The wages in Toronto are laughable. In the praries it's possible to make maybe 10 to 20k less than Toronto salaries but the houses are half the price.
There may be some areas where the Valley tops the comp list, the kind of software engineering that goes on in cities varies. But for many types of software engineering where Seattle excels, such as core infrastructure code, expected hiring costs are astronomically by any general metric.
For American software engineers, this is a brilliant change of condition. A decade ago, if you lived and wanted to work in the flyover metros, you were lucky to get six-figures at all no matter who you were or what you'd done. These days, big non-tech companies are willing to push toward a seven-figure comp package in flyover country for top tech people, in cities where almost no one makes six-figures. It has been really interesting to see.
Yeah, I agree, I've seen similar high offers in other US regions as well.
And as the US visa policies are becoming more strict, european companies won't have to compete against people leaving for the US, so the Salary/CoL ratio will stay bad over here.
how does one find companies with this sort of pay scale? (edit: maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "upper end")
Really? Like 900,000 USD? Really?
There is so much more to life than money.
The upper boundary for an intermediate in Toronto is certainly $90-95k.
On the other hand, there are expenses that are higher! Taxes are higher for one as well as the cost of goods such as groceries. Although, the groceries case doesn't really hold because I find that groceries in SV or Seattle to be higher than where I am now in Canada.
The main point I'm trying to make is that is that straight up converting salary in another country straight to USD is a bad comparison of wealth.
You're right that you need to convert both sides of the equation but I still think that all things considered Toronto pay is pretty poor compared to the US.
An extra $35k salary would easily cover a much larger mortgage, and living expenses aside from the mortgage are almost identical.
The difference in rent or mortgage is easily covered by the city weighted salary, but you still have all the other expenses. Living is just expensive wherever you go, there is no escaping it. I made the decision that at 40 I don't want to be in a condo surrounded by traffic and people any more. It's been a bit of an eye opener and a big adjustment to accept the relatively low salary that comes with that decision.
I have worked remotely and been paid very well which has been good, but startups come and go and when I got to the final round of a more stable position with a large corporation they told me they were downgrading my salary offer by a significant amount because of where I lived.
If you have elixir or scala experience, like FP, like realtime problems...
As an example situation, I'd like in this pseudononymous situation to ask what are the factors and principles that makes $120k/y a reasonable offer for a functional programmer in Toronto?
A consultant earns about $1k+/day, or double the proposed salary, and companies typically pay $1600-2400/day for contractors through an agency, so I'm trying to figure out what makes that $120k/year viable.
Presumably you pay based on what the work is worth to the company (revenue per employee) and what you can find in the market.
If you are getting price takers at that level, that's the market clearing price, then the market is the market.
But if you aren't getting takers, what is the value can you afford to pay for at $120k, but can also afford to not-have that value if it saves you $30k? Is there a revenue-per-employee threshold, or are you reaching a diminishing marginal return on additional developers - which suggests you are toward the end of your growth curve?
The idea that a company can afford to wait two quarters or longer to hold out for a %20 salary savings by waiting for someone to take it suggests that the marginal value of the work isn't very high.
The definition of a shitty job is pretty much one where your work isn't valued, and when you compare Toronto offers to the rest of the market, they are literally advertising, "we will pay you for work we don't value!" Is there a principle at play here, or is it just a straight "take it or leave it," offer?
The saying, "we can't afford cheap things," is why SFBA startups pay so much - because there is too much multiples growth at stake to miss out of it by saving on small things. Do we just not have the same growth upside?
Our team is extremely small so the value of work contributed by each head (given the individual can successfully contribute in such an environment) is very high.
The issue is less finding takers and moreso finding the right takers. I've turned down people who were very interested because I wasn't sure about them. Unfortunately, I have been outbid on hires I was sure about which is very difficult to swallow. I would like to be able to offer at the upper end of the spectrum but the equity does have some value in the picture. I'm sure we could do an either or thing. Like you choose - either more cash or less with more equity. Because not everyone seems to be very interested in ownership. They just want to be paid.
Toronto is universally anchored to that 120 number, and 200 seems taboo. Whatever your company is doing, that's fantastic you can do it in Toronto, as QoL for people is really good, and it has the kind of culture pretty much everyone wants to live in.