noonenohow

First "id est" is used to explain or clarify, it is not a list of literal examples.

I'll again state that I am referring to "tech role" workers commonly represented by an "SDE"; not vendors, contractors, hourly, warehouse associates, etc. I am also referring to this population across all of Amazon; Consumer ("Retail"), AWS, and "Digital" aka "Kindle". I make no specific claims to particular internal organizations which may or may not represent the average.

I don't think that anyone is going to repeat or cite a companies internal data. Maybe we can use public data and some simple deductions to arrive at the most plausible explanation.

Your linked "geekwire.com" article is actually an illustration of the SEC 10-K filings. Under that documents definition of "Employees" it specifically terms this to be "full-time and part-time employees." Contractors, vendors, and temp workers are _not_ included in those numbers: "Additionally, we utilize independent contractors and temporary personnel to supplement our workforce." Unfortunately, that does coalesce "tech roles" with distribution ("warehouse") facility workers etc.

Additionally by reading these 10-Ks you'll note a section on "Stock-based compensation." As many have noted RSUs are a significant portion of Amazon compensation. From 2008 annually this is $275M, $341M, $424M, $557M, $833M, $1,100M, $1,500M, & $2,100M through 2016 Q1. Regardless of employee count the cost of issuing RSUs increased by 25-40% per year, with an increase in rate during recent years.

As you, and others, have noted the Amazon compensation package weights the initial RSU vesting schedule to years 3 & 4 of employment. I believe the typical structure is that only 5% of grants vest after the first 12 months, and an additional 15% at 24 months.

Let us use the public data which shows a distinct increase in employee count and compensation costs starting around 2011. Suppose again the company might have had 5,000 employees in tech roles at that time. Using my posited net growth of ~50% we could expect ~25,000 employees after 4 years, i.e. in 2015. Which happens to align pretty well to your citation of 24,000 in WA as of mid 2015. Don't forget that Amazon is a global company, so while a majority of tech roles may be WA based, it is certainly not all. Feel free to decrease the rate to 40% net, it merely changes the target dates by ~1 year.

We can also compare the public data on employee count and stock based compensation. Using the hypothetical ~25,000 tech role employees for ~2015 and $2,100M of stock we arrive at an average of ~$84,000 vested RSUs per tech role employee. Of course RSUs arent a uniform distribution, but that seems to map to self reported salary data. Adjusting for the employee count at 2015 Q2 and the stock based comp cost at 2016 Q1 further improves the fit.

From your other comment you appear to posit that employee attrition is approximately exponential decay each year. I believe you have also stated that the average tenure at exit time is 1 year. In that case employees should have only vested ~5% of their total RSU grants at time of exit, forfeiting 95% on average. How do we reconcile that with the public data showing a ~40% annual increase in the cost of stock based compensation?

Further your exponential attrition should lead to asymptotic employee counts unless offset. I do not believe anyone is claiming a net decrease in Amazon tech role employees, most cite a rapid increase in active employees. What hiring rate do you posit to support both your claimed 50% attrition rates and the significant net increased employee counts?

PS: AMZN 10-K filings for your perusal http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-sec...

> It _is_ important to note that the average retention at Amazon (even for excellent people) is ~50% for 1 year, and ~20% or lower for the 2nd year.

Your comment on "retention" is factually incorrect. I'll presume your comments are in relation to "tech roles" such as SDE SDM TPM etc.

First the number of Amazon hires in "tech roles" increases by ~50% per year. i.e., in year 1 there are 1,000 SDEs hired, year 2 is 1,500, year 3 is 2,250, year 4 is 3,375 and so on.

"Attrition" represents the number of individuals who leave for any reason. This may be because the employee terminates employment or the company terminates employment. Attrition levels are comparable to the rest of the tech industry, ~15% of the current population per year.

"Tenure" is the length of employment. Because hiring greatly exceeds attrition you should expect a relatively low average and median retention. As I recall Amazon is approximately 12 months median tenure. This is comparable to Google at ~13 months, for example.

Lastly the employees current tenure does not have a substantial impact on the probability of their attrition. Indeed the average tenure at exit is somewhere around 3 years. Which, again, is roughly in line industry standards.

In short, the average tenure at Amazon is low because they hire a lot. And while retention is not "good" it is a far cry from what you've represented.

Edit: The gross growth rate is actually above 50%. I've attempted to simplify the values where it does not make a material difference to the refutation.

No. Transferring teams should have no bearing on compensation for the year. I would not be concerned in your case. Changing managers more frequently than once per year is a concern. At those rates your managers will be challenged to provide career planning or relevant reviews due to lack of continuity.

PS: The two of you, and others reading this thread, TALK TO YOUR MANAGEMENT or senior individual contributors. These questions are all very reasonable and should be part of your ongoing conversation.

The answer is maybe. The user amzn-tway8 is actually referencing two distinct cases.

Case 1, Total Compensation. Amazon does "total comp", which is your base plus RSUs. Suppose your grants were rather large, or "timed" at a downswing for AMZN. Your current vesting schedule for 2016 could exceed the planned target & salary band. I find no base adjustment whatsoever mildly surprising. But I would not be shocked.

Case 2, performance based compensation. As amzn-tway8 also mentioned your yearly compensation at amazon is related to your annual performance review. Read and understand the definitions of "Performance Rating" and "Leadership." Your manager will have discussed this with you in your annual review. Average and exceptional performance reviews will yield relevant compensation adjustments. Individuals with a very low performance review can expect a low, or possibly no, increase.