> I'm going to post anonymously, but even so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with how you're looking at this.
Appreciate your disagreement, but why anon? :-)
> According to the article he made about $750k over four years at Box ($95k/yr salary + $350k in options total), but would have made nearly 60% more, or $1.2M, working for a more firmly established post-IPO tech company during the same time (say $160k/yr base salary + $40k/yr bonuses + $100k/yr in restricted stock).
This was in 2009, when salaries at established companies were not that high. I came from eBay, where neither of the three components were anywhere near what they are today. Also realize that he was in IT, where salaries have never been that good.
> Still wouldn't have been able to buy a Bay Area house (not sure why you suggest it could),
I didn't say 'buy'. Just down payment.
> but he would have had all of the other payouts you listed, with basically no downside risk at all.
I prefer to define "downside" with not just money, but with the whole experience. Defining upside/downside with money builds mercenaries; not missionaries. And in a startup, whatever level one gets in, one should be the latter. If you can't be one, then IBM is a better place to be and to stay at.
If you are primarily focused on monetary payout, you won't be able to do the best work of your life, which is an opportunity a fast-growing organization provides, which nobody else can. And when a 1000 people do the best work of their life, everyone invariably gets rewarded.
At that point, 350K or 500K doesn't matter. What matters, is that you've spent 4 years of your life with incredible people doing incredible work. That will always open far more doors than it'll close.
> Seems like pre-IPO companies like Box are increasingly a bad deal for the employees. I'm genuinely sorry you guys ended up getting the short end of that stick.
That's the point. We didn't get the short end :-) Even Sutton says, that overall he is fine. Because he too, understands that it's about the whole experience and the future credibility. He is just ranting about one piece - viz. mismatched monetary expectations and doesn't want us to generalize.