Magnus wrote:
Aaron, thank you so much for your thoughtful contributions to this
thread. I've personally found it very interesting to read, from both
sides.
Just an unsolicited $0.02:
Aaron S. Joyner wrote:
So, base salary isn't what one might typically expect. And even from
the offer letter, it's sometimes hard to make an accurate assessment of
what the compensation package provided by Google really is.
Bang. Right there you've got a big red flag for geeks that are
further along in their careers... maybe someone like me who is
supporting a wife & three kids. Guys like me would much rather have a
"sure thing" that may or may not be less than an income that can vary
widely depending on how your own performance is perceived, how the
company performance is measured by the bean counters, and how the
compensation plan itself is inevitably going to be restructured as the
company matures.
A lot of us got burned, badly, during the heady dot-com years when so
much of our compensation was based off of company performance, stock
options, and so on. These days, it is a lot more attractive to be
able to bank on getting $X per paycheck rather than a substantially
lower number with *potential* for a balloon payment annually of
unknown value.
These flexible compensation packages are probably more attractive to
people right out of school, dual income families, single adults, or
childless couples. I do think that this sort of package would tend to
repel breadwinners from single income families or families with a
number of children.
I have to concur with Magnus here. The job I had as an SA before this
one regularly came with a "base" bonus of 20%. I always made at least
that. Why did I hate getting a bonus, then? Because when you accept it
in lieu of being paid a salary -- as deferred compensation, or
what-have-you -- it is no longer a bonus. It's if-we-feel-like-it
salary on the part of management. If they take it away -- and they
won't hesitate to do so, if they really need to -- boom, you're suddenly
working for WAY below market rate for your skills, and good luck
convincing your next company that you're worth (your salary) *
(1.bonus). Will this happen at Google? Damned if I know -- and that's
the point. But this is just a feeling on my part, based on my
experience; Aaron obviously feels that it was well worth the risk, and I
certainly can't say he was wrong.
So: I did not consider bonuses as a numerical part of my salary at the
jobs I was considering in 2006, as all the companies I had an interest
in were "large" (more than a couple thousand) and publicly traded. I
might consider it for a small, flat company where I had a distinct and
measurable influence as an employee.
Guess what I heard? No bonus for IT in 2006 at my old company. I hated
to be proved right for the sake of my ex-co-workers. Perhaps working
there had this cynical influence on my attitude which you all in TriLUG
land are probably contrasting with Aaron's at this very moment.
Aaron, you made a bunch of other interesting and valid points which I
will respond to at some point in the near future. Any other almost-was
Googlers on the list? I'm getting quite curious, now.
--
TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/
TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
