Maybe in a small company, where your efforts can have a direct, meaningful impact on the company's net worth. For a company as large as Amazon, though... there's so much going on, and so much of it completely unrelated to your personal work, that I feel like it'd be kind of meaningless unless you were in a really high-level management position.
I'll have to disagree with your exception as well. Data has shown that CEOs at giant corps have no impact on how things go down. It comes back to your statement of how much is going on. If all the goings on in the corp mesh perfectly with the goings on outside, success happens. A single human CEO can neither be credited for success nor blamed for failure in these cases.
I agree with your premise, but don't give too much credit to "the high level management". Most of them are groping in the dark.
If you're an executive pulling in over $500k, sure stock should absolutely be compensation and motivation. If you're rank and file and need $120k/yr to even afford to live, have kids, save for retirement, etc. in the area, then no stock should absolutely not be the primary means of compensation.
The best argument I've heard on this front is about diversifying risk. If your company tanks and you're rank and file, you're getting laid off and your stock holdings are tanking. Best to not be doubly exposed to the company's risk profile.
I don't see why it would be more motivating than just getting the current cash value of the stock, in a situation like Amazon's where you _maybe do, maybe don't_ really influence the stock price. Are you saying you write such influential code that you think you will manage to tip things in your favor on such a grand scale?
Very cool page, it's lacking salaries however that would improve the posts quite a lot. Have you heard of AngelList? Their best feature is likely the public salary data.
In BC, 'competitive salary' ranges from 40-160K for the same role :)
Your table is conveniently lacking the salary ranges I've been offered from over a dozen higher paying companies in the city...
In fact, not a single company that pays well whom I've talked to is on your list other than Amazon and Microsoft (Whom will pay a whole lot more if you point the spread out to them).
I am planning on converting this data to website that will keep track of what tech employers are in the city. Kind of like HackerBatch but just listing companies, not delivering job postings. (Also, it will be available to the public, not just UBC/SFU students. You won't have to get 50 students from your school to sign up like with HackerBatch, either.)
For the moment, I'm protecting the sheet so I have a stable source from which to work. Stay tuned...
> Software Engineers in Vancouver make ~US$45,000 a year...
Which is $60K CAD. If you get roommates, rent can be $600-1000 (again, CAD)/month. Health insurance is $72/month, single-payer, and increasingly being 100% covered by tech companies. You don't have to worry about a car if you live downtown, and transit is good enough that living downtown isn't your only option if you don't want a hellish commute. (e.g. Hastings-Sunrise, Metrotown, New West)
If you get roommates your rent in SF will be ~$2800 CAD, meanwhile you're earning $220,000 CAD a year and your other expenses are pretty much the same as Vancouver.
No way Vancouver is more affordable than SF (if you have to work in tech for a living).
Depends on what you're talking about. Vancouver has cheap rent compared to SF rents, but houses are more expensive than SF and Vancouver wages are no where close to what people in SF are paid. It is one of the most unaffordable cities in the world in that regard.
