As a kid I thought this included some obvious jobs, but now as an adult I realize a lot of professions are like this. Some of my doctor and lawyer friends have been dealt the worst hands of all.
Also MSFT isn't part of FAANG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech#FAANG
I think Microsoft is up there and competitive in the same landscape, and calling out their lack of inclusion in the original acronym is just pedantic. Everything discussed in this thread applies just as much to MSFT as it does to any of the other FAANG companies.
F: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Facebook/salaries/Software-En...
A: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Amazon/salaries/Software-Engi...
A: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Apple/salaries/Software-Engin...
N: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Netflix/salaries/Software-Eng...
G: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Google/salaries/Software-Engi...
M: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Microsoft/salaries/Software-E...
Twitter, square, uber, netflix, linked-in, pinterest, dropbox, airbnb, etc are all middle-big sized and are fairly variable comp wise.
The other orgs pay in things like bonuses or RSUs.
Total comp may be as good or higher, but those aren't locked in a specific rate the way a direct deposit to your bank account is; e.g. you could get less bonus, or the stock price could drop, etc.
The salary expectations from Auburn (where Tim Cook is from) is a lot less than from say UC Berkeley or Stanford.
After all, being MIT or Stanford means that you passed specific type of filter but that filter might not be the silver bullet and even bring monoculture.
Despite the fact that the elite schools have elite opportunities, more often than not, the most impactful things don't come from elite alumni.
It is very different from Brin and Page, that basically catapulted from campus to become billionaires. Their life experience before becoming founders was entirely shaped by Stanford, their identity tied to it. It makes sense that their company reflects this.
I know this certainly to be true for people I know who work in conservation.
I'm a solution engineer and only made it here with a BA in English. I learned a lot of code, but I haven't had to much else formally.
My wife is a teacher, and she has to jump through hoops for a teaching certificate, do regular, on-going re-certs, and be covered in basic first aid.
Plus there is a shit-ton of other issues to stay abreast of, like mandatory reporter status -- on top of learning new teaching tools, like integrating with the tablets they use in science class.
I spend 4 hours a day in meetings, and 3 hours a day doing basic code stuff that a fairly bright 17 year old could figure out. Her job is WAYYYY harder than mine.
> Teacher is not a high skilled job, not to mention most teachers are outright bad at their jobs thus not producing much value anyway.
Attitudes like this are why the state of education in the US is abysmal.
sounds like a death spiral. The attiude is teachers are unskilled jobs, but you also propose that teaching is more involved than engineering (which I don't disagree with: the thought of dealing with minors undergoing puberty increases my stress levels). But if they don't get enough training, the quality suffers and the reputation of the profession and education as a whole is "abysmal".
However, are teachers getting the proper training for that? is 2 years of certification post undergrad and a few more years acting as a TA enough to prepare them for these conditions?
Compare that to university professors, who need a PH.D and much more research to teach. Should that be the low bar for teaching even more rambuncious students "lower down"? The answer is ultimately theoretical, because I imagine the issue is similar to police; there requires a LOT of positions to fill, more than what they could hope to get if they set such high requirements.