I also know what our partners bill rate is and I know what people who left ProServe to start their own consulting companies are charging.
Finally, I know what we bill customers and the gap between my pay and the bill rate. I choose to accept my total compensation because while the reward is lower so are the risks.
> So I don't understand why you allow yourself the better deal while chastising the writers and actors for also wanting the better deal.
I am not chastising anyone for trying to negotiate their market rate. I’m going to negotiate a lot more compensation based on my market value when I leave AWS as a cloud consultant specializing in application development based on my track record than I could as a run of the mill C# developer just like Shonda Rhimes can negotiate more than an unknown writer based on their market value.
> I have had the same choices:
> 1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment
> I chose to work for a public company that gave me less than market value in exchange for stock that gives me residual rights to income from the company. I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market.
> I choose to accept my total compensation because while the reward is lower so are the risks.
There is more risk working for a smaller consulting firm or going out on my own than there is working for the second largest employer in the US. But the reward could be potentially higher working for a smaller agency or independently where they would get a smaller cut (an agency) or working for myself.
There is also a risk/reward calculation between more cash up front vs less cash + residuals.
This is the problem. You have consistently said in previous comments that taking higher upfront cash is less risk, and you claimed that's what actors and writers should be doing, instead of asking for residuals. And now you turn around and admit that taking higher upfront cash, which you say you can get from consulting firms, is actually more risky.
So your words seem inconsistent, and somewhat hypocritical, because you're taking the recurring revenue while saying that actors and writers shouldn't.
In any case, it's not clear why you think that working for a BigCo is less risky, because there have been a ton of layoffs lately, so BigCos could fire their employees at any time, and have been doing so. (A lot of them over-hired the past few years.)
> My base pay is far lower than I could get working for another consulting company.
> I’m not baffled residuals exist, I’m baffled that people think that writers and actors “deserve” them instead of it just being a negotiation between cash now and less cash and higher/risk return by accepting them in exchange for less cash up front
> Why should they get residual checks? ... If anything they should negotiate a higher up front payment.
> And that’s something that everyone here fails to understand. For me there are three levels of risk.
> 1. Getting all of my compensation in cash (least downside/least upside)
> The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
> I have had the same choices:
> 1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment
There is no inconsistency. When you negotiate your compensation you consider the risk/reward benefits of your decision.
If you rank different scenarios as far as risk reward with some being theoretical.
1. Least risk/least possible reward - work for AWS all cash - no risk of downside. But no upside potential
2. More risk/more potential upside - cash + stock. Amazon isn’t going out of business. But the stock has gone from a high of $150 split adjusted to $90 and now back to $130. It could go up. But it definitely won’t go to zero (my choice)
3. Working for a small consultancy and getting paid a cash salary - the consultancy could go out of business. But I also could get paid more.
4. A completely made up scenario: a managing partner in a consultancy where I own a share of the company where I would be promised dividends (ie residuals) of any future growth potential in exchange for lower cash now.
See, that's the problem!
Your "Least risk" scenario of Amazon offering you a significantly higher base pay than you make now does not exist and will not exist:
> 1. Least risk/least possible reward - work for AWS all cash - no risk of downside. But no upside potential
Likewise, as I said elsewhere, "there's no magical massive upfront pay increase forthcoming that would make up for lost residuals. That was never on the table at any time. There's no way for actors and writers to avoid getting screwed if they don't get residuals." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927858
> Amazon isn’t going out of business.
That's not the risk. As I said in my previous comment, the risk is that Amazon lays you off. Or maybe they'll put you on PIP and force you to leave.
You: third party boutique consulting firms that pay the same if not more in cash
The "same", or even a little more, is not the same as "significantly higher". To give up all recurring revenue in return for "the same if not more in cash" is a bad deal, and I suspect that's why you don't take it, unless you're deliberately screwing yourself financially, which seems unlikely. So I don't understand why you allow yourself the better deal while chastising the writers and actors for also wanting the better deal.