Ask HN: Is 170k a good salary for a software developer in Seattle? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is 170k a good salary for a software developer in Seattle?

46 pointsyeidayeida87 comments

I have been offered a job in Seattle that will pay 170k in total comp. I have 10 yrs of experience in software dev. Another competing offer was from Facebook but I declined it because they wanted me to join at in one level down than my current role.

I am 31 and don't have kids.I plan to marry next year. My wife may or may not work.

If I move to Seattle, what are hobbies I can pursue? I heard its usually gets very cold in winter. I haven't made up my mind but I found a place near UW for $1400 per month.

What are your thoughts?

View on HN

At what level, company size, and cash/equity split?

I'm co-founder of a local startup here w/~140 people and that's pretty comparable/above average to what I've seen depending on the cash/equity split. The big co's (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, et. al) will be higher than average due to the nature of how hard it is to hire good folks here.

Seattle is fantastic for people that enjoy the outdoors - hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, ski/snowboarding, camping. The closest ski/snow area is 45 minutes from the city. It doesn't get _too_ cold in Seattle proper - usually around 40° F. The nice thing is that you have the mountains nearby, so if you do want the cold weather it's a quick trip.

One word of caution around UW - your age is definitely on the higher end of other people that will be living in that area. Although the rents are cheap, that's usually for a reason. Reddit is a great resource for info on moving to Seattle --> https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/wiki/index

You're not going to like my answer, but here goes.

First, you made a big mistake in turning down FB because "you would be one level lower." I know those levels seem like a big deal when you're working for those promotions, but ultimately, they really don't matter. The only things that really matter: how much are they paying you, what will you be working on, and how is it going to affect your future career prospects. From a salary perspective, I'm sure FB would have offered you more, if nothing else, purely through additional leverage for negotiating. From a career perspective, having the Facebook brand on your resume, and the contacts you'll make there, would have helped your future prospects immensely. Compared to these benefits, being "one level lower" is pretty meaningless.

Second, given that you're someone smart/accomplished enough to get an offer from FB, and have 10 years of SW experience, 170k seems low. Check out the other HN threads about salaries at top software companies. Plenty of people with similar or less qualifications report total comps of 250k. That's the level of comp you should realistically be shooting for.

Third, even if 170k is "lower than you deserve", that's irrelevant. The only question worth asking is whether 170k is better than your next best option. Go find a cost-of-living calculator and you can easily figure out whether 170k in Seattle beats your current salary-location. In an ideal world, they will give you 3 months to make a decision, and during this time, you can go interview with all the other major companies, in order to find a better offer. Realistically, since you've already turned down FB and the other companies will have long interview timelines, you don't have the time for this. If the 170k offer is better than your current situation, just accept it, and you can then reevaluate your situation 2 years from now.

I can't find the source but I read somewhere that when Facebook makes you an offer they make it one level lower than where you are currently at as a matter of policy.

Ben Horowitz's The Hard Thing About Hard Things talks about this. Zuckerberg contributes to the management chapter.

Level comparison across companies is useless. People who were first-level managers at Microsoft didn't even have manager in their title (it was lead, but that's changed recently). Then at a second-level manager, you would get manager in your title. Most other companies will have manager in your title when you're first-level managers. The job was the same, the just called it different things. I've talked to many people who worked both at Amazon and Microsoft and we've learned how to calibrate to say what level at Microsoft = what level at Amazon, but it's not a clean split.

Also, some smaller tech companies will inflate titles to try to compete for talent. Like I met someone who's a VP of engineering, they have a total team size of 2. That's not the same as a VP at Facebook. If that guy got an offer for one level lower, that would be a huge step up.

Typically $150-180k is salary, and then benefits on top of that, so if you're at one of the bigger companies that offer RSU's your total comp is closer to $200k. But $170k is fine, and unless you're in a great tech area already, you'll likely make more connections.

Rent for most software folks is $1600-2500, the UW district is cheaper since it's a notch down from other areas. Ballard or Capitol Hill would be better, that or Ravina or Freemont. All great places for 30-something yuppies.

Depends on where you're coming from to say whether you'll like the weather, but it's not cold in Seattle, it has a lot of overcast and drizzly days though. Folks that like the weather here appreciate the mildness, not too hot and not cold. Outdoor stuff galore, lots of mountain related stuff, craft everything foodie scene, nerd gaming galore.

