> What's so off-putting about: "Do well and you stick around, do poorly and you go away"?

Because I don't want to have that kind of instability if I don't get a lot of money to make up for it. It works because people know that if they get "cut" they'll be doing fine.

Also, the best people have lots of options. If there are multiple interesting options, all else being equal the extra cash will help a lot.

There's a certain risk any time you take a new job of "how well will my view of poor performance align with my manager's view?"

In a "regular" company there's usually a longer leash if you don't get that right on day 1, or if circumstances change and the specific skills you were brought in for aren't as relevant anymore.

In the Netflix model there's a by-design higher chance of it instead resulting in you losing your job.

So if you aren't compensating with $$$ for that increased risk, it's going to leave you with more of the folks without other good options and fewer of the folks who say "I can get the same money with less pressure if I take this other role instead."

For a lot of people, psychological safety is paramount over even money, especially in the United States where your employment is tightly tied to healthcare, insurance, etc.

Secondly, more often than not, doing "well" or doing "poorly" can be highly subjective and politically motivated. Also, underneath it all we're human. A great performer for years may fall off the wagon for a few quarters due to various life circumstances like death of a loved one, divorce, health, etc. Is the solution to this is to just throw them to the curb the minute they aren't performing to their previous level? If so, then I expect to be paid until the Benjamin's are pouring out of my eyeballs. You get what you pay for.

Because the philosophy revolves around the competitiveness of the position. Sports teams have limited roster, and make bales of cash (or are planning on doing so, with massive funding). The goal is for the position to have some cachet.

Why put up with "do well and stay or poorly and you go away" when other places pay the same for better culture and less drama?

One note: high turnover causes lots of workplace challenges - so you have to have a carrot along with your stick or you'll create a doom loop. Just "do well and stick around" is way to glengary glen ross for me.

Danger pay is a thing for a reason. Contracting pay vs salaried pay is a thing for a reason.

Or mathematically, the long term expected return from a volatile employment situation should be equal to the long term expected return from a stable employment situation.