Blind is such a toxic place... I always come off shocked at how awful people are on there. Only focused on "TC", and nothing else.
"TC" gives me and my family options to do other big things in the world.
Yes, I want to take two big family vacations a year, live in a great neighborhood/ school district, and give my kids extra opportunities.
Optimizing for "TC" makes sense.
Being highly visible inside and outside my company has opened up more opportunity long term in terms of being offered consulting roles and opportunities in early stage startups then being a worker bee at Amazon for 2 years until you burnout. I know many people who have taken that route and it's one of many paths.
If you're a good engineer and can sell your work, contribute visibly to open source projects in your area of expertise and can present at conferences you'll have more opportunities than a worker bee at FAANG.
Someone out there is building the next big thing and if you're focusing just on getting the biggest paycheck you'll be watching from the outside.
The reality is that even if someone is a good engineer, they may not always have the right opportunities, they may struggle to sell their work, or they may have other challenges that we cannot foresee.
With such unpredictability in mind, all advice here on HN is anecdotal, and everyone has to optimize for their specific situation. Optimizing for TC isn't necessarily bad, it may be the only option at a better life for some people.
It is deleterious to community per se. Islands of nuclear families does not a community make.
It's true there are people who straddle both worlds -- those who use TC to improve and embolden their community. But I would bet a lot of money that it's mostly people who spend frivolously and selfishly so that their kids go to good schools and have good opportunities, but that others' kids don't get access to the same kinds of on-ramps to success.
Getting a higher TC does not take opportunities away from other people. What kind of communist thought is this? Line employees at these companies aren’t the ones appealed to in “The Gospel of Wealth”.
It really is remarkable how, every time this subject comes up, reactionaries can swing only at straw men. It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the arguments of their supposed opponents, which makes them seem naive at best.
In fact, seeing opposition where there is room for discussion is part and parcel of the same phenomenon of self-centeredness that I discuss above.
Communism as a political organizational principle requires by definition the use of force (via government) to enforce its dicta. Where did I advocate using force? Where did I mention or even imply the involvement of a government at all?
The word you may be thinking of is collectivism, as a counterpart to individualism, the axis of which obviously aligns much closer with the discussion we've been having above than anything on the capitalism/communism axis. But "collectivism" isn't a 20th century dog-whistle boogeyman so I can see why it dodged your reactionary tendencies.
> If you're a good engineer and can sell your work, contribute visibly to open source projects in your area of expertise and can present at conferences
You are describing the top 1-5% of engineers here. Yes if you are in the top, you can literally do anything you want. For the rest of us who are writing software to make a living, we might as well maximize the money we earn as easily as we can
A while back, I estimated myself around 7-15%, based on an average of "average ___" searches (not remotely rigorous). I was shocked, given that I'm an essentially-average software developer in an essentially-average developer role. I would have been impressed with a "top 30%", given all the talented people in the industry who are paid much more than I. I tried a few more things, and eventually felt pretty confident in a "top 10%", but it still didn't feel right.
To me (and I'm not disagreeing with you here), a "top 1-5%" engineer is one of those mysterious dragons that codes with toggle switches in octal deep inside of a lair of some kind, has invented or described an entire domain of knowledge, language, and/or operating system, etc. - and I certainly don't feel 2-5% away from that, lemme tell ya.
It was kind of like waking up to find out that my name and email address had been entered into an archive of humanity's most important code - all the critical stuff we would need to start over if a meteor struck and brought the dinosaurs back or whatever. It was burned, IIRC, into a golden USB drive, a platinum LaserDisc, and that special paper librarians like, stored forever in a super-sekret vault deep in the Arctic, next to the seeds, I assume.
Certainly, the handful of miscellaneous patches, like un-hard-coding a variable here-and-there, in relatively minor projects, and on features nobody was really using anyway, doesn't make me or my code that important (or even necessary, in most cases). And yet, when the future archeologists knock over a seed pot and discover the Ancient Golden USB Drive of GitHub Commits, I'll be on that list.
I especially like the thought of it being displayed, context-free, in some alien museum, a la Linear B, with a note that says "We have no idea what this means", or maybe "developer complains about security vs. business priorities in comment about encryption". Anyone else get the Arctic Code Vault Contributor badge?
Anyway, as I rationalize it, the Top 20% are the ones already here, doing it, making my Top 7% more in line with my gut feeling of "a little above average sometimes, but by no means exceptional". The 80% are those people merely thinking about learning to code, only considering contributing to open source, abandoning starter kits and tutorials 3/4s of the way through, etc. Maybe they'll join us one day soon.
This also demystifies the dragon: we're making that same error that saw Bernie Sanders' "Top 1% of The 1%" (The 0.01%, or 0.0001) diluted into Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson's "Top 1%" and, eventually, "Top 10%" (a thing I especially resent as a self-described 7%-er).
