OpenAI is paying employees more than any major tech startup in history
70 points
3 hours ago
| 15 comments
| wsj.com
| HN
no_wizard
3 hours ago
[-]
The article talks about averages, but what I want know is the median. The usual situation, and I have zero reason to believe OpenAI is different, is that stock options are top heavy leaning heavily toward executives.

I want to know rank and file salaries as opposed to stock options

reply
eitally
2 hours ago
[-]
Business & back office employee salaries are standard but not impressive. Similarly, stock grants are better than most places but not wildly high unless you're in specific engineering & research functions. This is the same at Anthropic, too (I recently interviewed for director level business roles at both).
reply
lokar
2 hours ago
[-]
In general, I wish the media would stop using just the average when the distribution is not normal.
reply
functionmouse
2 hours ago
[-]
That's exactly why they use averages, though. Propaganda is insidious in that way.
reply
itsdrewmiller
1 hour ago
[-]
Who is “they”? I believe open AI would share averages for that reason but not that media would choose to cover it that way.
reply
raw_anon_1111
2 hours ago
[-]
Illlquid “stock options” in a private company is not what I consider compensation.
reply
ceejayoz
2 hours ago
[-]
This is the general rule, but not for ones the size of OpenAI. There’s always a secondary market for prominent enough companies.
reply
soared
2 hours ago
[-]
Dont all private companies require approval for secondary sales, which I assume are not ever approved?
reply
cik
2 hours ago
[-]
They do, but you sell forward contracts instead. This is perfectly legal, and the approach I've seen. There are a few companies, and even funds that will engage in this, in an effort to attain future upside.
reply
no_wizard
2 hours ago
[-]
Typically. I’d be shocked if OpenAI let employees sell their options like this without requiring approval
reply
htrp
1 hour ago
[-]
They don't but you effectively do it under the table
reply
ls612
2 hours ago
[-]
OpenAI has regular tender offers for their employees, so while this advice is reasonable in general it is less true for this case.
reply
no_wizard
2 hours ago
[-]
Less true isn’t the same as not true. Simply put we don’t know because it’s not what they are disclosing

This article feels more like paid publicity than it does journalism

reply
belter
2 hours ago
[-]
Dont worry...there is always an acquisition by Meta, on the horizon for any company with nowhere to go.
reply
Eridrus
2 hours ago
[-]
I am sure you can make OpenAI stock liquid pretty easily.
reply
LunaSea
2 hours ago
[-]
Only if you're allowed to which is not always the case.
reply
Atotalnoob
2 hours ago
[-]
It’s allowed pretty easily.

They had had tender events (where you can sell your private stock super easily)

reply
mikeyouse
2 hours ago
[-]
They've changed the laws recently which makes it far easier - I believe you'd still need to be accredited but for most of HN, that's a low bar. For OpenAI specifically, they've allowed employees to participate in the funding rounds and they did a separate tender offer with Softbank to provide liquidity to early employees as well;

https://fortune.com/2024/12/17/hundreds-openai-employees-10-...

reply
causal
2 hours ago
[-]
Browsing OpenAI's careers page, I'm seeing at most $275k for most positions, so I'm assuming the median is much lower than an average being pulled up by a few rockstar positions.
reply
tonfa
2 hours ago
[-]
You also need to take into account equity, since it went up 250% in a year it can be a large amount of someone's compensation.
reply
no_wizard
2 hours ago
[-]
Until it’s really liquid it’s still fiction. The salary and other cash compensation is all that matters until you can actually sell the options
reply
tverbeure
2 hours ago
[-]
Want does “really” mean?

If there are enough opportunities to offload stock on the secondary market (which seems to be the case of them), then it’s not fiction.

reply
no_wizard
2 hours ago
[-]
If you can show me that they can sell without OpenAI approval on the secondary market, I would concede in a heartbeat.