It's not cold at all in the winter -- in a typical winter, it hardly ever gets below freezing during the day, and rarely snows "down low". The mountains nearby do get lots of snow. Be aware that we get lots of clouds in the winter; some people can't stand not seeing the sun.

There's tons of good hiking in the seattle area along with boating.

170K is pretty good.

The latitude also means that in January, the sun rises at 10 AM, and it starts getting dark around 3 PM.

It's pretty demoralizing to go to work and leave work in complete darkness for days on end.

Meanwhile, the rain alternates between actual rain and misting constantly from September until May.

I actually prefer the Pittsburgh weather with its four seasons.

I can think of few better places in good weather than Seattle. I can also think of few worse in bad weather (and I live in Chicago).

You are way off on your perception of latest sunrise and earliest sunset in Seattle:

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle?month=12&year=20...

Okay, even if I play along momentarily with what you're saying, 8 AM and 4 PM is still pretty bad... 4 PM?! Ouch...

But keep in mind that the definitions of sunrise and sunset here do not include dawn and dusk -- at 4 PM, the sun has _completely_ set, which means that at 3 PM, it's already well into starting to set.

> It's pretty demoralizing to go to work and leave work in complete darkness for days on end.

Those are clouds. The sun is still there - you just can't see it.

(A lack of) clouds are usually what designates a day as being "sunny" -- maybe also volcanic ash?

It's not raining either, those are just water droplets condensing from the clouds.

This weeks forecast doesn't look that dismal.

It's the transition period. We're moving from 9PM sunsets to 4PM, and moving from 90F days to 40F.

The op was saying sept to may is bad. It looks like all of sept was pretty nice though.

Not sure how you can say that; the Weather.com 10-day forecast looks pretty bad.

Only 1 out of 10 days is sunny:

http://imgur.com/a/BhTbn

Here is San Jose, California's (8 out of 10 days are sunny):

http://imgur.com/a/CPAbM

I consider partly cloudy glass half full ...

The only bad days for me would be never seeing the sun at all.

>The latitude also means that in January, the sun rises at 10 AM, and it starts getting dark around 3 PM.

No it does not. I grew up in Vancouver, and the latest sunrise is at around 8 am, and sunset at 4 pm.

Your description of daylight hours is more in line with Anchorage, AK on the winter solstice at 61°N, not Seattle at 47°N.

Seattle sounds like London.

This would seem to indicate that it's an above average salary:

* https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/seattle-senior-software-e...

> because they wanted me to join at in one level down than my current role.

As you move between companies of larger or smaller sizes, to/from different countries, between industries and the public/private sector, I think you might be doing yourself a disservice by being too focused on a specific title or rank.

Not sure of your breakdown on salary/options/whatever. On a $170k salary I had no problem with a wife staying at home and 3 kids but we weren't living downtown, we were in a suburb a few miles east.

$1400/mo rent isn't too bad for that part of town, no matter the square footage. It's not a steal, but I've had friends pay double for 2 bedrooms that were awful.

No state income tax which is awesome- moving back to Oregon was a real kick in the tax bill after being away for a few years.

Seattle is a fun city that doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg to live well in. But you can make it as expensive as you want it to be.

I've only been gone a few months and miss all the meetups for any tech you might want to talk about.

Cash up front is the only thing that matters. Promises are worthless. Tell us the base salary and I can answer your question accurately.

Salary is a tricky topic - especially in terms of total comp.

I think the bigger concern should be whether you will live and be happy with the lifestyle that you are currently accustomed to with the dollar amounts involved (live and save).

170K is certainly competitive, don't get me wrong. And in my brief visits there it looks like a very nice place to make a home. But there's a very personal aspect to relocation and money is a big part of it.

If you are looking to have kids, does that salary put you in a position to live in a large enough place that is a reasonable distance in an area with a good school district? I don't know, but I do know that it's plenty for that in a lot of areas and not nearly enough in others. People without children don't really understand how much a desirable school district affects the cost of housing.

There's also the question of relocation expenses, how they get paid, how it affects your taxes, and what term they commit you to.

My advice would be to take a two week trip with the idea of spending the entirety of it looking at areas to live both currently and in the future.

