I don't know why I ever bother reading things like this. On one hand, I'm not driven by money, so it doesn't motivate me. On the other, my perspective of having been in software for about 4-8 years depending on how you count, and struggling to get to net zero—an amount of only about 10k cad—is just sort of crushing when I realize someone fresh out of school can negotiate a 100k signing bonus and more yearly salary than I've ever been offered. It's just this sort of awful sinking feeling knowing that I'm sort of on the periphery of an industry in which most people are making more money than they know what to do with.
That said, I'm happy that people get paid well to do something they love, but that can often be very depressing. Not always certainly, but damn if you've never looked out from behind your screen at the sun shining and thought a little less of the React component or whatever saas thing you work on.
It's easy to forget that many of these articles, and particularly posts are Blind, are just just riddled with people posturing about the same thing.
Edit: I should add the emotional response I tend to have given my circumstance, I do think it's way better to have transparency than not.
> most people are making more money than they know what to do with
Well, if they are in SF (which many of them are), they know exactly what to do with all the money: pay the rent and share pizza with their 6 roommates.
> That said, I'm happy that people get paid well to do something they love, but that can often be very depressing. Not always certainly,
The type of fresh-grads that chase FAANG for fame and money aren't necessary the type of developers that love their work and craft. These fresh-grads put career first and craft second. I'd say the majority, not all. There might be one or two pockets of small group of people who love to do these stuffs ... maybe...
> but damn if you've never looked out from behind your screen at the sun shining and thought a little less of the React component or whatever saas thing you work on.
There's plenty of sun in California ;). Plus, they're doing what they love no? I'd say these folks know what they're getting themselves into (e.g.: still chasing Facebook despite known as cutthroat employer).
The salaries for the FAANG companies are dramatically higher than even other large Silicon Valley companies. Over four years ago my first job after graduating with a MS in computer science was at an old-school Silicon Valley giant. My offer was $100,000, roughly $2,500 of stock that vested over 3 years (with a one-year cliff), and I negotiated a signing bonus that was a little less than $4,000. While the salary was about at par with what FAANG companies offered at the time to those with similar credentials, the rest of my compensation was a far cry from the offers I've heard of from the FAANG companies.
Given the large differences in compensation (which makes a big difference when trying to save for a house in this area), I wonder how older Silicon Valley giants are able to compete with FAANG companies? Startups can justify lower compensation since there is the possibility the startup would be very successful. I wonder for giants if the difference largely boils down to interviewing processes? I do know that getting into a FAANG company is difficult and requires many months of grinding LeetCode, whereas not all Silicon Valley companies have difficult interviews.
They don’t compete. If someone has a FAANG offer we let them go. No company can match everyone’s best offer away. You just try to create an environment that keeps your best folks happy.
$2500 of stock over three years? Seems like why even bother for that small amount, the overhead of the book-keeping (on both your and their side) would be a pain at that point.
I realize California is very expensive cost-of-living compared to the Midwest, but as a developer in Michigan I'm shaking my head at these salaries. The low end in Cali is high end here. Best I could hope for in Michigan even as senior is mid-100's. the highest number I've ever seen thrown around from recruiters was about $170k base, and pretty sure that was close to VP level. Can't complain about the low housing costs though.
Things have gotten crazy here but this information is useful even for experienced hires. A few years ago, I did not realize that new grads at companies were being paid more than I was! I switched companies to fix that.
Yes, most of my check still goes towards rent but at least I have a little bit more left over to plan for the future.
The difference is whether your company produces software as a product or uses software for a product. In the later case, you are working in a typical IT department which is just supporting the main ship, important but only as essential as other non-IT departments and often strapped of budgets for cost savings. The main ship itself has a very different culture, typically not very ambitious growth or revenue expectations. So comps are not really comparable in these two worlds.
$170k is top-end for base salary at most tech companies, though--past that point the increases in total comp are all from stocks and bonuses, which are tied to your performance review.
And yeah, a $200K house in Michigan is probably about a $2M house in the Bay Area.
In Finland the highest you can hope for as an employed software developer is around 90,000 EUR a year, but average is less than 60k. Signing bonuses I've never heard of and if you get stock options, you usually need to cut your salary expectations a lot. Being freelancer you can get to around 150k-200k though. Of course at these higher figures the effective tax rate increases to around 50%
I'm from Norway, and we do have salaries in the same ballpark - a tad higher.
Even though it's expensive to live here, we're not anywhere near San Francisco, in terms of say housing prices. And there are many other things I also never have to worry about, without getting too political about the issues.
