While I would avoid trying to time the market, anyone starting now has a much lower "cost basis" (they're not spending money, it's not a cost) and better chance at their RSUs appreciating while they vest. Using the last 12 months as a guide for the next 4 years isn't a reasonable way to analyze this.

> they're not spending money, it's not a cost

I'm not sure I follow that. If you're getting those shares instead of a higher salary, there's no effective difference between that and a cost you paid out of pocket (except for certain tax implications).

Shopify's plan is an oddity in the industry, normally one doesn't directly trade RSUs and base comp. Netflix has allowed for this (probably still does, but I haven't negotiated against a Netflix offer recently), but I don't know of any other significant examples.

That said, legally, even in the specific case of the Shopify plan, you aren't taking cash and spending it on Shopify stock. If you were, your tax situation would be more complicated.

> normally one doesn't directly trade RSUs and base comp

You do, it just isn't spelled out. If you're getting comp in one way (RSUs), then you're not getting it in other ways (salary). The same is true of other benefits, like free food, 401k contributions, etc. It generally isn't a 1-to-1 thing, but it _is_ a tradeoff.

I look forward to your perspective when the IRS starts arguing your free food and other benefits should be taxed like regular income.

Netflix lets you take a fraction of your pay in long term options, not RSUs

You get 4 years of exposure. You can’t pre-allocate 4 years of salary. That is the difference.

Which leaves the employee with less upside going forward, at which point they can switch companies and "start over" with an RSU grant that is at par. In this regard the initial grant has a bit of flavor of an option. You have the option to stay on the vesting schedule or change companies and start a new vesting schedule, but any losses on unvested amounts don't hit you if you switch.

incentivizing productive employees (the ones with the most alternatives) to quit if the stock price (or the stock market generally) goes down is a hell of a side-effect when you put it like that.

I guess that's the monkey-paw side of "incentivizing the employees to make the company perform by giving them a stake in the upside"...

That’s why a lot of companies will issue special grants to their highest performing/most critical employees if the shares drop a lot. That makes for a good “double dipping” if the shares recover.

Real Networks did that for us, after the dot-com crash. The stock promptly dropped some more, and never recovered. I've been deeply skeptical of stock-based compensation ever since...