These errors are so common - hopefully I didn't do it in that parenthetical - that Google's on-site prep material included a handout specifically on this topic.
Google, I said! Have you heard it's 10x harder to get into Google than Harvard? They only accept something like 0.2 (or was it 0.2%?) of candidates.
Harvard! That most selective of institutions, whose discrimination is only surpassed by the most exclusive of exclusive organizations, like Google and Wal-Mart.
Only some exceedingly-small percentage of candidates, with the denominator being every half-assed application of every entirely-unqualified candidate ever submitted, even get invited to an on-site interview. What an exclusive club!
I haven't been admitted to any of them, of course - I blame it on answering the steal-the-pen question wrong on the WalMart kiosk when I was 17 and it ending up on my Permanent Record - but it might also be because I never even applied to Harvard. Carlin was right: it's a big club, and [we] ain't in it.
So, by some metrics, I guess I am in the top 1-5% of developers, but those metrics are sketch.
So, as one of humanity's most important top 1-5% developers, I can say with great authority that, if you're already out here reading this and have typed "git push" at any point in the past week, you're much closer to that "top 1-5%" than you think. You CAN do anything* you want! (Including enjoying your weekends!) The Magic, I'm told, is in the work one has been avoiding.
P.S. If you do it this weekend on just about any open source project, you'll officially, definitionally, be an open source contributor! (And I promise the recruiter bots will find your email and you'll have more (interview) offers than gift card scams in your inbox in no time)
They key is, showing up consistently over time for years and years. That's the key, and that's the hard part
> If you do it this weekend on just about any open source project, you'll officially, definitionally, be an open source contributor!
Nobody cares if you made some 1 line change to some OSS project. Any meaningful change requires more work and effort
On the spectrum of unemployed fry cook to 6-figure tech job, "attracting recruiter spam bots" and "attracting overly-clever recruiters" isn't far from actually Getting There and/or Making It - so long as you keep showing up and making an effort. Definitely not a quick life hack.
Long-ish term career moves are really the only reason I check on that stuff anyway, and get more value from the relative rankings of, say, language popularity and jobs, than any number I come to. I work in a job I like, in an industry I like, in a language I like at a very fair rate, so I'm not too concerned about it, but part of that is from figuring out what were dead-ends/non-starters for me, identifying niches, etc. (+1 for the ikigai thing, too).
> Nobody cares if you made some 1 line change to some OSS project. Any meaningful change requires more work and effort
For sure, if you're presenting yourself as "a [project name here] developer", but the conversation in interviews I've had has tended to center around, say, how we used to use [that horrible old thing] until we found [shiny new thing].
I'm pretty sure I've never impressed anyone with my OSS contributions, save maybe one person who somehow remembered an exact bug and considered fixing it, but I think we were more impressed we both remembered the bug than the handful of lines of code it took to replace `insecureConnections: true` with `insecureConnections: $insecureConnections` and add a `caCerts` property to be passed in to a constructor somewhere.
So I guess again, it was the pattern of making minor fixes ("just showing up") rather than being some super l33t hax04 genius or major project maintainer or whatever that got me the credit that mattered.
That's way more work, though. It's really TC over time investment that they talk about on Blind. Nothing will beat FAANG or the hedge funds in that respect.
Are you aware of other options, such as non-shit jobs?
So then I say a better strategy is to do work that pays above market but you still enjoy instead of something significantly higher paying job that you dont enjoy. Just 2c from a middle aged techie.
The one thing you probably can't 100% count on having the ability to do when you get old is work, which is why it's so important to "make hay while the sun shines" as they say--max that salary while you can. Especially in the tech industry where there's already so much ageism. I am not counting on my ability to pass an interview or actual physical do work, beyond like 60 or so, but still need to financially prepare to live to 90. I think some people on HN just assume they'll be capable of working up until their final day, so why save?
TC is tangential to all of that. If getting a higher TC decreases work life balance, then it actually doesn't give you and your family options to do other things in the world, it literally detracts from it. If a higher TC means a longer commute, you are losing out on time that you could be doing things with your family. Having more stress for more TC lowers your health (mental and physical) and can significantly strain family life.
TC is literally only one dimension that should be optimized for. There are many other factors that should be taken into consideration with a job, because burning yourself out before you are 50 just so you can maybe hope to retire early isn't always worth it, and isn't guaranteed to even actually work out.
Person 1. "I'm a junior engineer and two senior engineers just left my team, now I'm being asked to do do a bunch of work that they used to handle."
Person 2. "If they aren't bumping your pay immediately you should leave. Never do senior work for junior pay."
