I just totally disagree. I also worked my butt off for nearly a decade, and was well compensated by stock for it, which made me substantially wealthier.
I also, in that time, spent a lot of time working with people who had zero incentive to build software that solved the problems facing the company; they clocked in at 9, built their little piece, and clocked out at 5.
These people were awful to work with because they refused to consider beyond their tickets, and didn't care if what they built actually connected back to the company's problem. They'd actively get upset if challenged or pushed in any way, and often cited the desire for a "good work/life balance" as the chief reason.
So now, because of that experience, I look for people who are hungrier, who want asymptotic upside, and who can actually see why they're being asked to do what they're being asked to do.
Fairness is doing a lot of work here, I think getting paid fairly means you get paid based on how well the organization as a whole does.
I like the equity incentive structure; rather than incentivizing time-based work (work two weeks, get paid two weeks and that's it), you make more based on how well you're able to effect outcomes at an organization level. Make the company more successful, make yourself more successful.
It attracts people who want to be paid fairly for their high skill level. If you clock in/clock out, you'll make nothing. If you actually do the right work and value tangible org-wide results, you'll make way more.
No, you'll make way more if the company, market, and economy does well.
I like to do a good job and work hard because I __enjoy it__. But I'm not going to work for peanuts in exchange for a chance to make more in the future unless it's my own company.
You'll make way more money if you do well, because you have a huge influence on the outcome of how well the company will do.
I very much dislike this learned helplessness you're trying to virtuize. You absolutely have control over your outcomes, and I don't really want to work with people who don't agree with that sentiment.
There is a difference between having a large impact on the company's product and it's overall success versus getting properly compensated for your efforts.
It's always possible to try to do great work and to push the company in a great direction. That's great, and yes people like this are great to work with. However, stock options are nearly always structured to keep money away from employees rather than rewarding them. Some of the structure is due to the tax laws, but plenty of it is due to the terms companies set for their stock options.
My problem is you're talking in absolutes, which are just not true.
There is no guarantee you'll make more money if you do well. It helps, yes, but it's not good to mislead people. Yes, I've doubled compensation at companies by doing a good job, but there is a lot more to it than that.
You can build the best software in the world but if you have a crap sales team your performance doesn't matter.
If you're going to make that kind of investment and expect to have a return in the future you have to analyze the companies you work at like an investor would, and that's just the first step.
I also, in that time, spent a lot of time working with people who had zero incentive to build software that solved the problems facing the company; they clocked in at 9, built their little piece, and clocked out at 5.
These people were awful to work with because they refused to consider beyond their tickets, and didn't care if what they built actually connected back to the company's problem. They'd actively get upset if challenged or pushed in any way, and often cited the desire for a "good work/life balance" as the chief reason.
So now, because of that experience, I look for people who are hungrier, who want asymptotic upside, and who can actually see why they're being asked to do what they're being asked to do.