That poster is definitely has good compensation, but TC needs to be broken into salary and equity.
When I left Google, a substantial part of my salary was via stacked yearly vesting GSU (like RSU) stock grants with some bonus mixed in. That meant that my salary was heavily dependent on the whims of the market. It also meant that my cash flow was somewhat impacted by either doing a lot of extra withholding or doing quarterly estimated taxes, since the GSUs were taxed at 25% instead of my actual tax rate.
Just getting paid every two weeks is so much nicer, and so much simpler. And we don't have a Monday in January after annual bonuses are awarded when we spend all day talking about who quit after their bonus was paid.
How is this worse? You can always sell the stock as soon as it vests, with zero tax implication.
Your compensation has nothing to do with stock price. Your decision to sell or hold onto the stock is an investment decision made by you, but isn't really relevant to the discussion of "this is how much money was given to me by my company".
But if you are granted $100k worth of stock in February, and the stock price drops by half in March you're only getting $50k worth of stock. Come next February, your stock grant will probably have a higher number of units to account for the drop in price, but you still earned less than $100k in stock the previous year.
Get $50k in equity ($100 per share), but you can only sell 1/3 each of the next 3 years. Stock price drops to $50 means you now have $25k of equity.
If it’s options it may mean you get $0.
Really, anything but taking the value of stock as it is when discussing total compensation of well-established publicly traded companies is just noise.