Yep, I'm starting another generational thread

[MU82]

I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.

My daughter started with Starbucks as a barista and worked her way into corporate management before leaving for another company. She worked there for 8-9. They do give employees some stock - even part-time baristas - and also made it available to purchase for 85 cents on the dollar IIRC. They also offer reasonably priced health insurance, even for part-timers.

Costco, if I'm not mistaken, does the above, too. And there are others.

[NWarsh]

I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.

And I think you are just ignorant to the reality of what most companies are offering millennials and the point they are at in their lives.  Even if they do offer some sort of stock award it usually is not significant to where a high performer cannot make up for that with an increase in salary at another organization.  There is also usually some sort of vesting period, so if you are in your mid to late 20's chances are you have not been with the company long enough to actually cash those in to help with a down payment on that first house you are looking to buy.  Then there is that little thing that most Millennials have that is called student loan debt, those unvested options will not help pay that down any quicker either.

[D'Lo Brown]

My daughter started with Starbucks as a barista and worked her way into corporate management before leaving for another company. She worked there for 8-9. They do give employees some stock - even part-time baristas - and also made it available to purchase for 85 cents on the dollar IIRC. They also offer reasonably priced health insurance, even for part-timers.

Costco, if I'm not mistaken, does the above, too. And there are others.

Sure, and there are definitely examples out there. I would just say that, in general, employer-contributed retirement options as a whole have decreased significantly outside of the c-suite, etc. I would consider offering significant stock to your employees an aspect of employer-contributed retirement options. And these were far more common in the past - they still exist but (without doing a research project on this topic) I'm certain that they are a pittance compared to what was previously given, even to assembly line workers or similar.

For example, my father started out as an assembly line worker for a well-known manufacturing company long time ago, around 32 years ago. He is not a union worker and he never was. A few years in, he started to accrue stock in the company in lieu of some other benefit they were offering (a bigger Christmas bonus, something like that?). Over the years I remember the company offered various other yearly deals regarding stock to tenured employees and looking back (I was a child) it likely had to do with how the company was faring. He continued to accrue stock for about 25ish years, I'd say? My father, coincidentally, was also one of the last few that got in the company before they removed pensions, and he will "earn" a ton of money through the end of his days (more than his current salary).

I have no idea what the actual sum of his company stock is but we are talking at least in the mid 6 figures. Plus the value of his pension which is well over a million. Not to mention his 401(k) for which he contributed up to the amount that made the company maximally match. Long story short this guy is going to be a few times more wealthy as a retiree than he was as an employee. He definitely hit the "lottery" and he feels blessed, but many of his peers have similar situations. Now, however, the company only offers a modest 401(k) and less generous stock options (if at all, I don't remember exactly). As I said, pension was done away with long time ago, 25ish years ago. Even though the company is significantly more profitable today (chicken/egg?).

If you worked at Starbucks for 30 years, even as a manager, I just really doubt you could accrue enough company-granted stock to make much of an impact on your retirement plans. 85 cents on the dollar for general Starbucks stock is a horrible deal for employees if they have their retirement in mind. The 85 cents deal likely helps Starbucks just as much as the employees.

But anyway, that's just my opinion without doing any further research beyond what I know off the top of my head. It's a good topic, any single factor could be debated ad nauseum and just happy to be able to discuss without resorting to flaming.

Edit: also wanted to add that my father started working for this manufacturing company with no degree. They paid the entire bill for him to attain a bachelor's, master's, and professional degree at very competitive private universities. They actually used to pay for any degree you wanted if you'd worked for them for at least a year (and there were probably various requirements about staying with the company for x years). He eventually progressed from assembly line to middle management.

