I don't consider RSUs to be monetary compensation that's guaranteed; I see them more like the bonus that's written into my contract. Thus, my evaluation of pay is based pretty much on base salary. Has the bonus via RSUs taken a hit? Yes. Am I still earning well above the national average? Yes, about 2.5x. Could I find another job that would increase the base salary? Eh, maybe, maybe not. I haven't job hunted for over a decade now (which goes against the general HN view on job tenure), because I don't need to earn more than I currently do - I have a job that I'm comfortable in, and do things I enjoy with autonomy.
If the stock is liquid when it vests, then this is not a good way to analyze your compensation. Like it or not, part of your pay is in stock and you have to deal with the increased risk associated with it. Valuing the stock at 0 is wrong. Valuing it the same as cash is wrong unless you have a very particular risk preference.
If all else were equal, and I somehow ended up with two offers, from equally desirable companies, with identical salaries, where one offered more stock than the other - I suppose then I might then consider the stock to have value.
In real life, the potential value of a stock grant is not something I have any control over, so I disregard it. Recruiters want to offer me "total compensation" consisting of this and that and the other, but all I hear is "salary", because that's the number I can count on when making other life decisions.
If the stock ends up being worth something, it's always nice to get a bonus! But if the company never goes public, or the market crashes, or some weird merger happens, or I end up moving on before the RSUs vest, or whatever - then I can shrug off the imaginary loss, so long as I never count on the stock as if it were income.
I don't understand your comparison at all. A more apt comparison would be between two companies where one has lower salary + higher stock with higher TC and the other has higher salary + lower stock with lower TC.
In that case, valuing the stock is very important because the TC difference between companies depends on it. This is also talking about stock which is liquid when it vests (E.g. public companies).
How long does it take for those RSUs to vest? "There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip", as the old saying reminds us; though the recruiters earnestly hope we will forget.
I got fired once, shortly before my first round of RSUs vested; that left an impression. None of my examples were hypothetical, actually; another time I watched the value of my stock rise, rise, rise - right up to instant-retirement, fuck-you-money level - then crash back down, before any of it vested, and stay there. Total compensation at that job ended up being total salary. Both of these companies were publicly traded.
In reality, if both of the hypothetical employers in your scenario offered a reasonable salary, I'd go for whichever had more interesting work, friendlier people, a shorter commute - whatever would make my life better. If somehow, inexplicably, I felt thoroughly inspired by both options, happy to go work in either place, and it really did come down to nothing more than the money - I'd still probably pick higher salary over higher TC. Unless it was, like, double, and then I'd be tempted. But I don't think I'm going to get any such offer.
As parent commenter I value it at 0. When I go on a coffee shop and want to pay with stocks they say they don't accept it. So, if I can't even buy a coffee with stocks they have 0 value for me. Base or GTFOH.
But that's just wrong and you'll misunderstand offers if you compare them that way.
Your coffee shop also won't accept the cash in your bank account. You have to transfer it to them somehow. There's very little different between that and selling shares, followed by a payment.
