to feel like it’s worth complaining about making somewhat less than the insane amounts many folks in tech do.
The real issue here is that Amazon already assumes a 15% year-over-year appreciation of the stock when it calculates pay. This means that the threshold for employees doing better or worse than target is 15%, not 0%. If the stock goes up by 10% YOY, employees get paid less than the target. It effectively offloads an enormous amount of risk from the company to the employees.
I don’t see this as “you should feel bad for Amazon employees” but rather “Amazon is in a very bad position for attracting and retaining talent”. Competent Amazon employees can and will go elsewhere and be just fine.
GothicToast t1_j9gjsut wrote
I think the amount of money they make is irrelevant and shouldn't prohibit them from complaining. My issue is complaining about a specific compensation variable that everyone knows can go up or down based on company performance and/or market conditions. People accept compensation in a myriad of ways. I had a contractor accept 2 jet skis once. He doesn't get to come back to me 2 years later when the jet skis depreciate asking for more compensation because the original compensation is no longer worth the original amount.
I, myself, am a compensation consultant in "big tech"... and while I don't have direct insight into how Amazon's compensation philosophy works, I would highly doubt they set their total comp targets with an assumption of 15% YoY appreciation on the stock. That just is not how the compensation industry sets benchmarks -- and we all use the same data to set our strategies.
If you're a comp consultant for Amazon, we should connect IRL and I'd love to learn more about how you guys roll that strategy out.
arathald t1_j9gmzb4 wrote
I'm not in comp, but I'm in a tech role adjacent to it, and I've been at the company nearly a decade. I'm not going to go into details as to how I'm so sure, but I know without a doubt that the 15% I quoted is correct, unless it has changed recently. I'm not at all surprised that this isn't standard because yeah, it's weird.
Regardless of that, this news is making clear that Amazon isn't as attractive an employer as it used to be, and I think that's the real takeaway here. Yes, people knew what they were getting into, but what they're getting into continues to get worse, and the days of soaring stock prices are over. Add on top of this that Amazon announced pay increases early last year then HR quickly walked that back and told current employees it didn't apply to us*, only new hires, and there's a huge amount of dissatisfaction at Amazon's compensation.
Yes, if people are dissatisfied and can find better elsewhere, they can leave (inertia and personal costs aside), but that's the whole point, that people *are* dissatisfied and so Amazon has a pretty significant and increasing retention risk.
*Base pay caps did apply to current employees, and base pay is now increasing above old caps, but there were no significant overall pay scale increases for current employees, only the usual incremental ones
GothicToast t1_j9hybf4 wrote
> *Base pay caps did apply to current employees, and base pay is now increasing above old caps, but there were no significant overall pay scale increases for current employees, only the usual incremental ones
This is pretty interesting to me. So you're saying when they lifted the cap, existing employees' comp was not changed, but I'm guessing new hires are being brought in within the new range (meaning way larger base salaries than their incumbent peers)? Are they given smaller new hire stock packages to balance out total comp? I can't imagine trying to measure internal pay equity between two people in the same role/grade/location and are on two entirely different comp strategies. And then keeping those two distinct strategies up-to-date against current market data. Sounds like a nightmare.
They should have moved everyone over at the same time and incurred a one-time expense, while simultaneously dropping their stock refresh budgets.
arathald t1_j9ld58b wrote
There’s some details I’m not privy to or shouldn’t share, but I can freely talk about my own pay as well as what people have told me about their pay.
When they announced the changes, my next pay statement looked like a typical year except that there was now room for the small bump to my base pay (a couple of %) brought it above the old cap. I don’t yet know the details of my comp for the next year (comp year is April-April) but I do know it’s also incremental. Obviously due to them previously publicly announcing pay scale changes, HR and management had to have conversations with current employees clarifying that our pay wouldn’t be changed more than the typical incremental bumps. We were led to believe that our pay would be increasing more significantly this year, which isn’t happening.
I also know, secondhand, that many new hires at my same level with far less experience are getting offers that are easily 1.5x or more what I’m making.
I don’t know if they have two scales like you suggested or if they just broadened the band significantly, or if they were regularly getting exceptions for new hire comp above the band for the position.