I’m surprised there aren’t more startups in EU countries since the opportunity cost of lost corporate salary is lower. Or maybe there are, and we just don’t hear about them?
What are hourly rates like in Finland for freelance devs and product design folk?
Curious how they compare to Germany. Since Finland has a much smaller economy, is it difficult to stay employed the whole year on a freelance basis? And do you have to go through a contracting company?
It honestly makes me feel a bit queasy when I read posts like this. 22 and 23 year olds making $200k+ a year? For doing what, exactly? Contributing 0.001% of the codebase to an app that sells advertisements? Meanwhile teachers, researchers, nurses etc (of which many also live in SF, by the way) are making pennies and some literally starving to survive.
It makes it even worse to see the casualness that people in this thread are talking about $200-300k+ salaries, as if they have no appreciation for the fact that a $300k salary is unheard of even for most people in their 50s, let alone a kid in his early 20s. This is the type of attitude that I fear really makes Silicon Valley outsiders have a good amount of disdain for SVers.
These salaries don't come from thin air, they're constrained by the market rate at which engineers can be hired and retained. It's unfairly reductive to say that the engineers aren't contributing value since they work in ads. We work in all sorts of fields from the frivolous, like consumer electronics, to the decidedly less so like self-driving.
If the discrepancy between engineering salaries and research/teaching/nursing salaries is bothersome then perhaps the blame should be placed on the economic environment that has produced this result, not the twenty-somethings that are accepting great compensation.
> This is the type of attitude that I fear really makes Silicon Valley outsiders have a good amount of disdain for SVers.
If you are experiencing disdain because of this, you need to look inside yourself and see what needs to be fixed in your own thinking. Envy of new grads is not their problem, it is yours.
I have seen Americans casually discuss what cars they own and what cars they would like to buy. I have never once chastised them and asked them to think about the homeless and poor kids in Africa before casually discussing cars like an everyday thing. For ref, my family was too poor to own a car growing up.
It is important to understand that those salaries aren't normal.
300k for a new grad is not something I've heard of, that's a tad high even for phds. For an undergrad, that would be something approaching an acquihire. That person is being hired for a specific and rare skill, not as a back bencher. A lot to live up to.
Even 200k is very high for new grads. Think "strong student at MIT/Stanford/CMU with proven track record of performing very well during internships, maybe some research publications, and multiple internal stakeholders vouching for them". In other words, perceived as "potential deadly weapon to a competitor and/or a possible founder", not "model employee". That is why they're being paid well.
Below 200, keep in mind that 150% of 80 is 120. SF sucks. NYC isn't much better.
Teachers are underpaid. Not sure how that's relevant to whether some other group of people is overpaid. It's not zero sum.
As for researchers, in CS they do well for themselves. Don't worry.
I think you are conflating what is possible with what is normal, and in the process under-estimate the amount of time and effort some people choose to invest into themselves during their 4 years of access to the best and brightest minds in their field. Speaking of, MIT gets disturbingly close to 6 figures all in these days...
I always find it funny when people refer to age of employees -> there is this ageist idea that your salary should increase as you get older, and senior positions are reserved for older people.
We also say that we believe in meritocracy, that is the most capable person gets the job, and market decides their salary. The two ideas are in conflict. Markets can be cruel, but the ageist idea is mostly prejudice.
Surely the problem is that those companies are earning absurd amounts of money while contributing very little to society. They've got billions stashed offshore that they literally don't know where to invest. Even after paying this much to grads.
20s year olds are burning out 80h per week until their health allows and until they are replaced by another batch of 20s after ~10 years. Meanwhile, teachers and researchers enjoy their relaxed and stable lifestyle for the rest of their lifes. In fact, there are lots of candidates fighting for such relaxed permanent positions in academia, which is ruled by nepotism and protectionism, unfortunately.
Another way of looking at it is: “wealth is being redistributed”.
Obviously there’s still disparity but it looks like a new middle class is forming and we want that, no? Also keep in mind that anything less than 200k means you can’t even buy a decent sized house where you work.
Apologies if this wasn't clear but these are California-centric offers (and can probably be extended to include Seattle and New York). They are not across the US, or across all software jobs.
I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of the signing bonus, which in many other countries Doesn't exist.
Do people really get a lump of money just for agreeing to come work there - while they could just leave on day 2 (or day 1) and pocket the thing? Or - is it like a higher first salary? Also, if the position is highly sought-after - isn't it a bit weird that a signing bonus is offered?