I found a good calculator here: http://www.areavibes.com/cost-of-living-calculator/ I used something similar during my own relocation and found it to be a decent guideline (I'm sure most of these calculators use a common dataset).

Once you do the initial comparison, click into your current location, adjust the salary, and re-compare to get the right numbers. Look at the detail of how your area appears and use that as a basis for understanding the statistical impression it has of Seattle.

170k is good. Winters are mild. It might get into the 20s, but not every year. Some are very mild and do not get below freezing. The yearly average low is 40F and the average high 70F. In addition to all the normal hobbies you can pursue in a major metropolitan area, there are quite a bit of outdoors activities available as well.

I lived in Seattle for the last 3 years, but just recently moved to Sydney. I was making ~150k in Seattle and I had a very comfortable lifestyle. Housing costs are low enough that I was able to save a substantial amount (especially compared to SF) while still having fun.

Winter is definitely colder than the bay area, but in the three years I was there it only snowed once. UW is fun and there's a lot of good places to eat on the cheap up there, but as it is near a university expect a young crowd.

I loved the city overall though. Good music/food/living, great summers, amazing hiking in the area. Really close to Portland as well which is just a bouquet of culture.

If you like the outdoors, Seattle and the whole pacific northwest is the best place for hiking and weekend trips in general in my opinion. You have snowy mountains, temperate rainforests, ocean beaches, amazing car ferries, Vancouver and Portland all within a couple hours away by car. The winter is extremely mild compared to almost every other place in the northern US. University district, capitol hill, fremont, and lots of other seattle neighborhoods are really great. The salary sounds good to me, I would think you would be able to put down a bunch towards savings, living expenses are somewhat elevated in Seattle but not like NYC or SF.

Traffic Sucks, thus make sure you live close enough to work so that you can walk ( all year round ), in general too steep and too much traffic to ride a bike, unless your close to work. Much of downtown is insanely steep, and thus not safe in winter on a bike. If you like to Bike, go live in Portland, where its flat, and every direction from downtown is fairly 'hip'.

Problem with Seattle is that only few of the area's are HIP, most of Seattle is BOEING or DEFENSE ( ex-mil ), very conservative, and Seattle has it Barrios all over, which means NOT safe, or clean to go out at night. Most of PDX is safe, also PDX doesn't have as bad traffic problems.

If you can live near the Univ-of-Wash, that is best, and do a startup and hang out with other creative CS type, like the guy say's, if your just going to work for Microsoft, Amazon, or any other BIG-BOX in SEA your life will suck shit bad. The happy guys I know are working on the islands off shore of seattle, and work from home remote, mostly for SV companys', all making over $200k/year.

Winter light at 8am, dark at 5pm, summer light at 4am, dark at midnight, puget sound islands ferry system, if you manage to work downtown, taking the ferry to bainbridge can off a real nice lifestyle, that said if your high-tech for $180k, then I assume your working 18 hrs/day 8 days a week :), and it doesn't matter where you live or what you do, as you will never have a life,

If you have a life, then san-juan islands most nice, close by skiing in mountains all year round the music scene in seattle is AWESOME so is nightlife.

Seattle traffic started to suck in 1975, now its insane. Certain places like Bellevue where Microsoft live, are like chandler Arizona with rain, ugly boring, mono-culture, again you must live/work downtown near the Univ-of-Wash, or else you will be having to drive everytime U wish to have-fun. Driving means you will have to find a parking place, think san-francisco,

You $180k don't mean shit in seattle a shit house is $1M, and a condo up there too, sure buy stuff why not, the only way to 'keep' money is real-estate you have already figured out that 'stock' is for suckers. Your $180k will not get you much in Seattle, but if you try to commute you will go insane, even 10miles out in Seattle can mean 4 hours a day sitting in traffic, for instance east/west from Bellevue there is only one narrow bridge,

Your married, so I can't give the good, the women are plentiful, beautiful and easy, so if your single PDX/SEA are most EXCELLENT. If your married I would advise working downtown, and living on Bainbridge Isl, buy a house, and when you go out at night just take the ferry into town, and then stay on the 'island' on the weekend's, if you can.

If I were single I'd never move to Seattle. The nightmare stories I heard of single friends that went there... I'd rather not say unless it be confused as a curse.

> amazing car ferries

What's so amazing about them?

