[ml_basics]

And American tech companies have been substantially more successful that European tech companies so maybe it does actually make sense to have stock options as part of compensation rather than employer bonuses?

[highwaylights]

Sure, but where’s the problem? If those companies are succeeding because they offered those incentives then it forces others to do the same or fail.

[trashtester]

I'm not sure you noticed, but Europe simply doesn't have the kind of tech sector that the US and increasingly China and even India have.

In fact, I'm not sure I know of a single global top 100 company (by market cap) that is a European tech company founded in the past 40 years.

Compensation models is almost certainly part of the reason, in addition to taxation, regulations, culture, etc.

[arghwhat]

That feels a lot more like correlation than causation.

What you could argue is that because these companies are so successful, they can now offer disproportionately large compensation packages including stock options which draw talent from the rest of the world to keep them large. This in turn fuels the startup economy as investors dream of having a big share of the next big thing.

I don't think it makes sense as a justification for why these companies grew so big and attracted so much money, causing a gap in startup environments. It would at most explain why they stay so big.

[trashtester]

American economic success is not due to old companies staying big. It's due to the immense rate that some startups tend to grow.

From the 100 most valuable companies on Earth, there are maybe 20-30 US (rough guess) tech companies that have been started in the the past 40 years, and several of them in the past 20.

And approximately 0 European ones.

And while this isn't PROOF of causation, it surely increases the posterior probability of causation, regarles of what your prior was before adding this evidence.