The War for Software Talent in Silicon Valley Drives Salaries to Record Highs
m.jobspringpartners.com
m.jobspringpartners.com
I'm curious how much the escalating cost of housing is driving Silicon Valley base salary growth.
If I were in Silicon Valley making $130k base, I would be very interested to hear about $100k base jobs in lower cost of living areas. In areas like the sun belt, cost of living can be 40-50% lower than in the Bay Area, especially when you compare apples-to-apples for housing (i.e., a 3 bed, 2 bath in both markets).
Silicon Valley employers are competing with startups in San Antonio as much as startups in the Bay Area and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.
Either way, people and companies in the Bay Area will have a hard time if the state of things gets too out of sync with the standard-of-living expectations of the rest of the U.S.
I've been wondering about the living cost disparity for a while. So far, there's no evidence of trouble. I think it would be a reasonable move, however, for several big companies to all open offices in a (single) different area. This would allow employees to migrate without feeling locked in the current employer.
The salaries sound impressive until you start adjusting for cost of living. I live in a part of the country with a very low cost of living, and make what I consider to be a decent salary for a developer (less than six figures). According to CNN Money's Cost of Living Calculator (http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/), the equivalent standard of living in San Jose would require a salary of $131K (or $140K in San Francisco). Suddenly, the base salaries the article cites don't sound so impressive.
Chicago is a good option if you don't mind working in finance. Lots of companies out there that pay even better than SV; cost-of-living comparable to DC or Austin.
I'll just say this: a true "apples-to-apples" comparison can't be restricted to, e.g. the cost of a 3/2 in each market. The availability and quality of public services (parks, schools, government offices, etc.) and, for me, exposure to a variety of cultures, is a huge factor. Additionally there is consideration for the availability of work. My experience is that there simply isn't the wide availability of jobs elsewhere as in the Valley, even in places that are "hot" in the start-up scene, and for the most part they are more "enterprise-y" in nature (i.e. software developers belong in the IT department, are cost centers, and should be considered as fungible as our call center staff). Given the relatively disloyal, and even antagonistic view companies take towards employees I consider that last one to be a huge factor.
I will consider moving out of the Valley for a lower salary, when those places with lower salaries have: a) much higher job variety with more tech/software centric companies; b) much better public services and facilities.
The drawback is car-centric culture. I hate driving, but didn't realize how much I hate it, until I moved down here.
b) Are you talking about a metro system? I can count on one hand the number of U.S. cities that have the population density to support that. Feel free to make that a deal-breaker, but realize that you're paying a premium in cost-of-living and limiting your career options and exposure to other ways of life.
Otherwise, I don't know what public services means. The DMV in smaller towns tend to be much better. They have museums, concerts, conventions, and theaters in other cities.
For information back in 2000 the internal Day rate for BT in systems engineering was £300 and the rate for top tier integrators at the time was around the £600-900
This is an advertisement.
But either way, there's nothing wrong with "content marketing" as long as the content is sufficient quality and not spammy. Wanting to build a business and making money is not a evil dark pattern.
It's one of the few ways to market that adds value, rather than simply promotes. But of course there are those who exploit it evilly.
http://www.jobspringpartners.com/blog/posts/2013/3/4/the-war...
The MBAs tend to make that 2-10x capture less likely...
... and, as you noted, drive up the cost of living.
Granted, face-to-face is still necessary sometimes. I fly down to SF once a quarter to meet with my long-term client. They get a break on salary and I get to work at home so everyone's a winner.
Some companies build their culture around team's physical proximity and rapid iteration and communication flow that you get from that, but non-tech startups are usually pretty happy hiring someone to do Rails or iOS or other non-core function for them.
That means that Bay Area compensation packages need to keep ahead of the explosive growth of the cost of living in the Bay Area in order to stay competitive with an equivalent company in Denver or Houston.
In particular, I'm curious how much the cost of housing is driving growth in base salaries for Bay Area technologists.
If you were entry level at $70k, and now you're making $140k as a senior engineer, you're going to have to either do a start-up or add a new, significant skill to your resume if you want to double up again, because you've peaked as "just a developer".
It would be interesting if companies become willing to give top engineers a higher compensation than management.
That irrationality is why there are so many consultants.