Hacker News Reader

I'm in management at a FAANG company.

Total comp for my college hires averages around $150k.

Total comp for my career level ICs averages a smidge over $200k.

My top 10% have total comp in the $350k neighborhood.

The very few folks who are at the staff/principal range (depending on which companies titles you're using) are taking home $500-800k (mostly in stock). If we consider attrition, it's probably only 1 in 150 of the engineers we hire who ever hit this tier or above.

The levels.fyi info seems pretty accurate to me. Their estimate for my personal role is within 2% of my actuals.

Which FAANG? That matters apple and amazon are not anywhere as competitive as the rest.

They have to be competitive especially at the more senior levels.

> Total comp for my college hires averages around $150k.

What cities is that number for?

So the question for me as an engineer becomes, do I grind it out at a FAANG company and try to be one of those level 7’s OR do I roll the dice on the startup? My intuition is that the former has a better outcome on average. Seems pretty rare to become staff/principal/whatever at a big co and based on the data from levels.fyi, you gotta be pretty far along in your career.

I worked at ~6 startups for about 10 years before google. What do I have to show for it? A slight beer belly and less motivation to build something from the ground up yet again only to see it burn down. Yeah, I had a ton of fun too.

Would I trade all those years at startups for going straight to google? eeh, maybe 4 of them. On the other hand though, I don't think I would have made it through the interview without knowing a lot of random shit I learned at startups.

Also being a dad and working at a startup does not mix well.

Interesting. Maybe FAANG's do so well in SV because they have a nice pipeline of startup burnouts who learn all this weird shit that you only learn from working at startups for a decade, and then finally end up in FAANG's, use all their wisdom to build even better systems....

Or neither? Very few people will reach senior management and very few startups are successful. Any IT career is going to set you up for a comfortable life even if you're a mid-level non-management workhorse. Excelling is partially about skill, but vastly more about persistence and luck. Find something you enjoy and don't worry about where you'll be in 20 years.

Are you working at the companies that show that level of pay? Are you located geographically the same as those offers?

levels.fyi does not say everyone makes $300k+ - it says people at specific companies in a specific region make that much. It makes that quite obvious from how you have to select the companies, the level, and then you see where those offers are geographically and with how much experience/tenure.

Is there a map that shows the data geographically? It's hard to tell given the list of salaries + cities to find data the compares to my city.

Not yet - in the works! :)

I expect to see the high wages are highly concentrated in SV. My employer has a clear policy that leaving the bay area comes with a pay cut. Some folks think it's worth it. Time will tell.

Why don't you try https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer

search for a city and see if it compares in any way to your salary?

You can't search for cities to my knowledge.

A lot of people forget that. They see a few people at a FAANG company making $400k and conclude that everyone at that level makes about that much.

People also disregard the infamous “4 year cliff”: At most of these companies, your initial stock offer fully vests in 4 years, so your 5th year, your take-home comp nose-dives. Even if you get modest raises and “refresh” stock grants (which not all companies do), you’re likely taking a huge hit in year 5. I’d be interested in a levels.fyi filtering out people’s first four years.

At most big companies the refresher grants are large enough to prevent a cliff.

Most maybe... but not all. Amazon and Microsoft to name at least two.

No company is stupid enough to make their employees take a >50% paycut in year 5, unless they are intentionally signaling that the employee is not desired and should leave. If they did everyone would quit on their 4th anniversary. Refreshers typically exceed or match the initial grant.

Even if they DID make you take a paycut you could jump ship every four years anyway, so why would you care about comp past year 4?

There are no companies where refreshers exceed or match the initial grant.

At Google, they're between 25 and 50%, depending on a lot of stuff. My initial grant was ~150k, my first refresher was ~40k, and it's a wash if my 4th year refresh will match my first year, that will likely come down to if I make L5 or not.

I’ve received refreshes larger than my initial grant, so there is at least one company that does it.

At Apple, they are very generous with refreshers - my initial grant was $105k, and my refresh grant was $125k and I expect at least similar, if not more, for my refresher in a couple of months. The only reason my refresh did not exceed my initial grant was because my initial grant climbed almost 40% in value in that time.

