Hacker News Reader

Comment by kome | Hacker News Reader

that's crazy high even for most of the US

$200k is not "crazy high" - it's higher than a lot, for sure, but if you're in a HCOL area and work for a big company (not even FAANG-level) you can make that much within a few years at most. FAANG is even higher - median new grad total comp at Google is about $190k. Senior is almost twice that.

Google is one of the best paying companies for new grads in the world, much better than government work

Top computer security professional can make a lot of money. 10+ years ago I knew someone making 350k in northern VA and a few people over the 200k range. It’s generally an unpleasant job with a small talent pool and plenty of options to move into other areas.

$350k isn't an "incredible" compensation package, and $200k shouldn't be considered high. You can earn that remotely pretty much anywhere working for a FAANG or fintech.

I'm making $500k+ in Atlanta as a reference point. As are my coworkers. I'm not super senior, and I'm not bragging. I just want to spread awareness of the existence and obtainability of these salaries.

These kinds of compensations are not unheard of at all in tech. While I'm not making quite as much as OP, I am coming close.

Unheard of no, but it’s somewhat like suggesting every actor should aim for Hollywood A lister compensation because the jobs are out there. The top 1% compensation in any field tends to be wildly outside the norm and it keeps going up from there.

The equivalent would be telling other actors to audition for roles at [big studio] because they pay way better than [indie firm/commericals/etc]. And then everyone else coming along and being like "pfft why even bother".

A lot of people think they can't get jobs at high paying tech companies, when they can. Or they think it'd cost them their work-life-balance, when it often doesn't. Or that they wouldn't be able to handle it, when that shouldn't be a factor at all.

People aren’t saying why bother to apply, their saying why bother to promote such salaries as somehow common. More people applying doesn’t somehow increase the number of openings it just pushes down salaries at [big studio].

I mean Google getting 300 vs 200 applicants for an opening is kind of silly thing to promote.

> why bother to promote such salaries as somehow common

Because common isn't the right word. Attainable is.

Looking back, we are responding to a post saying “$200k shouldn't be considered high.” That’s not saying 200+k is Attainable that’s saying 200k is common.

They also say $350k isn't an "incredible" which seems to suggest it’s more than just attainable it’s a reasonable goal.

This is a totally false characterization, Retric.

If you're happy with a 100k salary, far be it from me to commiserate. But don't tell other people they can't attain higher compensation that puts them into the top 1% of earners. These jobs are real, they're not scarce, and they're absolutely not overly difficult to attain. You don't even need a college degree.

Don't tell people not to look. That's horrible.

Why not let us all in on a little secret and actually tell us what position and what certifications would be expected and required for this unicorn $500k job title? I know plenty of principle engineers, many of which are 10xers who make nowhere near this salary at all. So do tell a little bit.

Came back hours later after work and browsed levels.fyi a bit, I do see these total compensation levels specifically for FAANGs but misunderstood as you saying it was not for a FAANG and was a base salary. Probably just my understanding. I can see $500k-$1m for a FAANG with base/stock option/tenure/bonus.

Being a SWE with even an implementor background in security is quite lucrative. Someone has to make all the crypto libraries that mathematicians come up with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com