[stack_underflow]

One thing I've noticed is that the people making these counter-arguments seem to completely ignore (or don't know about) the ridiculous amounts of equity that $big_tech_co's are handing out.

Yes some of those points can be valid, and I understand that not all software companies hand out that much stock or are private and therefore it's harder to depend on, etc. But maybe it's just the bubble of tech that I've existed in within the PNW, but tonnes of people in my circle have built FIRE-level wealth by just having been driven enough to put up with bullshit interviews and staying long enough to get their stock grants.

I can say personally I definitely wouldn't have made it to where I did financially had I stayed in Canada, or it probably would've taken me at least 15 years instead of ~5.

If you're the type of person for who money can solve a lot of problems, I always suggest considering this as an option. It's solved ~90% of the problems in my life and has bought me years of time to be able to do what I actually want in life.

[ghaff]

This is mostly an argument for people who have either gotten a lot of equity at large public tech companies--at least some of them--and/or just had a lot of money in equities, including large public tech companies, over the past 10 years or so.

Even if someone hasn't won the FAANG lottery, there are a lot of folks, including those that aren't collecting SV-level comp, who have done pretty well being well-invested in diversified equities.

[tomatotomato37]

Equity is great when the stock market is booming, but when it decides to drop off a cliff every decade or so for whatever reason I'd prefer if my actual salary didn't go with it

[dcolkitt]

The thing is, it's very hard to get rich without some sort of equity. Maybe it's not equity in public companies, but almost all wealthy people get to that point by owning something. Whether that's stock options in a startup or a general partnership in a hedge fund or a medical practice or a piece of property that gets developed.

All equity comes with risk. Doubly so for the type of equity that generates a lot of wealth. Stability is nice, but expect to pay through the nose for it. The only real exception I can think of are people with exceptional talent in an exceptionally in demand skill. E.g. Tom Brady or Linus Torvalds or a world-class neurosurgeon.

[ghaff]

Linus Torvalds makes a lot less than Tom Brady. He basically makes as much as the executive director at the Linux Foundation, something over $600K, but nothing extraordinary by SV standards. And there's no equity associated with the LF.

[wallflower]

I once saw him walking the floor at Comdex (not the main Las Vegas one but in Chicago). Watchig him walking around, shaking hands, and catching up with his old friends at Red Hat and the like, I couldn't help but feel an intangible sense that the guy was happy. Someone who had created something significant out of nothing (This was before Linux really took off in the 90s). I was starstruck.

> His fortunes changed in 1999. Red Hat and VA Linux, both leading purveyors of Linux-based software packages tailored for large enterprises, had granted him stock options with no strings attached, thank-yous from entrepreneurs who hoped to grow rich off his creation. When Red Hat went public that year, Torvalds was suddenly worth $1 million. On the day VA Linux (now VA Software) went public, Torvalds was worth roughly $20 million, though by the time he could sell his shares, they were valued at only a fraction of that.

> Torvalds hesitated before buying himself his first expensive bauble, a two-seater BMW convertible. "I was a bit nervous about people's reaction," he confesses. "Are they going to think I've gone over to the dark side?" In the end he decided that the shape and price of the hunk of metal he drove to and from work each day was his own business. Despite counsel to the contrary, Torvalds wisely sold all of his stock and spent almost all of the windfall on his home and his cars, trusting that he'd always be able to earn a good salary as an engineer.

https://web.archive.org/web/20031127045640/https://www.wired...

[stack_underflow]

Sure, but there are also strategies to buffer yourself from that. Barring the first year where you have to wait/make it up to the 12-month mark to get the full 25% of your equity paid out, 99% of companies (i.e. almost everyone except for Amazon IME) will vest 1/4 of your annual 25% stock comp quarterly - I've even seen 1/12th-monthly in an offer.

If you're willing to take the short-term cap gains hit you can sell your stock immediately after vesting and reinvest in a total market index or w/e aligns with your investing philosophy. If we're talking hard numbers, you'd still be pulling in 150-200k+ in base salary/cash and let's say, in a non-ideal situation, what would've been your $125k of annual stock vest is now worth 30% less - still not a bad deal IMO.

[laurencerowe]

By my understanding RSUs vest monthly at Google and Facebook with no cliff, making them a slightly more volatile cash equivalent. Many diversify immediately by auto-selling the bulk of their stock grants and buying tracker funds.

[logicslave]

Nobody gets rich without owning equity in a business.

[laurencerowe]

> I can say personally I definitely wouldn't have made it to where I did financially had I stayed in Canada, or it probably would've taken me at least 15 years instead of ~5

This is my experience coming from Britain too, but honestly not sure it's had any great effect on my level of life satisfaction - you can live a pretty comfortable life on software engineer's salary most places. The work available in Silicon Valley is definitely more interesting, but you now work in an office park 30 miles form the city centre and housing has gotten so expensive its driven out a lot of the interesting cultural life.