bak wrote: > 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.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was simply saying that I did take a hard look at the base salary, and the other unlikely-to-change benefits of the team I would be working with, etc - and decided that was enough for me to make the decision to move to CA and work for Google. It was only after-the-fact, that I figured out that it was even possible that my monetary compensation would be in the realm where I would be grinning from ear to ear, instead of simply happy and making a good living. :) As for the "stable paycheck vs unstable compensation" thoughts, I'm definitely not in the "has a large family to support" category. I honestly don't think I would have uprooted my family and moved 3,000 miles across the country if my wife and I had kids. The opportunity came at just the right time in my life, and for that I am grateful. On the flip side, I come from a rather conservative family, and have a very conservative financial mindset. I have been in a position where I was essentially running a small business doing consulting work, with a truly unstable source of income. It's not a job I would look forward to doing again until I'm independently wealthy. :) If it comes down to personal advice, I would suggest doing as I did, and ensure you can make the monthly budget work on the offered base salary, and nothing else. The rest is icing on the cake. It's just a matter of considering which icing you'd rather have, a few extra K guaranteed per year, or a really awesome group of guys to work with and the possibility of huge truckloads of cash. :) At least that's my world view, Aaron S. Joyner > 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/