> "compensation packages people are talking are still like a quarter of what was typical a year ago if that"
You mean much less stock? I can't imagine a senior engineer getting a $50k in annual salary, only in the cash component.
You mean much less stock? I can't imagine a senior engineer getting a $50k in annual salary, only in the cash component.
Anyway, just letting you know that we’re out here.
I'm curious—how does this work? More responsibility ought to mean more compensation—what incentive is there to be a boss if you'll make the same as your reports?
I believe the theory is to avoid the Peter principle. If someone is promoted into a position for which they are not competent, then they can be transferred back to their old position without lowering their salary (since it’s been the same salary the whole time). I also think there’s some stuff about passion, grit, and drive that’s been imported from the private sector.
This seems extremely low for the US. I've had trouble in the past hiring good sr. engineers in the 150-200k range outside of a tech hub.
Are devs staying because they believe in what they do and are willing to take lower compensation?
Because I wouldn't go to work for a startup even for that much (which is over 2x my current salary). The instability and likelihood of toxic techbro culture (eg, "fast-paced work environment, with people passionate about what they do", aka "you'll be expected to work 80-100 hours a week"...) are just way too high.
I don't know if you're in US or Europe or somewhere else, but "2x my current salary", meaning you're around ~75-100k? In the US that's low for software aside from maybe early career or if you're working for some non-software-oriented company, from what I can tell now that salaries are starting to be publicly listed on more and more jobs.
You're probably doing yourself a disservice by at the very least not even exploring other options and sticking at one place out of comfort.
Just my 2 cents, you know your situation better than some rando on the internet.
I’m sort of L7/L8 with an ML infra focus in California and total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k and now people are seeming to need to “call upstairs” to talk above 150. So maybe half-ish would be closer than the quarter-ish I threw out in my comment.
I was kind of factoring in inflation and that stock comp in a mature public company at a 30-40 PE is unlikely to hold up for 4 years.
That was probably an unsustainable bubble on the long run, inflation adjusted, unless you hold exceptionally rare skills that can't be replicated or taught. It was simply the result of a severely unbalanced market. I'm sure some people still make 400k+, but I'm also sure their performance and contribution is scrutinized quarterly and they are the first on the chopping block unless they hold internal political clout or are famous.
When I was a FAANG EM I was an L7, so like one below director.
The market will be what the market will be, there’s no absolute right and wrong, but it doesn’t seem totally crazy that someone leveled around there would make what a successful doctor or lawyer does.
I’m a childless bachelor so it’s not particularly important to me to hit those comp levels again, but as a general thing I think software engineers should be considered on par for a given experience as any other job that requires decades of intense practice to get really good at in a field where one’s employer is making a healthy profit.
Please, please try to remember that not only is Silicon Valley relatively small in terms of the total number of programmers (of whatever particular job title) it employs, it's also a massive outlier in terms of compensation.
Most places that programmers work don't offer equity of any kind, and $100k is still a high salary for many types of programming and tech work outside of SV.