If not, I am to assume this isn’t true, and that they are functionally non liquid possible assets at the discretion of OpenAI to sell

reply
tonfa
1 hour ago
[-]
Yes, you might need approval, but if there's regular secondary sale does it matter?

> OpenAI has finalized a secondary share sale totaling $6.6 billion, allowing current and former employees to sell stock at a record $500 billion valuation, according to a person familiar with the transaction.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/02/openai-share-sale-500-billio...

reply
no_wizard
19 minutes ago
[-]
Again, that doesn’t make the assets particularly liquid. They did this and that’s fine, but if they hadn’t done this you’d be stuck with a piece of paper even after the lockup period ends.

Until traditional RSUs that once they are vested you can sell them, with few exceptions

reply
tayo42
2 hours ago
[-]
Aren't their secondary markets for this? My wife gets offers constantly for her options even though they're not public yet and the offers are higher then what she was awarded them at. Maybe it's scams? we never took any of them up on it.
reply
sailingparrot
2 hours ago
[-]
You must be looking at non tech positions, most of their research/applied role go up to ~550k, and they do offer more than advertised for strong candidates. + hiring cash bonus + equity (which is a lot).

https://openai.com/careers/research-engineer-research-scient...

reply
whitehexagon
2 hours ago
[-]
I'm not surprised they have to pay higher, since no amount of money could convince me to work towards human irrelevance, or BigAdTech.

When I see this technology improve and free the lives of those whose salary is akin to slavery, then I might reconsider.

Context: I've been reading about the Mondragon Corporation, and it seems a much better model than this maximum extraction economy we are building. I'll submit a story for it, although I discovered it through a HN book recommendation (Kim Stanley Robinson).

reply
no_wizard
2 hours ago
[-]
> I'm not surprised they have to pay higher, since no amount of money could convince me to work towards human irrelevance

The way Altman and others want AI to develop, this is what they’re working toward too

reply
Tiberium
2 hours ago
[-]
Do people who contribute to YouTube Shorts get paid a lot? It's a very nasty thing in the current form.
reply
TrackerFF
2 hours ago
[-]
I just can't see any clear winners in the AI race. At least not as far as the models/products go.

Maybe a wild round of mergers & acquisitions, combined with regulatory capture and some monopoly will be what settles everything. Probably with a crash in the middle of it all.

reply
imiric
1 hour ago
[-]
The market has not settled yet. We're in the late 90s internet era when it comes to "AI". As with the dotcom bubble, real value will only become evident after the crash.
reply
pcurve
3 hours ago
[-]
"OpenAI’s compensation as a percentage of revenue was set to reach 46% in 2025"

At least the revenue is large enough to cover the payroll. That's a good milestone.

Not really a fan of Altman, but I don't mind the competition he brings to the landscape.

reply
lokar
2 hours ago
[-]
Does that include stock? I bet it’s just cash.
reply
jsnell
1 hour ago
[-]
The opposite. The article is just about stock-based compensation, and that 46% number is explicitly just that, not cash compensation.
reply
sinenomine
2 hours ago
[-]
GPT-5.2 has radically changed my outlook on OpenAI. Head and shoulders above others.

The excellence is there.

reply
TrackerFF
2 hours ago
[-]
I'm also a happy customer.

But, one thing has been consistent for the past 3 years: After every release from all the serious competitors, the hype can go either way.

As far as the hype cycles go, OpenAI is oscillating between "Best model ever" and "What a letdown, it's over" at least twice a year.

The competition is fierce, and a never-ending marathon of all the players getting ahead just a bit. No clear long-term winner.

reply
Insanity
1 hour ago
[-]
5.2 is good. But at this point every few months company A trumps company B with a new “SOTA” (for some definition of SOTA).

OpenAI has no real moat. Anthropic is focusing on developers as a clear target, and Gemini has the backing of Google.

I don’t see OpenAI winning the AI race with marginally better models and arguably a nicer UI/UX (ymmv, but I do like the ChatGPT app experience).