Make sure you understand the (at least in the US) tax implications an offer might entail. For example, when your stock vests, you owe income tax on the value of the stock on its vesting day, even if you don’t sell it. (Tax when you sell is capital gains.) You will probably find yourself paying estimated taxes as a result.
(Not an accountant, just someone who’s spent time trying to guess what the stock in my husband’s company might be worth at vesting for the coming year in order to figure out what we might have to pay in estimated taxes, and to figure out where that money might come from as you might be in a position where you can’t sell it to cover the taxes!)
Salaries at FAANGs are hard. I received an offer (New England based) for an L6 position from one this week and was shocked at the package. After getting off the phone and doing more research, I realized there's a chance I'm being lowballed, and I should negotiate for more if I choose to go to said company. I've done pretty well in my career so far, but even taking the initial offer would almost double my salary.
One counter intuitive case where quarterly vest is actually better than monthly: tax harvesting in usa.
I am no tax expert, but my read of the IRS rules put restrictions around when you can buy or vest the next batch after doing a harvest. This comes in very handy if the company goes through a rough patch.
Exploding offers (offers that expire 5 business days or less from the day you receive them) are unfortunate but they exist, and not just from companies that are not ideal places to work. There’s not much that can be done in these cases besides ask for an extension, and if you don’t receive one, spend some time figuring out whether your expected value increase from more recruiting will be worth turning it down.
This is a pretty good summary, IMO. I hate exploding offers as a candidate, and also dislike them as a hiring manager. Unfortunately you do get some candidates that hum and haw, drag their feet, or shop your offer around for something better. Which is their prerogative, but it wastes your time and delays your hiring process.
I think honest and open communication is key here. Don’t go silent on the offer, or be vague - tell them you have another interview, and you want to wait to see if you get an offer. If they don’t want to give you an extension and try to strong-arm you it’s a pretty good sign that they know they’re under-offering (and, also, gives you some insight into the nature of the people involved).
Still, it’s not a clear-cut signal to walk away, and I like that this section captures that nuance.
As for the more frequent vesting (as opposed to the 1 year cliff): I heard companies started doing that to reduce or eventually eliminate the signing bonus. The theory being that a more frequent vesting schedule will accomplish the same thing.
For example, one recent offer from a big tech company was for a 6 month vesting schedule with no cliff. Most are switching to quarterly vesting schedules with no cliffs.
That's interesting. Yeah most of my FAANG offers had no cliff (quarterly or monthly). All my unicorn offers were 1 year cliff though :/
I wonder if they'll bake the bonus in. Getting those $100k signing bonuses are pretty nice, especially since some companies give 25% or 50% before you start, which allows you to do a trip. Plus $100k added into a 4 year vesting schedule is a pretty large opportunity cost (assuming you could grow at 7% a year, which is admittedly aggressive, is leaving ~$30k on the table).
One, monthly vesting is strictly better than less frequent vesting. So once one firm (think it was Facebook?) started offering it everyone else in the same pay scale had to, to compete.
Two, the cliffs made it optimal for people to leave right afer the cliff, then take the signing bonus at another company. Removing the cliffs makes it so there is never an “optimal” time to leave
Yes, the geolocal hotspots of the west coast and east coast offer significant pay bumps just to be geolocal. No I don't care. No I don't want to live there, where the Car is King or where you can't own/rent anything bigger than a closet for any sensible amount of expenses. Where the next significant disaster is a big question of "when" not "if".
Hire me where I live already, with my network of friends and loved ones. Where my cost of living is low and my lifestyle is easy going. Guess what, I work better when I'm in my home office. I get stuff done.
Put me in the most depressing cubicle farm or highly distracting shared space and its a lot less likely.
I really don't understand the "you need to go to the office" mentality anymore, especially with how easy it is to have a video meeting.
In my experience, you have to make remote working a high priority in order for it to work well, otherwise remote employees end up treated as second-class citizen. People have to actually base their workflows around it, and not the office.
So I can understand if smaller companies can't accommodate it - after all a lot of business simply isn;t managed that well. Large ones definitely should.
This comment honestly comes across as incredibly whiny. No one owes you anything. If you don’t like how things are done, pave your own way by starting your own company.
Given how expensive college is these days you’d almost have to get such a role to pay you a bonus and a high six figure income and stock options to have a chance of paying it all off.
[+] [-] craigzucchini|6 years ago|reply
That said, I'm happy that people get paid well to do something they love, but that can often be very depressing. Not always certainly, but damn if you've never looked out from behind your screen at the sun shining and thought a little less of the React component or whatever saas thing you work on.
