Is this really true for more than the top subset? For instance, are there really a significant number of engineers at Oracle or Cisco getting that much non-salary compensation?
Bonuses are often structured as a % of your base salary based upon your rank. More senior engineers will get an extra 10-25% each year essentially automatically.
This is separate from RSUs, which vary a lot more widely. Their value is especially dependent upon company stock performance.
Cash bonuses are a different animal. I agree with your range (at least if you exclude defense contractors). Those alone are well short of doubling compensation, though.
The reason part of your salary is a bonus rather than the base is so that it can be withheld if necessary, eg in a bad year. Believing that bonus is an automatic extra 10% will, one day, leave you 10% short of your expectations.
Q: “What does an ordinary non-elite baseball team do?”
A: “Well the Yankees...”
12: 5%
24: 15%
30: 20%
36: 20%
42: 20%
48: 20%
Base salary is capped at $160k in most locations, $180k in ultra-high COL areas like San Francisco and New York City.
Source: I work at Amazon
http://www.businessinsider.com/employee-retention-rate-top-t...
Not saying it’s a bad thing just that vesting schedule is Something to think about when comparing offers. Liquidity is worth something.
I met tons of people who did 2 years at amazon and departed to Facebook for a fat offer that was worth far more than the remaining unvested amazon stock.
Trying to nickle and dime people when they come in the door just leads to people departing early. Employee turnover is a massive cost.
At some point it is less about money and more about where you want to spend your time.
This is not true.
Also, I am skeptical that it is actually that many whom are employed by that subset. I have not seen any of them break down their headcount by role, but the majority of their employees would need to be software engineers and I don't see how that can be the case.