Google Making Extraordinary Counteroffers To Stop Flow Of Employees To Facebook
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Am I missing something, or is expecting "1/10 of 1%" equity insane? I've never heard of a mid-level developer getting that at a company of Facebook's size.
But yeah, obviously not every Google employee that swings by Facebook for an interview is going to get offered that much. That's the ceiling.
Everything I had read previously stated that Google salaries were nothing special compared to industry averages, and it was the perks and culture that differentiated them
But there's no way $150k is average for a mid-range developer.
These numbers were slightly higher than Google's at the time, but GOOG was still playing the "our stock options are worth more than their stock grants" line. In any case, ~150k for mid-range is certainly believable.
That said, realize that mid-range in pure software companies making Big Stuff is a little different. Most startup-level CTOs and Fortune 100-level "Architect" types came in at the bottom of mid-range, just due to not having worked at scope.
At the time, Apple had the lowest pay for comparable grades of any of the firms we researched in our Seattle-area recruiting. Of course, those stock packages have probably made up for things -- if they didn't just flip them at vest for cash immediately, like most employees do!
Also, if you think 150k is high, you should chat with folks doing software development in the finance industry. It's honestly a bit overboard, but the companies do what they have to in order to make sure that offers from Facebook, etc. aren't at all tempting.
My rather vague impression is that the people who are considered good enough that a recruiter has to hire them will get the 80-100k while for the rest its more like 60-80K.
Correct me if I'm wrong - please, I'm curious really...
Edit: Google in particular is a large company by now. At the start, I would assume they'd pay premium for developers but over time I'd assume they'd aim to pay least possible for the people who met their standards.
Google is a lot bigger than Facebook currently so I'd assume Facebook would be aiming to pick what they consider the "cream". The article mentions 118. Google has ~20K employees and a good portion of them would engineers.
Software Engineer 697 Google Salaries Average $98,813 Range $70k-$129k
Senior Software Engineer 77 Google Salaries - Average $124,393 Range $63k - $150k
Software Engineer III 55 Google Salaries - Average $103,125 Range: $93k- $115k
Software Engineer In Test 55 Google Salaries - Average: $85,078 Range: $62k- $104k
Software Engineer II 20 Google Salaries - Average: $87,20 Range: $72k- $105k
(so yeah $150k is highest end of Senior SW Engineer)
I don't know why Google salaries get knocked in the mainstream. And why Google doesn't try to set the record straight. It's a huge opportunity cost for people going into startups.
T4 average 100k. Senior average 125k, but have a much higher initial stock grant and a slightly higher bonus level.
Engineers start at T3 out of college, and move to T4 after a year. T4 is mid level. Senior is a T4 with a good win and some presentation skills. Staff are some of the best engineers with long track records, but require some managerial skills. Those above are superstars and managers.
But I could easily believe that if you include the cash value of benefits, vacation, and perks, that shoots up to $150K. Google's salary is generally not anything to write home about either way, but they do hire people who would be top-end most other places, and their perks are top notch.
no reason their stock won’t hit $100 billion in total valuation over the next couple of years.
That's impressive, but they will have to double their profit several more times to warrant a 100b price tag.
Google has a PE ratio of 20. If you extend that to FB, they'll need to make 5b in revenue to get to 100b. Assuming that last year they banked 20mm, they would have to double their earnings eight times to get to 5b.
I think the difference is in potential. Facebook has more potential than any other company to make huge amounts of cash. What it's making now is (probably) just the beginning.
You can even get more potential from having a lot fewer users, but monetizing each user by a greater amount. Having tons of unmonetized users and looking for a way to monetize them is questionable at best.
However, as I remember, Google had found their monetization engine before their IPO. Fb hasn't and the IPO is supposed to be just around the corner. Plenty of other large sites didn't work out like Google. I mean, Fb could wind-up like Yahoo, lots of users but no great monetization from them. In fact, Fb looks a lot like a better Yahoo since it more or less provides what Yahoo provides in a more integrated format.
Consider, if a brick-and-mortor company somehow offered free storage of real-world goods anywhere in the world, they could easily grow to millions of users too. The monetization question would loom large as well.
You think FB is making 23 billion? I don't.
It does sound a little high, but not as insane as it initially might.
Basically they're going to need to start selling "stuff" for that valuation to make any sense at all.
If that is the case, and that's coming from any sort of person in a leadership or HR position, isn't that seriously afoul of SEC rules?
Which rules?? Public traded companies often give out something called guidance, which tells investors what range they think their profits and revenues, and by extension, stock price will be in the coming quarters.
From what I read, their average salaries are much lower but their loyalty is much higher. Besides, you don't hear of too many Apple employees quickly leaving for other places, at least not as much as Facebook/Google.
Why?
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Are_You_Gonna_Do_...
Okay, that's from the 80's, but you never know, it might still be true and makes a good story either way.
Our brains can only superimpose our romantic fantasies over reality for so long. One romantic fantasy would be "I'm cool because I work at Apple". I can't see a talented person working somewhere for more than a year or two unless they genuinely were satisfied with the job and environment. Money isn't the only thing that motivates people.
You spend majority of your waking hours at work, so the perceived margin has to be very high to justify taking a less satisfying job, but which has higher signaling potential.
For a perceived margin to be high either a) the actual margin is high b) the person has to perceive \epsilon of social status much higher than \epsilon of job satisfaction. Generally, the people who value social status are almost by definition not going to work hard enough to become "half-decent (or better) engineers".
This also ignores the fact that most adults are either already in long term relationships or are celibate (voluntarily or involuntarily). "Looking for a girlfriend/boyfriend" is a temporary state, unless you're really interested in the dating game as a hobby which likely means less time for other hobbies e.g., hacking.
In my case, I'm in a long term relationship, having met my girlfriend while working in a nameless start-up doing email security (hardly "sexy", but plenty of technical challenges that I'd never see where I to work on "yet another app"). She could care less what the name of the company I work for is anyway.
So we're left with several logically valid conclusions:
* Apple hires worse engineers: people who are too interested in status to devote time to studies, people who are more interested in "playing the dating game" rather than fulfilling their passion. Typing this on a MacBook Pro, I see no evidence of this.
* Marginal signaling is really a lot better at Apple than Google. I can't see any evidence of that. Both are household names. Google has a reputation for hiring best, Apple has a reputation for building quality products (implying, hiring best).
* The quality of work is roughly equivalent at Apple and Google and decisions are often made by factors such as one offering work that the other doesn't, etc... People love working for both and only a minority is leaving either to work on "hotter" but less technically challenging applications.
I'll leave judgment for the reader, but something (perhaps reason?) is telling me latter is the case.
What I'm thinking is that Mike got "Mid Level Manager" and "Mid Level Developer" confused...
Anyone have any ideas if this is true?