[blockwriter]

How would you compensate work if their equity position needs to be maintained in perpetuity but the value of their work remains the same? If I worked retail at Nordstroms in 2006, I would have needed to earn pennies a week to balance out the next 60 to 70 years of equity I have in the company.

[alanlammiman]

well maybe if you made $20/h in cash and the share price is $20 you get 1 share/h. You can sell it (so you dont need to keep the equity in perpetuity) but if you live off $15, that you can have $5 (plus/minus appreciation/depreciation &dividends) shares in 60y time is a feature not a bug. Or maybe you have some mechanism whereby people have to sell back their shares when they leave (like partners at professional service firms).

A classic economist would say that the 1st example proves that its the same as cash and thus nothing much should change, but behaviourally there is endowment bias etc. I wouldn't be surprised if paying people in savings/investments and then letting them liquidate would result in a much higher saving/investment rate than giving them cash and expecting them to invest.

[blockwriter]

Maybe, but the share price is unlikely to be $20, or anything close to an hourly wage, if the company is paying all of its employees in equity positions.

[alanlammiman]

Well, but you're also cutting the cash outflow. From a P&L perspective it doesn't matter if you're paying $20 in cash or in stock.