In terms of straight up W-2ing without taking entrepreneurial levels of risk, I think you're looking at either finance or (restricting 25% to ~10%) AppAmaGooBookSoft. Note that you're not aiming to have the engineering skills of Jeff Dean but rather looking to have the business impact of the guy who coded the credit card processing for AdWords. (An identifiable person who actually exists, or I would be more explicit about the returns to that example.)
There's also "Join a startup as a very early engineer" but you're primarily compensated for picking the winner there -- there's many great businesses in the ranks of e.g. YC companies but if you had joined as the first non-founding engineer the majority do not result in the outcome you're looking for.
I'll leave the obligatory disclaimer "What motivates this goal? There are probably more interesting goals if you consider your values carefully."
You're welcome to your own estimate as to the percentage -- I suppose it's quite sensitive as to whether you're thinking "percentage of engineering staff at AppAmaGooBookSoft" (which is weighted towards < 5 years of professional experience) or "my percentage odds of reaching that level mid-career given 5 years of competent execution at one of AppAmaGooBookSoft."
I would even be skeptical of the ~10% estimate. Even accounting for contributions in cash machines like AdX and Adwords, commanding one million dollars in engineer's pay seems to be a matter of having a rare set of skills in working on outrageously difficult problems (deep learning, managing complex networks, or large-scale cloud computing setups).
I am not too sold about cashing on "creating business value". It's not like Google lacks technical expertise to understand the scale of their problems. Likely, if you are working amongst super-technically-able people, the only way to reach that figure is pushing yourself to gain expertise in a valuable domain or move into management where your product decisions have a direct impact.
Would be interested in learning more about this.
And when you look at the really rich people, like Zuckerberg, Buffett, or Gates, what do they do with their money? Why, they give it away.
But most people in the world don't. Enough with the moralizing.
Of course, there are outliers, people whose happiness does scale linearly with their earnings. More importantly, I feel, is the vertigo associated with income, the fear and worry of taking a cut in earnings. Lifestyle expands to fit income.
It does not seem that you have considered the why, only the what. Why do you want $1m? Several others have raised this question here. You will be far, far more satisfied if you spend a time considering this in detail.
Maybe zump is motivated by generosity. Maybe zump does have plans to share the riches.
You're just guessing. Don't judge.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Be persistent, work exceptionally hard, and think very big.
I consider this a non-sequitur. Making a lot of money is considered the primary goal in our capitalist society and the sheer mechanics of our economy would guarantee it to be a net positive in all but 99% of cases (i.e burning the pile of money).
It might be the goal of people lacking empathy and people who think happiness comes with money, which is true only up to an amount far below 1M. Unless, again, the money is meant to be given to others. I am not sure what you mean by considering my argument a non-sequitur, could you elaborate?
> the sheer mechanics of our economy would guarantee it to be a net positive
By "Making a positive impact on others" I didn't mean making a positive impact on the economy. I meant helping actual problems like hunger, diseases and pollution.
It shouldn't matter what I do with the money. I don't even have it. The larger point I disagree with is that it's a losing battle to somehow tune their career to fix all the ills of the world, it's better to make as much money as possible to hope that our economy will efficiently distribute the resources for the greater good.
This is inaccurate on several levels.
Trickle-down capitalism does not work well. Current mechanisms ensure that an increasingly elite few own the vast majority of resources and means of controlling those resources.
Making a ton of cash personally does not equate with distributing wealth. Taxes and the tax system are poorly organised for this purpose.
If you are serious that you want to work hard in in order to benefit society then perhaps consider health care, politics, farming, irrigation, renewable energy, or even space travel. You can be an engineer in these fields. Don't kid yourself that simply by becoming rich personally that you are a benefit to larger society. The evidence indicates quite the opposite.
1) it's not relevant 2) why bother judging?
I think OP is asking how to add enough value as a top 25% programmer to justify getting paid this amount. That strikes me as a very fair question.
I think you are far better off working on your social and business skills.
Maybe that's "beating the system", but an incredible amount of money has been made by people whose technical abilities did not go beyond mediocre PHP skills.
Making that kind of money as an engineer is much more of a crap shoot. Just be the best engineer you can and have big influence wherever you work. Then get very lucky and work on the right project at the right time at the right company.
On a more philosophical note - if you spend your life chasing money, odds are you're going to end up pretty unhappy. Try not to succumb to the capitalist rat race - I know it's hard, but it will make you happier :).
edit: Updated to be less hyperbolic. It's still tough to make a lot of money even going the trader route.
Traders are usually the ones coming up with the strategies and executing them. They also take the most personal risk, since they can be held directly liable for mistakes. That is, the SEC can directly prosecute them, fine them, take away trading credentials, and so on - basically ruin their career if they make a stupid mistake. Very few engineers at these firms are credentialed traders or take any personal risk at all.
You're probably better off as a SWE at Google than as a trader at this hedge fund.
Even at firms/desks that are in the right products at the right time, few people actually make 7 figures. If I'm not mistaken, you should be aware of this for a variety of reasons. I'm not convinced that making this kind of money is easier or more likely in finance than in tech.