[Jay Bee]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/03/18/why-starbucks-pays-its-baristas-with-stock-a-beginners-guide-to-company-stock/amp/

[D'Lo Brown]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2015/03/18/why-starbucks-pays-its-baristas-with-stock-a-beginners-guide-to-company-stock/amp/

Thanks. As I said, wasn't looking to perform a book report as my own anecdotes were a mouthful on their own. Multiple points I suspected as true (out of sheer anecdotal opinion) are true:

1. Companies still offer stock, but the amount is more in the small-to-medium bonusish level as opposed to a reasonable aspect of a retirement plan. Interestingly the study showed that even a small amount of stock led to higher retention, which obviously makes sense but was not something I expected to hear (I just couldn't imagine making under $15/hour at Starbucks and committing to said job long-term due to the stock bonuses)

2. Companies offer the stock as a way to lower the amount of cash they have to pay out, investors like it, broadening their investor base, etc - they are benefitting by creating these programs outside of simply making the employee(s) happy. It is helpful to their business.

3. C-suites are generally the employees that are amassing huge amounts of stock

Sorry, I know it's easier to argue against someone if you assume they take the most extreme stance. But I didn't, I don't think it's really that incredible of a debate, either. Companies don't offer as much in benefits as they used to. They now contribute a small amount to 401(k) if you are lucky (some do, some don't) and some offer stock in the company through various programs (sometimes in lieu of cash bonuses, raises, etc) that doesn't add up to a huge amount at the end of the day.

Benefits are decreasing. It just is what it is. Arguing that since a benefit still exists, doesn't mean that it is the same as it was before. If an analysis was done I would assume that stock benefits have decreased along with and comparable to the greater trend.

[warriorchick]

It's a moot point for vast majority of people, anyway, since they work for organizations other than publicly traded companies.

[Jay Bee]

Thanks. As I said, wasn't looking to perform a book report as my own anecdotes were a mouthful on their own. Multiple points I suspected as true (out of sheer anecdotal opinion) are true:

1. Companies still offer stock, but the amount is more in the small-to-medium bonusish level as opposed to a reasonable aspect of a retirement plan. Interestingly the study showed that even a small amount of stock led to higher retention, which obviously makes sense but was not something I expected to hear (I just couldn't imagine making under $15/hour at Starbucks and committing to said job long-term due to the stock bonuses)

2. Companies offer the stock as a way to lower the amount of cash they have to pay out, investors like it, broadening their investor base, etc - they are benefitting by creating these programs outside of simply making the employee(s) happy. It is helpful to their business.

3. C-suites are generally the employees that are amassing huge amounts of stock

Sorry, I know it's easier to argue against someone if you assume they take the most extreme stance. But I didn't, I don't think it's really that incredible of a debate, either. Companies don't offer as much in benefits as they used to. They now contribute a small amount to 401(k) if you are lucky (some do, some don't) and some offer stock in the company through various programs (sometimes in lieu of cash bonuses, raises, etc) that doesn't add up to a huge amount at the end of the day.

Benefits are decreasing. It just is what it is. Arguing that since a benefit still exists, doesn't mean that it is the same as it was before. If an analysis was done I would assume that stock benefits have decreased along with and comparable to the greater trend.

Your assumptions and the chatter are not relevant. My reply bringing up stock compensation was in response to someone who said, "With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution."

The reality is that there are many companies who value stock compensation grants as a method of retain employees. If you disagree, you are wrong.

As to your unrelated comments... re: 1, that's false. Many companies make meaningful grants to a fairly wide group.  re: 2, that's false. If investors loved it, the ISS wouldn't ding companies for "high" burn rates.

Now, many investors DO LOVE when compensation for the c-suite is heavily performance based stock awards... which is generally the case.

[Jay Bee]

It's a moot point for vast majority of people, anyway, since they work for organizations other than publicly traded companies.

#FakeNews

First, what is your definition of 'vast majority'?

Second, many people receive stock awards despite not working for publicly traded companies. Think about what you do for work - there are many people in your same line of work who have benefited from such grants, and many who are staying with a certain employer because of stock awards.

1) Get stock awards for private company A.
2) Private company A is acquired by private company B.
3) Employee get PAID.

