And so begins the bay area salary bubble pop
I think that investors are going to be moving their money out of commercial real estate, and into residential.
Edit: to be clear: I don't live in the Bay Area, and I think the housing prices there could go either way:
1) People spend more time in their homes and spend an even larger portion of their income on their home. Having a "good" home becomes even more important since you spend even more time there, and prices go up even more.
2) People just leave the bay area. Residential prices go down in the bay area.
But there is a whole world out there that doesn't include SF, and I think that just generally speaking you're going to see an increase in residential home values as investors look for safe places to place their money outside of commercial real estate.
If investors want to move into that market, they are nuts. I don't think you can extract any more money from residents than the current market is already doing. It's one more reason not to buy a house here - how much more do you think prices will rise? Will that $1.5M, 1400 sq ft house full of lead paint, asbestos and aluminum wiring go for $2M next year? Probably not.
I would have guessed folks would just start leaving...
Aren't salaries different in different locations? (ie. same company with offices in Vancouver Canada vs Seattle vs SF?) I've heard they are...
If pay was purely about talent, everyone would be paid the same.
This is why London jobs are not paid more than SF - the "market rate" in London is lower despite living costs being the same or more than SF (especially when in London none of the FAANGs offer free transport to and from work and property prices are so much higher near transport hubs).
Market rates are murky - I guess it is based on competition and who employs in the area. There is some sort of shared database that loads of companies use from what I understand, but they are flawed since they don't include a lot of high-paying employers in finance et al.
At least, that is what was explained by a friend of mine that decided to stay at the Venice office - that it's easier to advance in all ways if you work in the Bay Area.
High pay requires a competitive job market (employer can't find anyone else to do it to the same standard for less) in a profit making industry (it's worth staying in a line of business even with higher wage costs.)
Honestly I'm quite surprised how little salaries at big tech companies vary by location within the same country. The bigger difference seems to be in opportunities for career advancement with more post-senior roles available at head offices.
Really? It doesn't seem to be this way to me. The academic requirements are, I believe, the same: a degree. I think in the US you also need a job offer (for H1B), but that hasn't been hard to get for a software engineer in the last 10 years.
The real "bar" for US immigration is a hard limit on visas, which are resolved via lottery. Your "ability" on winning a lottery doesn't say much about your talent for engineering.
Note: I moved from Europe to the Bay Area, I'm a bit familiar with the process.
There's also a lot of workers that simply can't pass the bar due to the Requests For Evidences required by the US government. As an European from, what I assume, a legitimate university you wouldn't experience those issues. Most of the folks who fail at this step will have back-up petitions filled at one of the satellite locations in Canada.
Right but I think many people just publish one paper at an international conference (they're all international) and then say 'look I'm an internationally published and peer-recognised expert'.
This is as silly as competing for men, or competing for US citizens, or competing for 22-32 year-olds. Demographics like that have very little power compared to testing for relevant skills, or having a visible track record.
Looked at another way, "talented people" are often smart enough to realize that if they do get the same salary, they net a lot more if they live elsewhere.
You're looking at 160K gross for a new grad + the value of the various perks, and that doubles for someone with 5 years of experience. You're correct that for someone who wishes to own a home right out of school/within a year, the bay may not be the best choice (although working there for a year or two and then moving elsewhere probably is), but there are basically no other places where a SWE in their mid twenties can bank 100K a year after expenses.
I agree that "new grad" is the best case for being in the BA. Once you're ten or fifteen years into your career and have a wife and kids, the downsides of the BA are far more painful. And if you didn't spend those ten or fifteen years building up capital while living in the BA, moving there later can be all but impossible. That talent is simply not accessible to BA companies unless it's remote.
All that said, my point that given the same salary, or even a modestly smaller one, you net more if you're not paying for housing in the BA.
Oh you're right I'm so sorry :P
> All that said, my point that given the same salary, or even a modestly smaller one, you net more if you're not paying for housing in the BA.
Ah, I somehow missed the (emphasized) do in your original sentence. I'll just leave now.
the cities and towns themselves aren't spectacular though. I mean there are more spectacular ones to immerse yourself into if you are really just trying to relocate somewhere intersting