[rhizome]

One of the first things you might notice in some of the job ads for those firms: instead of "Compensation: competitive salary, 0.0x% equity," you'll start seeing phrases like "extremely high compensation." Then you'll start really feeling like you're not in Kansas.

In this vein, the tech industry screws its employees as far as their share of revenue-per-employee goes. Apple makes 10x per employee what Jane St. does, and I doubt the small firms achieve the difference.

[smabie]

the joke goes that finance firms are employee run co-ops. And for the most part it's true: you end up keeping quite a high percentage of the money you earn for the firm. Profits are paid out to everyone, not just a few at the top.

[Tinyyy]

From someone working at Jane Street, Apple definitely does not make 10x per employee what Jane Street does.

[rhizome]

These numbers are easy to find, but sure, let's break out our calculators. By recent generic numbers, Jane street does $171MM revenues across 900 employees. Apple has $274B revenues across 137,000 heads.

$190,000 vs. $2,000,000. Netflix is even higher: $2.4MM. What numbers do you have?

[f9ad2451]

Your Jane Street numbers are not even close. They're required to report this stuff in the UK, which shows revenues of $229MM (see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...). And that's just the UK revenue - most of the business is in the US. I would estimate closer to $1MM/head.

[srtjstjsj]

Profit matters, not revenue.

[icedchai]

Where do you think most revenue goes? Employees.

[username90]

Depends on the company. For example most of Walmart's revenue goes to buying goods to sell. Apple sells physical products and hence will spend a lot of money acquiring the physical parts etc, you can't really compare their revenue to for examples Facebooks revenue.

[srtjstjsj]

Comparing revenue between industries is nonsense. Profit says something.