It's easy to forget that many of these articles, and particularly posts are Blind, are just just riddled with people posturing about the same thing.
Edit: I should add the emotional response I tend to have given my circumstance, I do think it's way better to have transparency than not.
[+] [-] jb1991|6 years ago|reply
Well, if they are in SF (which many of them are), they know exactly what to do with all the money: pay the rent and share pizza with their 6 roommates.
[+] [-] hello_moto|6 years ago|reply
The type of fresh-grads that chase FAANG for fame and money aren't necessary the type of developers that love their work and craft. These fresh-grads put career first and craft second. I'd say the majority, not all. There might be one or two pockets of small group of people who love to do these stuffs ... maybe...
> but damn if you've never looked out from behind your screen at the sun shining and thought a little less of the React component or whatever saas thing you work on.
There's plenty of sun in California ;). Plus, they're doing what they love no? I'd say these folks know what they're getting themselves into (e.g.: still chasing Facebook despite known as cutthroat employer).
[+] [-] linguae|6 years ago|reply
Given the large differences in compensation (which makes a big difference when trying to save for a house in this area), I wonder how older Silicon Valley giants are able to compete with FAANG companies? Startups can justify lower compensation since there is the possibility the startup would be very successful. I wonder for giants if the difference largely boils down to interviewing processes? I do know that getting into a FAANG company is difficult and requires many months of grinding LeetCode, whereas not all Silicon Valley companies have difficult interviews.
[+] [-] mathattack|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zuhayeer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmah|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway66920|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] headcanon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aluminussoma|6 years ago|reply
Yes, most of my check still goes towards rent but at least I have a little bit more left over to plan for the future.
[+] [-] sytelus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whiskyant|6 years ago|reply
You have to keep in mind that these are salaries for the largest tech companies in the world, it's not just about being in California.
For comparison, being a VP at Google/Facebook equates to salaries with multi-million dollar bonuses and ridiculous equity packages.
[+] [-] kyllo|6 years ago|reply
And yeah, a $200K house in Michigan is probably about a $2M house in the Bay Area.
[+] [-] segmondy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonmoltke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawayjava|6 years ago|reply
Stock and signing/perf bonus accounts for anything over 130 or so for a new grad.
[+] [-] tdowns|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nylemi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TrackerFF|6 years ago|reply
Even though it's expensive to live here, we're not anywhere near San Francisco, in terms of say housing prices. And there are many other things I also never have to worry about, without getting too political about the issues.
[+] [-] throwaway122379|6 years ago|reply
side note: above 33K tax is 50%+ on each and every euro, about 20% below
How does one relocate to the US, sigh
[+] [-] nugget|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pembrook|6 years ago|reply
Curious how they compare to Germany. Since Finland has a much smaller economy, is it difficult to stay employed the whole year on a freelance basis? And do you have to go through a contracting company?
[+] [-] tidepod12|6 years ago|reply
It makes it even worse to see the casualness that people in this thread are talking about $200-300k+ salaries, as if they have no appreciation for the fact that a $300k salary is unheard of even for most people in their 50s, let alone a kid in his early 20s. This is the type of attitude that I fear really makes Silicon Valley outsiders have a good amount of disdain for SVers.
[+] [-] InterimNew|6 years ago|reply
If the discrepancy between engineering salaries and research/teaching/nursing salaries is bothersome then perhaps the blame should be placed on the economic environment that has produced this result, not the twenty-somethings that are accepting great compensation.
[+] [-] random314|6 years ago|reply
If you are experiencing disdain because of this, you need to look inside yourself and see what needs to be fixed in your own thinking. Envy of new grads is not their problem, it is yours.
I have seen Americans casually discuss what cars they own and what cars they would like to buy. I have never once chastised them and asked them to think about the homeless and poor kids in Africa before casually discussing cars like an everyday thing. For ref, my family was too poor to own a car growing up.
[+] [-] throwawayjava|6 years ago|reply
300k for a new grad is not something I've heard of, that's a tad high even for phds. For an undergrad, that would be something approaching an acquihire. That person is being hired for a specific and rare skill, not as a back bencher. A lot to live up to.
Even 200k is very high for new grads. Think "strong student at MIT/Stanford/CMU with proven track record of performing very well during internships, maybe some research publications, and multiple internal stakeholders vouching for them". In other words, perceived as "potential deadly weapon to a competitor and/or a possible founder", not "model employee". That is why they're being paid well.
Below 200, keep in mind that 150% of 80 is 120. SF sucks. NYC isn't much better.