That said, my usage decreases month over month.

reply
jackling
29 minutes ago
[-]
Really, I found 5.2 to be a rather weak model. It constantly gives me code that doesn't work and gets simple APIs wrong. Maybe it's just weak on the domain I'm working in.
reply
faizshah
1 hour ago
[-]
I heard that the environment there is 996 with high turnover. So you might be paid double in comparison to a FAANG job but you work double as well. (This was about dev positions not researchers)

Anyone know if that’s true? I only heard it second hand.

reply
saagarjha
3 hours ago
[-]
Looking at the stick compensation of companies in 2000 doesn’t seem particularly relevant today?
reply
sam0x17
1 hour ago
[-]
The funniest part is there is no amount of money that would get me back in the office again
reply
bookofjoe
3 hours ago
[-]
reply
ur-whale
2 hours ago
[-]
OpenAI is exactly what happens when a company finds itself in such a far, far away blue ocean strategy that there are no more traditional "economic anchors" (to call it that) to reason with.

It usually ends in blood and tears, for both employees and investors.

BUT: the SOTA has been greatly advanced, which matters a great deal more than the destiny of a particular corporation or the social status of sam-i-am.

So, overall: good news.

reply
plaidfuji
1 hour ago
[-]
I like this viewpoint - it basically casts VC-backed AI startups as privately-subsidized applied R&D projects, which largely seems to be the case for foundational model companies.
reply
philipallstar
2 hours ago
[-]
Definitely. If VCs want to fund expensive salaries, so what?
reply
suzakus
1 hour ago
[-]
OpenAI doesn't offer traditional rsus (at least to regular employees?), but instead profit sharing units.

https://www.levels.fyi/blog/openai-compensation.html

Might change how you evaluate the value here.

reply
kristianc
1 hour ago
[-]
The value of any traditional RSU is to treat it as a nice bonus if you get it, so not so much different from any other stock or option package.
reply
SOLAR_FIELDS
52 minutes ago
[-]
I don't think this way at all. RSU (for public companies) is real, tangible money. Sure, there is some amount of risk involved with it, but it is WAY more tangible than options than can just be diluted if the person with the cap table is feeling ornery that day. The key that makes RSU's real money is their immediate liquidity on award, so you can literally just treat them as cash compensation in this regard if you decide not to hold them.

When you work at BigCorp for an extended period of time, your salary often ends up being majority by RSU as the vest rolls start to stack up

reply
pfannkuchen
2 hours ago
[-]
Adjusted for inflation?
reply
cmiles8
1 hour ago
[-]
“Paying” is a relative term here.

Anyone that works for startups knows that it’s not really “compensation” until it’s cash in your bank account. Until then it’s just a theoretical number on paper, which tends to end up being worth a lot less than originally advertised/hoped.

I’ve lost track of the number of times that someone’s startup got acquired for (insert what sounds like a big number) and everyone is like “wow the employees must all be rich” only to find out later that after preferred cap tables and other terms the employees got very little.

A lot could happen here, but history says “watch this space” on this stock-based comp. Some options on the secondary markets but that only works as long as OpenAI can convince more people to dump money on the burning pile of cash they have going at the moment.

reply
mikert89
59 minutes ago
[-]
this is a completely false and outdated take, you can easily sell openai shares
reply
yieldcrv
1 hour ago
[-]
The private secondary markets are extremely liquid if you’re a household name

The user experience is nearly the same as cash if you have an ounce of interest in having cash

reply
dwaltrip
57 minutes ago
[-]
You need company approval to sell yeah? That could be a major issue.
reply
jacknews
2 hours ago
[-]
oh no, that might put upward pressure on Amazon employee salary demands!
reply
cmiles8
1 hour ago
[-]
The best people have all seemed to fled Amazon the last 24 months. LinkedIn is flooded with long tenured top tech folks leaving. I doubt that gives those left a great deal of leverage and Amazon was never known for market-leading comp.
reply