[Aurornis]

Exactly. It’s also important to know that they support remote work, so these salaries really are not bad at all. For someone in a non-tech city who doesn’t want to move this would be a great startup job.

My only reservation is that I’ve interviewed with or worked for multiple companies that made some claim about paying everyone the same and there was always some loophole: The company might have a fixed base pay but then use very different equity grants. One company claimed to give everyone the same base comp and equity but then it was discovered that some people were getting huge annual “guaranteed bonuses” that were effectively base compensation. It has left me tired of seeing companies push the idea of everyone being paid the same while not being open about the entire compensation structure.

EDIT: To be 100% clear, I don’t know what Oxide’s entire comp structure looks like. The examples above were for past companies I worked for.

[steveklabnik]

We have salary and equity, no bonuses. Salary is identical, equity is not. I certainly agree with you that that kind of shenanigans can be annoying; I had a former employer who hired people with "oh it's a bonus but you always get 100% of it" and then, we did not get 100% of it.

[Aurornis]

> Salary is identical, equity is not.

Thank you. This is the question I was hoping to see an answer for.

[brettgriffin]

More important than just getting answer, do you understand _why_ every employee isn't granted the same amount equity?

[Aurornis]

Isn’t it obvious? This is where they vary compensation for the same reasons everyone else varies compensation.

If they gave everyone the same equity compensation presumably they’d put that front and center like they do for the base salary.

The claims about paying everyone the same are a red herring because it’s only about base salary.

[everfrustrated]

Because if you want to poach talent then you'll likely need to induce them to leave their existing employer and will need to match their existing equity grants that might soon vest. Obviously that number is different for different people.

[tialaramex]

Bonuses are bullshit. When the first startup I worked for was acquired they asked everybody to basically agree they won't quit for a period of time - transition. Fair enough. However for the ordinary staff (like me) this agreement had no actual carrot, they're offering a so-called "Bonus scheme", but it's clearly designed so that they decide what it pays, whereas execs are getting an up-front specific financial inducement to stay. So I explain to colleagues that if you might want to quit you should not sign, the "bonus" is worthless but you're locked in by signing - however I did get some pushback from people who could not see this or haven't done this before.

Sure enough when that bonus was due to pay out, I got a heads up from a friend (who was being compensated because he was like CTO or something) that it was worthless, because of course they get to pick the numbers so they're going to pick zero. I don't care, because I was on a different scheme and anyway I work for salary, if you want to pay me to do something, you can pay me, don't fuck about with nonsense about a "bonus", but some people ended up stuck for a year or two believing they're getting a bonus to wait.

[throwanem]

It's bullshit to talk about salary equality as though that mattered when equity is the real upside, and you know it. The claim to strive for a "generational company" is just "we're a family here" in other terms. Congrats on the raise.

[steveklabnik]

I think there are tremendous benefits to having a flat salary structure, regardless of upside. My other friends in tech are envious of the lack of having to waste time doing perf, for example.

> Congrats on the raise.

Thank you.

[throwanem]

From your perspective of course it has benefits. From mine? Getting stack ranked wasn't even in my top 10 as concerns went, but I'm really good at my job, and I keep quality notes that make it easy to recap a quarter or half. (But like I said, I'm good at my job.) I don't really see what that has to do with focusing your rhetoric on 10% of startup comp as though it were 100% - especially now that your tax discount on cash comp has been restored! - but you're welcome, of course.

[steveklabnik]

> I keep quality notes that make it easy to recap a quarter or half. (But like I said, I'm good at my job.)

The point is not that my friends don't do a good job, the point is that this is work that does not actually further the organization's goals directly, but is necessary in order to keep their job. They'd rather be doing the actual work they are hired to do.

[throwanem]

Oh, come on. Administrative overhead is a reality of business everywhere and at every level; the idea that to manage an organization somehow necessarily impairs it is absurd. So is purporting falsely to eliminate that overhead on behalf of others, when basic professional competence instead involves for oneself learning to minimize it - to dispose of it, not by panicking or catastrophizing or sweeping it under a rug, but instead in a fashion such as that I described ie efficiently. To claim otherwise is infantilizing nonsense. It's fundamentally dishonest, though I grant you probably have never before so directly been told as much.

[growse]

> but I'm really good at my job

How good you think you are at your job is pretty meaningless if some manager above you wants to weaponise the company's perf policy against you.

[throwanem]

I'm good enough at my job to see that when it's happening. That's one reason why I didn't say 'I think.' Another is because I know the way to bet is that, with this weapon forbidden, others will be found to replace it. Why go into any of that without even the promise of hazard pay? I'd rather just do honest work.