Really? $125k doesn't seem low to me based on experience. Also, just looked on Payscale and it says Senior Data Analyst (with 6 years experience) salary range was $63-113k.
I think a lot of people on here (and Blind) constantly say everyone is underpaid. It might be trying to help educate people they can be paid more. But it's usually framed in a way most people find insulting.
Only 5% of laborers in cities like LA and NYC make over $200k a year. That number is a bit higher in The Bay. Only about 12-15% of people make over $125k.
Again, it's nice to know that you can do better. But it's also nice to give yourself a pat on the back sometimes. $125k is decidedly NOT bad by any standards.
- they earn a $200k salary
- their living expenses match those of a person living with a $60k salary and presumably spending everything they earn after tax (in response to “what kind of life they can live with $60-80k”)
Does that make sense?
Yes, there are likely outlier employees at outlier companies making huge comp but those have to be at least 2 to 3 standard deviations right of the average.
So you don't have a counter argument is what you're saying? The truth is those site are insanely flawed and if that's what you're using to form your basis for negotiation then you're at a disadvantage period.
Compensation is often base + bonus + equity. For sufficiently senior positions, the equity component can be almost as much as the base salary. If the equity is liquid, then why is that not relevant?
FYI new grads at any of the big tech companies are bringing in close to ~$200k in total compensation their first year. It's not just someone's sister's cousin. It's a majority of engineering new grads who work at any of the BigCos which employ A LOT of people and are constantly hiring.
Even in the Bay Area the 50th percentile base salary for a relatively junior hire is closer to $100k than $150k. Add in bonus and equity and some might top out around $140k-$150k total compensation. That's in the Bay Area specifically. Most other places TC is going to top out just above $100k--high salaries are uncommon outside of tech hubs and the Bay Area itself is on the high end even in that group.
Technologists systemically undervalue themselves. Partly because the barrier to entry to software/analysts is so low, and most people are pretty bad. It's also because interviewing is such a time-consuming task that most people only look at 1-3 offers when getting a new job.
If you look in comment history you'll see a few references to me paying engineers/data scientists/data analysts $400 to spend an afternoon with me solving a real world problem. If I felt like you were someone I would work with, I personally introduce you to the head of a team at a companies that I know pays great money and has a great team, and you're fast tracked to the final interview (mostly culture and talking tech. No bullshit).
I always knew what the position paid, and the candidates would always sell themselves 10-20% of what they could get (I obviously helped them get the most they could).
Just because the market is skewed with a lot of bad candidates and poor negotiators doesn't mean the market price is accurate. We can all do better.
When I see Data Science in industry, it means an analyst. When I see Data Science in academia, I see Michael Jordan and Alex Smola. I think this is the core disconnect.