Counter-example from Apple: I spent 4 years there getting good performance reviews without a single refresh grant, and left on my 4 year anniversary. Most of my peers claim to have gotten one small refresh grant in that time, but certainly not one every year. Maybe it varies by team.

I have been told there is guidance that generally that either management gives a lot of stock or none.

It probably does also vary with your role/responsibilities - I am a software engineer in SWE on high visibility/impact work. Apple does definitely does make you earn refreshes - they don't give them for average performance oftentimes is my understanding, there seems to be a lot of stories out there that this is the case.

Hi, you can view the full list of data points on the Comp page [1]. Only a few tech companies are able to pay top dollar. We released a report of the top paying tech companies of 2018 recently which highlights a few of these [2]. Also, keep in mind most of the data we have is for the Bay Area where cost of living is very high. We're working on more detailed location filters to surface this better. Let us know if you have feedback on how we might be able to make this more clear!

[1] https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html [2] https://www.levels.fyi/2018/

What company are you at? I’m at a company who people consider 2nd tier among the FANGs in a senior developer role and my salary + stocks are > $300K this year in Seattle.

Also be careful what you wish for. I’m not sure if the stress and personal impact are worth it. I have constant anxiety. Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.

It’s not for everyone. I’m just trying to get to $1MM in my after tax account before I leave this company for something more sustainable.

> Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.

It was really shocking to me to learn how disgusting some very intelligent people can be. It rewrote some of my philosophies of life in the first half of my twenties. Turns out we don't all have cathedrals in our heads when we have the tools to build them.

> Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.

Amen to this. If anyone here believes that those who possess high intelligence are naturally more ethical or good-hearted than the average, try getting between any of them and their next bonus / promotion at a FAANG or in academia and you will rapidly learn otherwise.

Are you working in Silicon Valley for a large tech company? If so you may be negotiating poorly. Otherwise, you may be getting typical or even good pay for where you are.

You don't have to be in Silicon Valley. Some companies have a premium for working there, but not always, especially at the high end. The more important detail is working for a large company that has stock/RSUs, a bonus program, a robust technical job ladder, and a regular review process.

If your company doesn't do stock/RSUs, you're missing out on that aspect (though a small number of companies make up for that with large cash bonuses).

A regular review process is key. A lot of startups don't do regular, systematic performance reviews and people think that is a good thing, but it's actually a bad thing.

A good performance review gives you the opportunity to demonstrate how well you are doing and back that up with feedback from your peers. It gives your manager documentation that proves you deserve more compensation. And you get this opportunity on a regular basis.

Even if you don't get a big compensation increase every time, annual reviews are generally when the company, as a matter of policy, gives out cost-of-living raises and stock grant refreshers. At companies without review processes this doesn't always happen every year.

Exactly. Work somewhere where there's a default expectation of regular recognition, raises, and promotions.

Location matters. $140K in a low cost of living area is not the same as $140 in the Bay Area.

I am in South Florida (somewhere in between Miami + Fort Lauderdale cost of living)

levels.fyi shows people making $300k in Austin, TX (which as far as I know, is not a high cost of living area)

What are some areas that are comparable to South Florida that are listed on levels.fyi?

Google has an engineering office in Austin. Could be someone who took their Bay Area salary with them. Same with Pittsburg. Uber has a presence there and SFBA transplants take their SFBA salaries with them when they move.

How is that allowed?...

It's usually not, but there's a certain logic to it: they valued your work high enough to pay you in SV, why would the same work be less valuable just because you moved offices?

because the cost of living is different? lol

The cost of living has nothing to do with the value of the work. It impacts supply and demand of labor, though.

Totally agreed. I keep trying to explain this to companies as an interviewee, but it does not go well. Even in my current job, doing the same thing/title/exp/degree as others on the team, I am paid less; because I work remotely. Yet they do not expect less of me than my coworkers, but they pay me less due to geographical region.

Brb while I move to Vatican city, I look forward to my salary going up significantly.

Austin is not SV, but rents there have jumped in the last decade. Try pricing out a 2br apt, near one of the major tech offices. First place I clicked on was $2,300 a month! Average is closer to $1,500. This is unusual for Texas =)

300k is definitely highly unusual for Austin. With that salary you can literally live like a King. Buy a house in the city AND one on Lake Travis for the weekends.