It's one of the largest ferry systems in the world.

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Ferries

> The agency maintains the largest fleet of ferries in the United States at 22 vessels, carrying 23 million passengers in 2014. As of 2014 , it was the largest ferry operator in the United States, and the fourth-largest ferry system in the world.

They are very scenic, affordable, and convenient.

Off topic: To me, an amazing ferry would permit that you drive onto the ferry at 80 mph, and maintain speed for the duration of the trip, and then exit the ferry at 80 mph. Going slower is permissible, and pit stops are accomodated in an onboard rest area. I'd be impressed by a ferry that handles an entire freeway like that, and connects two ports separated by hundreds of miles of water.

Your "ferry" would have to be a minimum of several miles long. It would be a motorized section of road.

You don't mention what size company this offer is from, but in general for the established A-list tech companies a Senior SDE in Seattle would be making at least that in total comp (salary + RSUs + average bonus if applicable). That having been said, 170K for a couple in Seattle is more than enough for a comfortable lifestyle + savings.

Regarding your other questions: You can pursue the same indoor hobbies as anywhere else obviously. Outdoors-wise, we have some of the best hiking in the world, great ski/snowboarding locally and ~4 hrs to Whistler for world-class, and sea kayaking right out the door. There are is also a very strong cycling community here, though the road biking is more obvious than the mountain biking. If you're willing to drive a bit further on weekends, there's also world-class wind surfing and white water kayaking.

As for "very cold in winter" - it rarely gets very cold, but then I grew up in eastern Canada so maybe my reference is skewed. The coldest it gets with any regularity is low 40s/high 30s. What may be more concerning in terms of winter conditions is that fact that we get extended periods of cloudy weather and shorter day light hours compared to the bay area which some people find depressing.

170k in salary sounds really good but since you say total comp, I'm guessing you have stock options or something. So depending on the percentage and what company it is for, 170k total comp could be good or bad.

My first software job was with a big tech company and the stock only went down after I joined. So my stock options were worthless even 10 years later.

Sounds pretty good to me. (My office is in Seattle.) There's lots of stuff to do, just depends what you like doing. It almost never snows, maybe a rare week long "snowpocalypse" every few years, it doesn't really get cold. (I'm a transplant from the concave corner of Utah though...)

170k is a decent salary for someone with 10 years experience in Seattle. Seattle didn't really get cold. It rarely freezes. If course it doesn't really get warm either. Unless you like to attend professional men's basketball there isn't much you can't do in Seattle.

PM me. In short - 'meh'. 'hell no' if it's for Amazon.

"My wife may or may not work."

forget hobbies and the weather. you and your significant other need to sit down and work out an understanding of each other's career goals, and especially whether you plan to have kids.

i am less familiar with seattle's cost of living, but for SF/NYC for example, 170k/year will come with significant lifestyle tradeoffs to be worked out (e.g., in terms of size of home, commute time, public/private school); obviously two-income will come with its own set of decisions to be made as well.. it's worth talking all this over now.

Man, I'm 34 with 10 years experience and a CS degree. In Alaska I make 65k as a Sr. Programmer/Analyst. Been at the same job for 6 years. Wages for programmers is lower than the national average despite a dramatically high cost of living.

Economy up here is in the toilet thanks to the price of oil so looking for a job is terrifying.

I need to find a remote gig... Or leave the state with the intention of moving back in a year.

I'm in my mid-40s and making the same amount in Ohio as a "Senior Software Engineer". But, I've been with the same small company for about 20 years. No degree, though, just self-taught and the odd online course here and there.

I have the feeling that I'm shorting myself quite a bit, maybe by $30K or more according to the salaries I researched several years ago for similar roles (full-stack dev minus visual design) in the same town.

My problem is I got comfortable. I get along with the boss and other employees (and one of them has been there almost as long as I have!), and am afforded some perks that are very useful, such as flexible hours, private office, no supervisor (just the boss/owner), etc.

And, due to being "comfortable", I haven't pushed for occasional raises or seriously shopped around for better positions. In fact, I think the only reason I wrote this was for it to act as an attempt to nudge myself away from "comfortable".

TLDR: don't get too comfortable.

