>What's the point behind putting all this effort into it when at the end of the day it means almost nothing?

At a company like Facebook, the difference between L4 and L6 is over $100k in salary, and $80k in stock (difference in 4 year refresh grant of $325k). $180k a year difference isn't almost nothing.

IIUC, there's a >$100k range in TC (grants, bonus, salary) - WITHOUT appreciation for L4s. It's >$150k range in TC for L6s.

If there's a ~$180k difference between the average L6 and the average L4, and the bands are that wide - you have a lot of L4s making more than L6s.

If an L4 is "Exceeding Expectations" enough to get huge grants and bonuses, and an L4 is "Needing Improvement" enough to get terrible grants and bonuses... Why is the L4 an L4 and the L6 an L6?

Additionally, everyone has different (with big swings) of how much of their compensation comes from stock vs salary & bonus. When appreciation comes into play - this has large implications.

Additionally, people working between 2-4 years often make substantially more money than anyone else at the company in their current level.

Not if the L4 started 3-4 years before the L6. Their original RSU grant might have been substantially more than they are handing out due to price appreciation, and thus their TC is much higher. This happened to hilarious effect at Amazon, where I had some coworkers that were receiving insane comp and were Sr, but not PE level. Originally they got a grant that was worth 500-600k that went up 5x.

That's not L4 vs L6, that's start in 2015 vs 2108 or whatever.

price hasnt appreciated at meta lol

Because you get less of an annual raise at the high end of the bands. This means if you stay at the same level you drift to the center of the band. It's better to be a the lower end of a band so the model causes you to drift up.