I've seen it many times. No publicly traded companies involved, but stock comp very meaningful and helpful for retention purposes.

[brewcity77]

Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.

One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.

1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.

2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.

3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.

4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.

5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.

Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.

In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.

[Jay Bee]

But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes.

Patently false. Just horribly wrong.

[brewcity77]

Patently false. Just horribly wrong.

Uhh huh. Keep telling yourself that as 85% of a $1.5T tax cut goes to the highest 1% of earners as permanent cuts and all the cuts to the middle and lower classes are set to expire in a few years.

[Jay Bee]

Uhh huh. Keep telling yourself that as 85% of a $1.5T tax cut goes to the highest 1% of earners as permanent cuts and all the cuts to the middle and lower classes are set to expire in a few years.

What are you talking about? Try staying on topic. What I told you was patently false was what you said:

"we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes."

That is patently false and the unrelated commentary in your latest reply doesn't address that fact.

[JWags85]

In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.

Devils advocate: name me a country where this is not the case? Or better yet, name me a country where the odds of breaking the mold and being those exceptions is better than the US?

And not on some rah-rah the US is the best country ever, but for all its economic and class issues, it still rises well above its peers in opportunity to rise above the status you were born into, regardless of the issues stated ad nauseum. A stance that a society or economy where you limit some of that ceiling or potential in order to create more protection/advantage/services to the lower or middle class, that’s a position that is certainly understandable, but to pretend the US is an exception in the developed world cause you often die in the economic strata you were born in, that’s not entirely truthful IMO.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

#FakeNews

Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.

No, not fake news.

Yes, LTI is intended as a retention mechanism, as well as an incentive to perform.  However, the percentage of employees eligible for equity awards is significantly lower (~4%-9%, depending on if you look at tradition equity vs. LTI more broadly) than are still under a DB plan.  So you're talking a very narrow slice of the workforce.

[MU82]

Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.

One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.

1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.

2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.

3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.

4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.

5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.

Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.

In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.

Wow, brewsky ... lots and lots of generalizations in here.

I sure know lots of Boomers who give back to society. I like to think I'm one of them.

But yes, the whole born-poor-likely-die-poor thing is mostly true, unfortunately.

Everybody born to white, solidly middle-class (or better) parents starts life with a rabbit's foot, that's for sure.

[D'Lo Brown]

Devils advocate: name me a country where this is not the case? Or better yet, name me a country where the odds of breaking the mold and being those exceptions is better than the US?

All of the Nordic countries certainly come to mind. Though, you might argue that the effective poverty of those countries is already much lower than in the US, so a true rags-to-riches example might be less dramatic there. Plenty of examples of how their society lifts up the impoverished and promotes equivalent opportunities in education/etc for children - rich kids get the same education as everyone else there.

[Jay Bee]

All of the Nordic countries certainly come to mind. Though, you might argue that the effective poverty of those countries is already much lower than in the US, so a true rags-to-riches example might be less dramatic there. Plenty of examples of how their society lifts up the impoverished and promotes equivalent opportunities in education/etc for children - rich kids get the same education as everyone else there.

No. There are private schools and what tends to happen in Nordic countries is that many people have so much given to them that they do not try to advance and become successful.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10

[Lennys Tap]

Read much of this, skimmed some, so sorry if I'm replicating some of what was already said.

One problem with the boomers in here, they look at what they "gave back" and only speak about it in terms of their family. "Put my kids through school, set things up for my family, took care of my parents" but all of that ignores the massive damage they did to the economy and planet long-term.

1) Boomers benefitted for decades from unions. Benefits like vacation time, insurance, fair labor standards, all of those things were fought for by unions and would not exist today if not for unions. Now that they don't need unions anymore, they have bought into the Koch propaganda BS that unions are bad and are all to happy to destroy them. Take unions away and over time, all those benefits unions provided will go away. All of them. 40 hour work weeks, employer subsidized insurance, overtime pay, safety practices, it will all be gone. It won't be overnight, but over years. The boomers voting to get rid of unions will do untold damage to future generations.