You should think about your career rather than your salary. If you go there, will you be employed for 150k at 40 or 300k at 40? (Not taking inflation into account)

170k sounds like a good deal now. Also consider there are many IT companies opening offices in Seattle, so down the road you can negotiate for better salary

DO NOT move to Seattle if you have any kind of seasonal-affective disorder, or you value seeing the sky.

Am I the only one made uncomfortable by someone asking if 170k is a good salary, and made even more uncomfortable by the people inquiring if that's enough to maintain a decent quality of life? 170k is over 2.5x the median income in Seattle, and people start families and find contentment with far less.

Perhaps a less entitled way of phrasing the question would have been "Is 170k an appropriate salary for a software dev in Seattle?" I think my issue is with the implication that 170k might not be a good salary to maintain high standard of living.

As tech workers with the potential to earn these large sums, we should be aware of our privilege, and cognizant of how the rest of the population lives.

This is a tech forum and not reddit. Most folks here are within the tech industry and I have seen threads where people have been discussing $400k salaries like it is no big deal. So I feel this is a fair way to phrase the question given the forum's context.

> Most folks here are within the tech industry and I have seen threads where people have been discussing $400k salaries like it is no big deal.

I would still argue this comprises the minority in HN.

If people create value for an organization shouldn't they capture some of it for themselves? The less a developer is paid, the more the execs/investors are pocketing. That money goes somewhere.

Yes, you are the only one. He isn't guilty for being valuable enough to warrant such a salary.

It's common (if not strictly accurate) for people to think of HN as a programmers' forum, so the OP probably thought "software dev" could be omitted as already in scope. It is mentioned, after all, in the second sentence of the main text.

To prevent misunderstanding, we've inserted "for a software developer" into the title above.

Why should anyone feel guilty relative to the median income?

The real guilt should be in not being paid what you are worth for too long.

Seeking greener pastures and getting compensated in line with what you're worth should be celebrated!

OP, shoot for 200k+ and I'd suggest going to Facebook. I'm confident their stock will do wonders in the coming years and they have very interesting problems due to scale.

I don't know where you plan on working, but do not take a job from Amazon. They will eat you up and spit you out as soon as you're not necessary anymore. That is to say, if you're project ends, you're fired. If you survive there that long.

I don't think thats true. I have friends who worked on multiple projects. The bad things that i have heard are about work intensity and salary hikes nothing related to firing at will.

If, Cthulhu forbid, it's Amazon, also remember that you need to stick around for a while otherwise you have to pay back that munificent sign-on and any relocation money.

I do know people who happily paid both back to get out of there.

I worked for IMDb in Los Angeles for under a year, and they didn't require me to pay back any of the sign-on or relocation.

Sadly that's not how it works for Amazon Seattle.

Depending on your level, this is not true. This is pretty much only for entry level direct out of college.

This is completely untrue. If you're a software dev worth your salt you're not gonna get fired. Even if you did you'll probably easily find another job.

Obviously like any tech giant work life balance and general experience varies from team to team.

Just to broadly say that amazon is a terrible organisation to work for is a disservice to devs.

I personally know people who work and Amazon and have experiences ranging the spectrum from Amazing to terrible, it depends a lot on on the team you work with and the managers that you have.

Unfortunately it's not COMPLETELY untrue, but it is an unqualified exaggeration. Some teams are a complete shit show, others are as good as you'll find at any large company.

Amazon pays pretty well, but people will have to work hard for it.

This is completely true. I was an Amazon engineer who received a PIP soon after my team successfully launch our project. An Amazon SDM who did not know I received a PIP told me the same day that the team's funding had been cut and managers were having a war to cannibalize our headcount. I was also told (in the PIP document which I can post online) that I could save my job by choosing my Indian manager's friend in India (I was in Seattle) as my personal mentor and boss even though Amazon's mentor program is totally voluntary and SDE's don't manage people. I think this was a ruse to justify transferring the person to the US and obtaining a visa. Amazon is a terrible shit organization no engineer should work at. I of course no longer work there and now make exactly 82% more compensation. All those people can DIAF. I want Amazon to stay shitty and continue to employ those talentless assholes (who still work there) because I never want to have to deal with those people again.

Did you report it? Because that sounds like extreme misconduct. Amazon could have got rid of those nasty people. It might be a criminal investigation actually.

