[vampirechicken]

I'm not sure that your argument is a false dichotomy, but it smells of logical fallacy to me.

Using the pathological case to prove your point rather than a more likely case is disingenuous at best.

I'm talking about people trying to make an honest living, and having to deal with nests of vipers while trying get reasonably compensated.

If market is 104k, don't offer me 52k salary + 52k bonus, because I have to say I make 52, not 104 - well below market.

To me it sounds like a way to artificially deflate salaries (not specifically compensation. Your SO might want to know how much you expect to make all year, but for budgeting purposes, there's a big difference in budgeting for a 1k per week cash flow and a 2k per week cash flow.

[seanflyon]

Disproof by counter example is not disingenuous. I pointed out that what vampirechicken wrote was clearly wrong then tried to get at the heart of the issue. I did not say to count each dollar of maximum bonus (or even expected bonus) as the same value as a dollar of salary, in fact I said the opposite. The value of a bonus is the expected value minus the cost of volatility. You correctly point that you should also subtract the cost of delay.

When you are comparing your current compensation package to the industry standard the better one is the one that is worth more to you. You might put an unusually high or low value on risk or the cost of delaying compensation till the end of the year. You might value the free lunches or health insurance more or less than the average worker. Since you are the one receiving the compensation package what matters is what it is worth to you.

The bottom line is that market rate is total compensation, not just salary. If a company offers you a 'market rate' salary with no bonus and no benefits then that offer is bellow market rate. If an offer has lower salary, but great benefits and a huge bonus then (if you will actually get the bonus) that offer is above market rate.

[vampirechicken]

Since most of the online definitions of bonus that I've found are with my own in that they include the idea of a bonus being above and beyond what is expected compensation, then I'm going to chalk this up to our having differing connotations of bonus.

In my case, a bonus is extra pay, usually tied to performance (individual or corporate), while yours appears to be 'another category of compensation for work done.'

[seanflyon]

I think we are using the same definition: an amount of money added to wages on a seasonal basis, especially as a reward for good performance. (definition according to google)

Being "extra" does not make it somehow not compensation.

[vampirechicken]

But it makes it not salary, and since there is not market rate for bonuses, since they often depend on profitability or percent to yearly sales numbers, the number that truly matters is salary. It's the number that potential employers will ask you for, or offer you and is typically the only individual component of your compensation package.

[seanflyon]

There is of course a market rate for total compensation much more so that there is more just salary. When companies compete for you, they do so by offering more than just salary. You can tell potential employers whichever number you want. If want to tell them your previous compensation that would be reasonable.

Money is fungible.

[vampirechicken]

> Money is fungible Indeed it is. Thanks for the dialog. I've enjoyed it.