LangkawiBoy t1_j9j1vp6 wrote
The twist is every new hire will be getting paid significantly more than every person wtih 2 years at the company, if doing the same job. That's because of how Amazon pay works. The first two years you're paid mostly cash, based on your on target earnings (OTE) number. The following two years you're paid some cash, lots of stock, designed to add up to the same OTE. That means the person who joined when the stock was high has a really rough years 3 and 4 because they're getting not just 50% below what they hoped but 50% below the market rate and 50% below what a new hire would get. The RSUs at Amazon aren't so much a bonus as a core part of OTE.
What it means is skilled Amazon workers can jump ship and collect vastly more money in the open market because they're going to be paid well below the OTE for someone in their role. Including some new hire. If they leave and get hired back, instant huge raise.
LigerXT5 t1_j9cnjzv wrote
So, punish the workers for the poor reputation/service of the company.
Ok-Welder-4816 t1_j9ddwgc wrote
The workers are actually part-owners. They accepted stock as partial payment, and that stock is now worth less because the company's performance is slipping.
Ownership always has risks, as it should be.
Longjumping_Worry184 t1_j9di5t7 wrote
Sure it's a risk, but it's gotta stuck for someone who took an Amazon offer for $150k total comp 2 years ago when $70k of that comes from RSUs this year, that person's take home pay is taking a big hit for no fault of their own and at lower Corp pay ranges that's a painful drop
darwinkh2os t1_j9dr3jh wrote
It does suck - luckily for the L4s and L5s it's not that bad - 50% RSUs is really at L6 and/or manager roles. Levels.fyi accurately shows fairly up-to-date compensation.
It "sucks" for the VPs, which I suspect - like another commenter here - is why they raised the max base pay up significantly last year. They raised that cap in Feb 2022 just after the first post-Covid slump (which followed earnings the VPs would have known about).
ExceedingChunk t1_j9e9pwd wrote
Yeah, but that is the risk taken to get that high comp potentially in the first place.
Silver-Armadillo-479 t1_j9fdlmj wrote
Exactly. Why are people crying for those who make a ton of money? I took a job with a higher salary and lower variable comp because... I value... stability... Reddit wants to cry and bemoan for people that 2 years ago were making $300k with most of it being stock? Fuck that
hawtdawtz t1_j9ehjdy wrote
as someone who’s salary is over half in the form of RSUs it’s important that we stop feeling bad for these people. We know the risk we’re taking, and let me promise you that their base salaries are more than a reasonable overall wage.
GothicToast t1_j9f5sg8 wrote
And what about every other year when the stock surges 30%. Is that because of the workers? When things are good, it's because of the workers. But when things are bad, it's the "poor reputation/service of the company."
Good grief. These employees took a job where the comp is outlined ahead of time. It's heavy stock. You'd have to be highly regarded to not understand the risk there. There's a chance to smash your total comp target, but there's also a chance to not hit it. That is fair.
LigerXT5 t1_j9ffmuy wrote
I say "poor reputation/service of the company" because places like Walmart will blame poor work ethics, dedication to work, and increased theft because no one cares to keep the products in good sellable condition.
But yet if the store does great, everyone get $20-100(?) bonus in their next pay check.
Or my favorite that I went through, the store went through a small remodel. They say big, but if all you're doing is repainting some walls and a couple new sign sup, that's not significant. Usually when a remodel happens, the quarterly bonus is slashed, or eliminated. In my experience, we got hardly to no bonus that quarter.
It's not just Walmart. Amazon likes to hint that their poor service is on their employees. Too many breaks, using the bathroom too much, going on strike or mere gossip of it.
gqreader t1_j9dkpz3 wrote
It’s called risk and reward. I’m sorry but a lot of tech workers were flexing so hard on their $250k- $500k total comps, but the base only made up less than half of the amount.
High income earners will never support your ideal of an equitable economic system. They benefit from it, as the upper middle class. Trust me, many in those roles think you’re dumb and deserve to be poor if you make minimum wage.
I had one person who IPOed with coinbase and was flexing on his multiple millions. Welp. It’s a few $100ks at most now.
Don’t fret for the folks who get paid in RSUs. They are closer to the 1% than anyone else. It’s just part of the business cycle. They’ll find another $300k job else where after their nice severance package of $100k is used up.
Fret for the folks who run the warehouses and have to piss in a bottle to make the KPIs. Those are who we need to focus on, improving their lives and conditions will lift everyone.