Teachers are underpaid. Not sure how that's relevant to whether some other group of people is overpaid. It's not zero sum.
As for researchers, in CS they do well for themselves. Don't worry.
I think you are conflating what is possible with what is normal, and in the process under-estimate the amount of time and effort some people choose to invest into themselves during their 4 years of access to the best and brightest minds in their field. Speaking of, MIT gets disturbingly close to 6 figures all in these days...
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|6 years ago|reply
Surely the problem is that those companies are earning absurd amounts of money while contributing very little to society. They've got billions stashed offshore that they literally don't know where to invest. Even after paying this much to grads.
[+] [-] zerr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hello_moto|6 years ago|reply
Having said that, I do understand your point in this statement:
> as if they have no appreciation for the fact that a $300k salary is unheard of even for most people in their 50s, let alone a kid in his early 20s.
I noticed an increasing number of fresh-grad that feels entitled for a big salary. Their attitude is off the chart...
[+] [-] heyoni|6 years ago|reply
Obviously there’s still disparity but it looks like a new middle class is forming and we want that, no? Also keep in mind that anything less than 200k means you can’t even buy a decent sized house where you work.
[+] [-] jonluca|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einpoklum|6 years ago|reply
Do people really get a lump of money just for agreeing to come work there - while they could just leave on day 2 (or day 1) and pocket the thing? Or - is it like a higher first salary? Also, if the position is highly sought-after - isn't it a bit weird that a signing bonus is offered?
[+] [-] NeptuneNancy|6 years ago|reply
(Not an accountant, just someone who’s spent time trying to guess what the stock in my husband’s company might be worth at vesting for the coming year in order to figure out what we might have to pay in estimated taxes, and to figure out where that money might come from as you might be in a position where you can’t sell it to cover the taxes!)
[+] [-] kevan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akhilcacharya|6 years ago|reply
Once someone at my undergrad didn't believe my very average new grad TC... the information gap is insane.
[+] [-] rdtwo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] durron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SubuSS|6 years ago|reply
I am no tax expert, but my read of the IRS rules put restrictions around when you can buy or vest the next batch after doing a harvest. This comes in very handy if the company goes through a rough patch.
[+] [-] marketing_MCS|6 years ago|reply
This is a pretty good summary, IMO. I hate exploding offers as a candidate, and also dislike them as a hiring manager. Unfortunately you do get some candidates that hum and haw, drag their feet, or shop your offer around for something better. Which is their prerogative, but it wastes your time and delays your hiring process.
I think honest and open communication is key here. Don’t go silent on the offer, or be vague - tell them you have another interview, and you want to wait to see if you get an offer. If they don’t want to give you an extension and try to strong-arm you it’s a pretty good sign that they know they’re under-offering (and, also, gives you some insight into the nature of the people involved).
Still, it’s not a clear-cut signal to walk away, and I like that this section captures that nuance.
[+] [-] siscia|6 years ago|reply
Can somebody share an estimated figure?
[+] [-] aluminussoma|6 years ago|reply
For example, one recent offer from a big tech company was for a 6 month vesting schedule with no cliff. Most are switching to quarterly vesting schedules with no cliffs.
[+] [-] jonluca|6 years ago|reply
I wonder if they'll bake the bonus in. Getting those $100k signing bonuses are pretty nice, especially since some companies give 25% or 50% before you start, which allows you to do a trip. Plus $100k added into a 4 year vesting schedule is a pretty large opportunity cost (assuming you could grow at 7% a year, which is admittedly aggressive, is leaving ~$30k on the table).
[+] [-] opportune|6 years ago|reply
One, monthly vesting is strictly better than less frequent vesting. So once one firm (think it was Facebook?) started offering it everyone else in the same pay scale had to, to compete.
Two, the cliffs made it optimal for people to leave right afer the cliff, then take the signing bonus at another company. Removing the cliffs makes it so there is never an “optimal” time to leave
[+] [-] SketchySeaBeast|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bfrog|6 years ago|reply
Hire me where I live already, with my network of friends and loved ones. Where my cost of living is low and my lifestyle is easy going. Guess what, I work better when I'm in my home office. I get stuff done.
Put me in the most depressing cubicle farm or highly distracting shared space and its a lot less likely.
I really don't understand the "you need to go to the office" mentality anymore, especially with how easy it is to have a video meeting.
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hello_moto|6 years ago|reply
You're assuming everybody speaks and breathe with the same wavelength as yours over the internet.
You be you. No need to judge other people as weird.
[+] [-] pb7|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gigatexal|6 years ago|reply