2) Boomers enjoyed the clean-up of the environment and an improvement in national health. They will live longer than any generation before them. And in response they have voted to allow things that destroy the environment. They ignore climate change and accept policies that will deliberately do damage to the environment. They were able to enjoy cities finally cleaned up, but didn't care enough to insure they stayed cleaned up for the future. I'm just hoping Gen X, the Millennials, iGen, and whatever comes after them are able to clean it up and the damage isn't irreparable.

3) Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare were all things Boomers took advantage of, but once they got old, they slashed taxes so these programs would become unsustainable. As noted above, a generation blessed with kismetic fortune and rather than paying it forward so that these would be sustainable programs, they sucked them dry and will leave them bereft for the people that come after.

4) The job market is being destroyed right now by Boomers, specifically the Boomers that own businesses. For decades, we were able to corner the market on industry. The world needed what we produced. Made in the USA, whether cars, textiles, beverages, or whatever else, was actually a thing and actually mattered. However as we helped rebuild industry in Europe, Japan, and around the world, our products went into less demand as we started to import. But rather than insure we stayed competitive, we jumped on that importing ship. We sent jobs overseas to low wage countries. Whether cars in Mexico, technology in China or Taiwan, or even this week as Harley prepares to move more of their jobs overseas, the Boomer business owners sent jobs out of the country to insure that while their generation had thrived for decades, future generations would not be able to do the same.

5) The constant belief that tax cuts for the rich would improve the economy, which has been repeatedly proven false. It didn't work in the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and isn't working today. But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.

Boomers may have done plenty to take care of their own families, but they did a terrible job of taking care of the society. They lived in a ridiculously prosperous time and instead of using that prosperity to guarantee America would continue to be a land of plenty going forward, they insured it would be a dead end nation for future generations. The great irony is the 'American Dream'. Because of our economic policy, it is harder to change your socioeconomic status in America than almost any other developed country in the world. It's easier to live the 'American Dream' in Europe than it is here because they haven't bankrupted the system which actually allows industrious members of the lower classes to improve their station, something that is virtually impossible here.

In America, if you are born poor, you will likely die poor. If you are born rich, you will likely die rich. There are certainly the occasional exceptions, but the odds of being one of those is only slightly better than winning the lottery.

Quite a manifesto. Angry, confused and often outright wrong or misleading on the facts.

[D'Lo Brown]

No. There are private schools and what tends to happen in Nordic countries is that many people have so much given to them that they do not try to advance and become successful.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-socialist-scandinavia-has-some-of-the-highest-inequality-in-europe-2014-10

??? Nice. Dude, I think you're taking things a little personal.

You forget to mention that the top 10% in the United States own 76% of the wealth, whereas in the Scandinavian countries listed (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) it is less. Between 60-70%.

Also: just to clarify. You made a straw man, in that I was discussing poverty and whether other countries provide more of an opportunity to "rise up the ladder". Your post about income inequality and the top 10% of earners is actually the inverse of what I was talking about, but actually unrelated to the argument (you essentially created a new argument, and proved me "wrong" in a new argument). I was not arguing that everyone should receive similar pay in the Nordic countries.

Your aside that people there "don't try to advance and become successful" is utter nonsense, childish, and not even worth addressing. As it's relatively clear that you're just trolling, I'll leave others to decide if they want to continue the convo with you. Peace

[NWarsh]

#FakeNews

First, what is your definition of 'vast majority'?

Second, many people receive stock awards despite not working for publicly traded companies. Think about what you do for work - there are many people in your same line of work who have benefited from such grants, and many who are staying with a certain employer because of stock awards.

1) Get stock awards for private company A.
2) Private company A is acquired by private company B.
3) Employee get PAID.

I've seen it many times. No publicly traded companies involved, but stock comp very meaningful and helpful for retention purposes.

#FakeNews

Patently false. Just horribly wrong.