Source: I make a lot of money, have many friends in tech, see the income and lifestyle. Sadly also see the entitlement to the lifestyle and income. Real dose of reality just hit them.
ThePrince14 t1_j9dp6cm wrote
Ya all these people complaining have no clue how these sorts of compensation packages actually work.
If someone is dumb enough to think their yearly RSU compensation is set in stone and uses it in their budgeting/financial decision making, that’s on them. Everyone I know just lives off their base and counts bonuses/RSUs as an investment/gravy for the future.
Mec26 t1_j9exiku wrote
I’m an Amazon corp worker, I made 48k last year working full time.
I get paid in RSUs.
jaakers87 t1_j9g71ak wrote
Then you should have negotiated a different salary or not taken the job.
Taking an RSU heavy compensation package is a high risk/high reward situation. If you chose to accept that - that's 100% on you.
There wouldn't be anyone writing an article if Amazon stock doubled and your pay was 2x what you had projected. This is just how RSU's work.
Mec26 t1_j9g9ubv wrote
I didn’t negotiate salary at all or know what it was until I was working (internal transfer) and yes, I’m lioking for other jobs. Not that easy right now. I worked my way up from a temp worker taking calls for customer service to a corp worker.
Most of my pay isn’t in RSUs. I’m just pointing out that this isn’t just effecting the top peeps.
ScrimpleShrimp t1_j9e3wzh wrote
> many in those roles think you’re dumb and deserve to be poor.
I noticed this when I used Blind. Bunch of SWEs patting themselves on the back and mocking every other role. I don’t feel bad for those people losing money or jobs one little bit. They should have humbled themselves more.
Elliott2 t1_j9fc6rw wrote
half of them are not even SWE but rather overpaid programmers.
Jorycle t1_j9ehrwl wrote
>Sadly also see the entitlement to the lifestyle and income
So wait, you're basing all of this off of some hypothetical rich party bro who's just living up his super cool bonus package? That's really not the typical worker, even if this person does exist.
Plenty of people in these positions are just typical middle class folks. Almost all of the companies at this tier would actually pay me less than I make now, but they claim they'll make up for it with huge stock plans. I'm sure it's a great longer term deal, but I don't work there because I can't pay the bills with stock, especially stock that tends to roll in unvested.
Sure, they make more money than warehouse workers, but the existence of someone getting kicked in the pants harder than someone else doesn't mean they're not also getting kicked in the pants.
fwiw-info t1_j9f7ko7 wrote
Ya, from my experience, everyone I've worked with in tech is very humble, extremely nice, and just a normal person with incredible talent/drive. Nobody is living a crazy lifestyle. They just might have a nice house with nice things and go to other countries for vacation. They're not buying lambos or living in mansions.
somegridplayer t1_j9f2ox2 wrote
>I just bought a g wagon and my TC just got cut in half what do I do?!?!?!?!!
-Blind this week
[deleted] t1_j9cxxkd wrote
[removed]
marcololol t1_j9feybf wrote
Better than being fired or laid off
Derodoris t1_j9ff6ro wrote
Ok so maybe this is an unpopular opinion but these aren't really the workers we should be worried about. I mean we're talking about amazon corporate aren't we? These are the folks on Blind bragging about making 250k total compensation with RSU's included.
[deleted] t1_j9g0r0t wrote
[deleted]
Some_Nibblonian t1_j9g2lxg wrote
Oh no! Won’t someone please think of the people making 250+
Typical_Cat_9987 t1_j9iefek wrote
This is not as crazy as it seems. When you join a public company as an employee, a large part of your comp is RSU’s. Stocks go up and down. That’s how it works …
FeeFooFuuFun t1_j9fn6br wrote
Amazon is so fuckall they'll use any excuse to dock pay
Disastrous-Rabbit-98 t1_j9e7uup wrote
Whats the point of this article... were people forced to work at Amazon, were they forced to take bonuses likely every year thwy were there and now a market correction and people throwing their hands up, talk about entitled!
Jorycle t1_j9egy3f wrote
Good lord, you need to get your brain right.
GothicToast t1_j9f6bo7 wrote
I think they summed it up quite nicely. What's your take?
timberwolf0122 t1_j9d1h0n wrote
This is part of the inherent problem of running a business to make shareholders happy.