No. Obviously HR and senior managers signed off on the PIP document which outlined all this. I asked my manager who was making him do this (HR, execs, his real boss in India) and he said no one. I told him if that was true (which I knew it wasn't) then he fucked up because he cost Amazon a SDE and he was going to take all of the blame. He still works there so I was right. Amazon does not get 'rid' of ridiculously bad managers just as the catholic church does not get rid of child molesters and a person does not get rid of one of their organs.

I had no reason to stay as I have multiple masters degrees and Amazon, along with a PIP, was offering 0% raise and no RSU's after delivering a multi-million dollar project.

I did contact HR when I caught one of my other managers lying about my interview feedback in MRT notes (hiring system). All HR did was pull the feedback and when it was shown that a manager had done something inappropriate they of course dropped it. I knew it was a waste of time but didn't care. I was surprised I wasn't PIP'ed at that point. Amazon employees have to watch their managers closely.

Amazon is a terrible organization because Jeff Bezos is a terrible person.

You don't have to worry about it with Amazon. Amazon definitely doesn't pay 170k to 99% of their SDEs. SDE2 total comp is under 150k and that is at least 95th percentile.

This is not really true. I love amazon and been there quite awhile now. They shed the dead weight often, but if you like a challenge, you'll make it just fine

As someone in Sydney Australia, isn't this a ridiculously good salary? Average Google engineers wouldn't make this.

Yeah this thread is a humble brag. 170k in a state with no income tax and housing at $1400, you don't need to be a software engineer to calculate your disposable income after that.

We constantly have HN comments about how underpaid software engineers are, how companies are colluding to keep salaries down, etc, etc, etc. Then when someone asks if a salary is in the right ballpark for the local market, they're humble-bragging?

Nothing was posted about specific skills, just "ten years in software dev." This could be building WordPress sites or it could be architecting the backend of Netflix. OP's value will be determined by the demand for his services in relation to how many people have experience providing those services, what their current pay is, and whether they're open to a new job.

Compensation is really what the next guy would take +/- 10%.

> Average Google engineers wouldn't make this.

Yeah they would. They'd probably earn much more.

http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

Not in my location. Check GlassDoor.

Your location must not be Seattle, which is the context of the OP's inquiry. The average SDE3 (senior engineer) at Amazon is making more than this in total comp, and Google pays more than Amazon.

How many years for SDE3?

There will be outliers on either side obviously, but I would guess most SDE3s at Amazon fall into a range of 6-10 years of experience.

SDE3 at Amazon is a career position. Generally most people will never move beyond SDE3, so you'll have people with a lot more then 10 years there.

What percentage of SDE3 are promoted to Distinguished Engineer?

None directly. Virtually none indirectly. They need to get promoted to Principal Engineer first, then Senior PE, and then DE. Circa 2 years ago I'd guess there were at most half a dozen DEs company-wide and iirc half of those were hired in to that level as opposed to being promoted.

> SDE3 at Amazon is a career position

That's what they say in every 1:1 but when you get to see how the sausage is made in the annual OLR you quickly realize that people who are deemed to have no hope of getting promoted to PE end up in the bottom right or middle right boxes of the infamous "9 box" ranking grid and are given hints to move on. Most people in that position move on anyway, as they end up getting low or no RSU refreshes due to their low "growth potential" (one of the 3 ratings that are used in the stack ranking process - the other two are communicated to the employee but the growth potential is not).

I can think of very, very few SDE3s I came across at Amazon who had 12+ years of experience, and of those some did eventually get promoted to PE. I feel fairly confident in saying you won't find any statistically significant number of SDE3s with "a lot more than 10 years there".

In a general sense, definitely. The median household income in the United States is a third of that and the median Seattle income is still less than half that [0]. I suspect yeidayeida wants to know if they can do better given their qualifications and meant good in that sense.

[0]: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/washington/seattle/

It's pretty middle of the road, there are plenty of devs that pull in twice that. It's due to stock however, so it also depends on how well your company is doing.

Personally, I don't think so. You can make more contracting as a developer ( 1099 ). Also you get more tax writeoffs, too.

Please tell us more. How? Where can I find these contracts?

That's quite an assertive comment given we have no information on the specific domain, nor of the personal network of the op. I might be wrong but I've understood both of these have quite specific requirements for the most lucrative contracting jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com