Now this person is missing out on a huge opportunity to get a ton of experience and prove themselves to be invaluable.
I pay my mortage with opportunities, exposure and experience too.
There's so much more to work than compensation and this post proves it. Being on a good team is 100x more important than what you're paid. Good teams elevate engineers and give you a better career path in your future. I make SL level compensation and non-SL level companies because my value is high, not because my employer can overpay for mediocrity.
There's too many engineers who think the secret to success is to get hired at the right company and then they just sail on to a dream career. I've worked with enough people from those big companies who left, some after long careers, to know that it's simply not true.
A lot of people see the impactful work that happens at these big companies and assume that's the impact they'll make as well. What they don't get is those big companies literally poach PhDs or buy smaller companies to get that kind of talent.
Needless to say, if I was offered these compensations (or higher), I'll gladly take even 10 years of incompetence around me to then be able to do fuck all for the rest of my life (or, well, things I actually enjoy doing, not for a megacorporation). Being an elevated engineer doesn't pay the bills.
It doesn't get you that far.
Consider tax and cost of life in NYC/SF/London where you won't be able to buy a house anyway, and you're left with 50k to save a year. In other places, you're less likely to get such a TC.
Sure, it's a lot of money, but not enough to change your social status. It adds up if you manage to stay long enough there, but considering ageism and burning out, you're not in the same leagues as let say doctors, or people who inherited 1 million after selling their parents house.
For comparaison, there are extremely few SWEs in FAANG over 50 years old.
You're mistaking the exponential growth of the SWE "profession" with Ageism.
The time to acquire a fellowship seems to be a couple years.
During that the time it takes for a doctor to go through med school, residency and specialist training (after which they would have the income numbers you cited), the FAANG careerist would probably have risen through the ranks and have comparable income numbers anyway.
If you want to make an argument that the overall career arc of a software engineer is better off than that of a physician, then that's a very different statement than GP made. (My personal view - strictly from a monetary standpoint, medicine in the US is more lucrative than big tech over the course of a ~40 year career, when you take into account lifestyle and personal flexibility, tech comes out looking better).
To me this is an important difference between these two careers. Ageism is a thing in tech and in corporations in general. Of course, a few winners can climb the ladder and have a lucrative corporate career or earn enough money to retire early. But lots of SWEs get pushed out in their 50s or don't manage to work in fast pace / high pay environments for decades.
I don't see which row. Levels.fyi says L5 Google SWE is 350k. The left column in your link has a header saying specialty. "Family medicine" is 270k in your data set. Nothing in the 350k range vaguely resembles general practice.
> If you want to make an argument that
I'm not trying to make any argument, except to counter yours.
> not sure if this is a tech industry coping mechanism
Heh. I can't speak of the industry as a whole, but I don't think I'm coping in any way. I'd say in medicine you know the demand for your skills is going to be stable, worldwide. In tech, there's no way to project 20 years into the future.
Alright, let's consider this: my current gross salary is at 47k €. With what my boss pays, let's say it would be the equivalent of 100k in the US (unemployment, social security, etc). And I'm from France, which is a pretty wealthy first world country. My salary puts me in about the top 20% in terms of salary.
If you think I wouldn't be able to commute for 2 hours every day for 2.5x salary so i could save up MY ENTIRE CURRENT SALARY IN A YEAR, you have massive blinders preventing you from realising how privileged of a status it'll be. The amount of people that can put 50k aside in a year is ridiculously small. And 50k is actually being awful at saving, you can easily reach 100k if you're not a dumbass.
Now consider this for an indian H1B, who can pretty much make an entire family live like kings off of that.
No, you don't realise just how much of a life changing amount 250k is.
My lifestyle hasn't changed to the slightest, except I work more. I won't be able to sustain that lifestyle for many years, because ageism + stressful job. For comparison, in France, 10% of people inherit more than 500K without doing nothing. I'll probably never reach that level of savings, won't ever be able to live in a house and so on...
I'm not complaining as I'm in a privileged situation. But in countries like France, inequalities come primarily from inheritance. It's hard to lift yourself from middle class with salary alone.
So you're at least E6 and less than 30 or/and you join the companies when stocks were low. Don't think your particular case is the same as everyone else. Some people go to FAANG at E5 in their late 30s in Europe/Asia. 200K is more the norm for them, and it's not sure they'll be cruising until 50 in an IC position.
Spot on! It's a race for them to keep moving up the TC ladder and then show off within their social circles. Their all now on to the new fad i.e working at HFT firms. I work at one and the questions I see on Blind, regarding HFT's, is a source of constant laughter for those of us in the industry.
Some great examples: "I have never written a line of production C++. If I do leetcode in C++ will that get me a job working on ultra low-latency systems?".