You ask for definitions and then provide "proof" of your point with the word "many."  You also use an article that shows an example of 1 employer, and states that something like 20% of the working population gets some sort of stock option.  Now back out all the upper management, since those are not going to be millennials (the original topic was Millennials are not committed or willing to work hard), and you have maybe 10% who get some sort of small option.  Any person with any sort of financial acumen will not turn down a job from another organization with a 10-20K bump in pay just for a 5-10K stock option.  You are shifting the goal posts and just flat out wrong on this topic.

[mu03eng]

Why are stock options a good option for encouraging long term loyalty to a company? Would I take them, sure I would, I do with my 401k match, but I don't think stock options would do anything to engender long term loyalty.

I actually think it's another sign of generational differences, not meant pejoratively, but I think boomers think more tangible/materialistically whereas millenials think more intangible/culturally. I'm much more interested in the cultural fit of an organization and things like vacation days, work from home, work/life balance, etc than I am in making sure I'm maximizing my income in various ways. I could easily double my salary if I went to work in a more sales oriented role and/or went to a different company, but it would mean putting in 60 hour weeks and/or lots of travel. I'd much rather put in my 40-45 hours a week and go home to my family with our pretty good living than max out our income but never see them and/or spend it.

[jesmu84]

But because of the constant stigma over raising taxes, we have an upper and business class that pays virtually zero taxes and a tax burden that has been wholly shifted to the lower classes. Instead of doing the logical thing and taking money from the people who can afford to lose the most, we take money from those that can afford to lose it the least. Decade after decade, we've tried the same economic plan and while it's been great for the retiring Boomers who are now wealthy enough to enjoy those cuts, it has destroyed the safeguards and programs we need for society to keep on functioning beyond their deaths.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/TPHlhzRSEnw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/TPHlhzRSEnw</a>

[MUBurrow]

Uffdah. Lots to unpack here. Trying to stay in the middle lane on the data/links - it seems stock options and restricted stock are more common than they were 20+ years ago. But my concern is that a concentrated stock position isn't a replacement for more traditional, diversified retirement planning.

The reason stock options have traditionally been for the C-Suite is because (1) those folks already have their blocking and tackling retirement in place and high income levels, so that stock is a great high-risk, high-reward compensation perk, with the added benefit of subsequent growth taxed at cap gain rates rather than ordinary income; and (2) those folks' decisions presumably have a greater effect on the value of that stock (hence JB's point on why investors like it). 

But eliminating defined benefit plans and pensions, and now even reducing employer matches to IRAs and 401(k)s, even if replaced with corresponding increases in popularity of stock options, doesn't create a secure financial future. Sure, some  of that stock will grow or be cashed out in a downstream M&A deal, but a lot of those options will decline or go bust, too. And if that's the predominant source of your retirement capital, you're SOL.  So through that lens, it would stand to reason that stock options wouldn't have as big an impact on retention as they used to. If you're a 35 year old with two kids making $75k/year, you need to make the move for the extra $10k/year, because while the stock option might be the higher ceiling compensation package, its a risk you just can't afford to take.

[NWarsh]

Why are stock options a good option for encouraging long term loyalty to a company? Would I take them, sure I would, I do with my 401k match, but I don't think stock options would do anything to engender long term loyalty.

I actually think it's another sign of generational differences, not meant pejoratively, but I think boomers think more tangible/materialistically whereas millenials think more intangible/culturally. I'm much more interested in the cultural fit of an organization and things like vacation days, work from home, work/life balance, etc than I am in making sure I'm maximizing my income in various ways. I could easily double my salary if I went to work in a more sales oriented role and/or went to a different company, but it would mean putting in 60 hour weeks and/or lots of travel. I'd much rather put in my 40-45 hours a week and go home to my family with our pretty good living than max out our income but never see them and/or spend it.

+10000000

[Golden Avalanche]

Quite a manifesto. Angry, confused and often outright wrong or misleading on the facts.

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion man.