There are compensation spreadsheets floating around and I've been privy to Facebook's and Google's. Assuming the numbers there are accurate (and anecdotally they are), even the "top 5%" engineers getting discretionary equity and bonus don't make more than $600k.
Meanwhile, executives easily make twice that in yearly cash bonuses.
I've grown a disdain towards said execs for being paid incommensurate with their actual value generated. Perhaps that's just my naïveté, and indeed they are that valuable. But I don't think so.
In short, to command astronomical salaries you need a pyramid of people working beneath you, so that you can garner part of their productivity for yourself.
Charisma will help you get there.
Sidenote: the 75th percentile isn't making anywhere near $1M.
"Nobody ever got rich by earning wages."
In a nutshell, learn C++.
EDIT: I heard Valve engineers make serious coin.
While having profit share in a game developer's contract is sometimes true, I'd say that it's definitely not a common occurrence to earn that much money. Profit share is based on royalties made after paying back development costs and the game being extremely successful. Due to rising development costs, and most games not being multi-million sellers, most developers earn minimal bonuses beyond their contractual wages, from my experience of the industry.
I'm based in the UK and wrote console games for 19 years. I'm estimating that I saw around £15k in game related bonuses over that time. I did hear rumours of the Tomb Raider team getting a £40k bonus back in the mid 90s but I'm not sure if that was true.
Top 25%? Yah no.
You best bet is a steady job at the big 4 with a good RSU plan.
As a consultant you might be able to get to this salary. But you will be able to bill only a fraction of your time.
I know a few people between ages 40-50 that make this much working at a hedge fund as pure engineers. None of them are incredible, to be honest I could do their job and I'm half their age. They've just put in their time there, didn't get distracted by more interesting opportunities, and don't mind a typical office job with no perks.
I agree with Patrick that you are far more likely to achieve this through entrepreneurship than through working in technology (or finance for that matter).
Why engineering? If money is so important to you there might be other industries better suited.
You sound Machiavellian, or that you may edge towards it. Be careful with that. Money is no good if it can't buy you what you want or need.
Now, with that out of the way, I will say this: There's a pernicious myth in the industry that you need to be "brilliant" to create something valuable and successful. Which is bullshit. You just need to be competent, persistent, and extraordinarily lucky.
Here, in order, are the modern keys to wealth:
- Know rich people. Be someone they enjoy hanging out with. People want to work with people they like, so this greatly increases the odds they'll throw you a project or put you on their team. See: Balmer, Steve. (NOTE: This requires social skills.)
- Create a business product. Be a middle man. Build a product that identifies and ameliorates a common business pain point. Find a major, underlying cost that is industry-wide and create a service or app that reduces this cost for the user. As quickly as possible, put competent people to work under you. Scale quickly and gets lots of smart people in your corner quickly. (NOTE: This requires social skills, observational skills, persistence, technical skills, and a generous helping of luck.)
- Create a consumer product. Be a founder. Build a business that satisfies a base human desire (entertainment, sex, greed, etc.) and charge money for it. See above. (NOTE: This requires all the same skills as above, plus more luck. The consumer space is packed with competition.)
- Be indispensable in a lucrative, but unpopular, niche. Specialize in MUMPS or COBOL or FORTRAN. Pick an industry that many avoid, like porn or gambling or spam. There's less competition, sure, but there's also higher risk to your long-term employment. And you have to live with yourself, so be sure you're OK with your choice. (NOTE: This seems to be the most compatible with your skill set and attitude, but might not be an ethical/moral match.)
- Grind away in a decent job, save aggressively, and invest. Be boring. Get a $120k/yr job and live like a student, putting at least half your income into savings. After a few years, start investing that money in people more motivated/skilled than yourself. This has the highest likelihood of working out -- assuming economic stability -- but is the least sexy option available to moderately talented engineers because it takes a long time. (NOTE: You'll still probably need social skills to be successful at this.)
- Get profoundly lucky. Be in the right place at the right time. Be the founding engineer or a stupid startup at a time when VCs are throwing money at everything and asking no questions. Be an early hire at a unicorn. Stumble on the next Angry Birds or Pokemon Go or whatever. (NOTE: This is entirely beyond your control. Almost everybody in The Valley of Dreams is pursuing this goal. You're still better-served by having technical and social skills.)
> I don't want to have to be in the top 1% like Jeff Dean, but top 25% and still get these results.
That's a contradiction in terms. If you made a million dollars, that outcome would place you in the top 1% among software engineers.
If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is valid and in operation in the software marketplace, then to make a million dollars, you will have to earn it. It's really as simple as that. Speaking as someone who made plenty more than a million dollars -- by earning it.
> Don't have social skills and want to make more money.
But people without social skills end up working for people who do have social skills. The latter collect the money, the former do the work.
If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is valid But people without social skills end up working for people who do have social skills. The latter collect the money, the former do the work.> ... More like Efficient Market Fallacy.
Yes, maybe. We'll probably never know, since it can't be science. The EMH is one of those things that stands as an icon, a principle, a discussion point, that may or may not have any bearing on the world, but that we often use as a ruler to compare against reality -- like truth and beauty.