Hacker News Reader

Comment by runako | Hacker News Reader

According to the data here, salaries for "Senior software engineer" in both SF and NYC are lagging rental inflation over the last 5 years.

Does this jibe with reality? Is the data bad, or are engineers losing ground?

View on HN

The prevailing wage data does not necessarily reflect what people are actually paid. It is the minimum required salary for the company to be able to apply for a labour certification on behalf of a foreign worker. It is obviously in the company's interest to commit to the lowest salary the DOL will let them get away with for a given level of worker.

There is another potential effect: as part of the labour certification process, the company is required to post up the applications of all foreigners it is hiring in a "prominent location" for around two weeks, to make sure all other employees are aware of it. It can be rather awkward to post up an LCA with a number on it that is significantly higher than what others in the company are getting.

My experience has been that many people are paid significantly more than the prevailing wage on the application. As mentioned, this is also just the base rate, without bonuses or equity.

I would say this analysis is useful for drawing comparisons between companies and observing trends, but less useful for the absolute numbers.

To be honest the numbers sound low. This could be because visa holders don't have a lot of leverage when negotiating. I have seen much higher paystubs and offer letters for the listed companies in Seattle. And I imagine the valley and NYC pays more than Seattle despite some companies claiming they don't change pay based on location.

Low? They seem high! Is this total comp or just base?

These numbers seem low for just base. $120K in NYC for a senior engineer is low - anecdotally I see it more at $150-170K nowadays.

I don't think there's a good reason why a capable, senior engineer would entertain a total comp under $200K these days in NYC - and I know many companies here that play with these numbers.

I think the fact that these are labor cert numbers definitely skews the data downwards.

You know, whenever we get one of these salary articles on HN, there's always one or two people chiming in with vague anecdotes like "That seems really low! Most engineers I know are making $200K+!" or "Company X pays engineers $250K LOL" despite the fact that most responses (backed up by averages from anonymously-reported salaries like Glassdoor) seem to agree that $90-$140K is about average in SF and NYC.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd love to, one day, actually see a real, specific engineering job posting with a published (or unpublished) base salary offering over $200K. Just one.

Yeah, it's tough. Especially since everyone inflates their earnings. But this is what I surmised after researching and interviewing at a dozen companies:

I compared my offers with friends and concluded a mid level (non-senior, not college hire) dev should make at least 135k for base salary and enough stocks and bonuses to surpass 200k per year. This is for Seattle as of spring 2014. However I followed my heart and accepted a slightly lower offer to join a start up.

Caveat: never believe any compensation numbers you read online or hear in person. People brag and exaggerate. Engineers lie to recruiters, recruiters lie to engineers, recruiters lie to other recruiters, and engineers lie to each other. I only believe numbers when I 1) see an offer letter, 2) see a pay stub, or 3) hear multiple people with the same job title tell me identical numbers.

My rent is going up by 10% next month at lease renewal time. My yearly review/raise increase was ~1%.

You have to consider housing cost as a % of your salary, not as a % of itself.

For example, say your rent is $1000 and your salary is $100k. A 10% increase of rent is $100; a 1% salary increase is $1000. Net gain $900.

Excellent point except for the math mistake! A 10% rent increase in $1000/month rent make the new rent $1100/month, so your total additional cost is $1200/year, not $100/year!

Then, on top of all that, your salary increase is taxable. A $1,000 salary increase will only get you about an extra $600 per year. So, you're certainly not coming out ahead.

My actual numbers are a $300/month rent increase (which totals $3,600 more per year for the same space and the same services) combined with a less than $3,000 pre-tax raise for the year.

Also see any generic michaelochurch rant about how landlords try to capture all economic gains (and they require "proof of income" so they know how much you _could_ afford if you really had to).

Slightly OT, but I am wondering what would happen if the landlords were tax at 100% (or even more) on the rent they perceive. I have this weird dream where it wouldn't be profitable to speculate on real estate, and real estate would become a commodity just like cars.

Meh, land is an asset, and they aren't making any more of it. A reasonable person would expect use cost to increase over time, especially in high-population centers like SF and NYC where the game is basically "is someone else as qualified as you willing to pay me more?" -- which is, incidentally, the same game we play with our salaries.

That's why fixed-rate mortgages are so great. Your housing payment is guaranteed not to rise! (taxes notwithstanding)

The salary in this example is per year, the rent is per month. So actually a 10% rent increase is $1200 per year and a 1% salary increase is $1000 per year for a net loss of $200.

Whoops, you're right. Point still stands though, comparing growth the way the GP did is misleading.

Got a 17% rent bump on peninsula. Seems rents are in fact rising faster than salaries for tech workers and for non-tech workers this kind of inflation must be unimaginable!

At least if you work for Google (as I do), comp growth seems to stay ahead of costs if your lifestyle doesn't change too much. But if you want to get married and have a kid (and live in a two-bedroom apartment) it starts feeling pretty expensive pretty fast. And housing costs are nuts in NYC (on top of the raw numbers, which might be comparable to SF at the low end, the market is obfuscated by slimy agents and a cheap apartment in NYC can be of shockingly poor quality).

Is the data bad, or are engineers losing ground?

Everyone is losing ground. Engineers are just less fucked than most of the Former Middle Class. The Satanic Trinity of housing, healthcare, and education is going up faster than pay for pretty much everyone except corporate upper management.

I don't think the data's bad. Not even close. Those numbers seem about accurate for starting salaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com