In most cases, you are granted a notional dollar amount that is immediately turned into a concrete and fixed number of shares that then vest over the next 4 years.

Then, any share price appreciation on the shares is captured by you at vesting, rather than being paid in cash (the value of which has been inflated away) and then purchasing shares/index that has risen in the last 1-4 years.

If you are paid in cash, you will be buying fewer shares per dollar (and per year) rather than getting the same number.

▲

twoodfin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but cash compensation could be structured the same way, minus whatever would be settled on for the retention value to the employer of the vesting schedule.

I get your point. The value of stock isn’t that it’s stock per se, but rather that it’s inflation-resistant even when illiquid.

	▲	VirusNewbie 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's optionality that only has an upside financially, while the downside is just having to do more interviews. Let's say you're worth 300k on the open market as a senior software engineer. If you get a job that pays 200k a year + 400k in stock over four years, you're making ~300k. Except if after the first year, the stock goes up 30%, you're making 330k the second year + whatever cash raise you get. Then if it goes up another 10%, and so on... etc. If, however the stock falls after the first year, presumably you can go out and find another 300k a year job at a different company.