So, in this scenario you've got the suits making 2x-4x what the people who build the product are making, yet everyone is expected to take the same percentage cut in salary. (Nevermind the fact that the lower-ranking employees are probably just getting by!)
Remember how just a few weeks ago, everyone was complaining that CEO pay is drastically out of touch with performance? This is how it starts.
Yeah, I thought about that, too. But even if the cut is graded, it doesn't seem right to cut the pay of people who are just getting by and living on their salary, when the executives are earning a comfortable premium over living expenses, plus equity.
Cut the pay of a $300k CEO, and maybe he waits a bit to buy his next $1,000 Eames chair. Cut the pay of the $60k graphic designer, and she takes roommates and eats ramen (in the bay area; obviously, the numbers change in Podunk, IA).
Please maintain these pay rates. It gives my competitors and potential competitors higher burn rates, and makes acquisition much easier when the alternative is actually building.
Post Series-A, it is somewhat common though not universal. Once you start adding employees who don't hold significant amounts of equity, you have to create meaningful performance incentives. The best way to do that is with a monetary bonus.
Also, remember, all of these numbers are for non-founding positions.
Yes, any amount of stock ownership-- or potential ownership, as with options-- is considered "equity." Although these numbers in percentages are skewed-- in fact, the actual equity compensation is obviously spread over four years. So to put the percentage equity share owned after four years next to the yearly salary is somewhat misleading.
There is actually a pretty detailed annual survey of VC-backed startup executive comp. The data covers the top 10-ish execs at hundreds of surveyed companies and reports it by revenue, headcount, capital raised, geography and more. If you want more info, check this out: http://www.altgate.com/blog/2008/01/2007-it-startup.html
So, in this scenario you've got the suits making 2x-4x what the people who build the product are making, yet everyone is expected to take the same percentage cut in salary. (Nevermind the fact that the lower-ranking employees are probably just getting by!)
Remember how just a few weeks ago, everyone was complaining that CEO pay is drastically out of touch with performance? This is how it starts.