100k income per year + 33% for employer taxes, medical/fringe benefits, etc, so 133k.
1.5 years of work at 133k/yr = ~200k payout.
I wouldn't call that low since it already hinges on massively inflated salaries due to massively inflated cost of living for developers in hubs.
That 100k of buying power in SF would come from about a 55-60k salary in my area. (1)
(1) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moving+from+San+Francis...
Why would you say that's inflated? Engineering is a professional occupation that requires a high degree of skill and education. Much like lawyers, doctors and other forms of professions. Many of the companies that employ software engineers at those salaries are highly profitable. From big names like Google, Oracle, Facebook, Apple and Amazon to smaller companies like FrogCreek, Atlassian, and New Relic. So why would you say they're inflated? Software engineers are employed by companies with real products, that provide real value. Salaries have been at these levels for over a decade now, in fact there was a big dip after 2000 when pay actually was hugely inflated, but within a few years pay rose again to current levels. I'd say when you've been earning a salary long enough at these levels to buy a home and raise a child that it's a stable market rate and not inflated.
E.g. I've read about landlords who raise their rent because of the presence of a google bus stop nearby.
In 1998 (at about the height of the dotcom bubble) a 1-bedroom apartment in my apartment building was renting for ~$500/month. In 2010 (shortly after the real-estate bubble collapse) that same apartment rented out for ~$1500/month.
Does it seem to you that tech worker salaries explain that 3x increase? Remember that as of last year, tech workers made up ~8% of SF's population.
That is very low according to my memory. I was in Santa Clara in that time and my rent was over $1000/mo.
Now, I wasn't down in SF with all the cool kids. I do remember that SF in that time frame was right at a gentrification inflection where there were really expensive places right next to buildings that should have been condemned, so I'm willing to concede your point.
> Does it seem to you that tech worker salaries explain that 3x increase? Remember that as of last year, tech workers made up ~8% of SF's population.
Yes. That one is easy. Nobody wants to rent to the 92% combined with highly restricted supply.
Even back in the DotBomb days, there was a reason why people were commuting from the Fresno area. (152 would be bumper to bumper at 4:30AM in the morning!)
It was stupid, but that demonstrates how bad things are in the central valley.
So then developer salaries in other parts of the country that are 40-50% lower due to correspondingly low costs of living on this areas are what, then?
Also remember all your local services are done by employees that have to pay rent too, and businesses have to pay rent (that one actually is tax deductible).
These days, I visit Seattle and Spokane a lot. Seattle is of course, a lot more expensive than Spokane, or it is supposed to be. But restaurants are much more expensive in Spokane than Seattle. Heck, across the border in Idaho where minimum wage is a lot less than WA, they are even more expensive than Spokane.
I've lived in Switzerland and now live in China. These places are much more expensive in some goods (like cars, clothes, china is cheap in eating out at least). The differentials are much greater than anything you would encounter in the states.
California state income tax is also more than double that of Michigan's at those income levels.
That really depends on what kind of code you're writing. If you're gluing together web frameworks then, I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider that engineering, and it certainly doesn't require a large amount of education and skill.
Feel free to disagree with people, but please try to avoid misconstruing their arguments.
In any case I think you're underestimating the value of benefits provided by large tech companies. Free food, top-end health insurance, maternity/paternity leave, gym memberships, retirement contributions, bonuses, etc. all add up. I've commonly heard the rule of thumb that total cost-to-employer is roughly $2N for an employee making $N in nominal salary.
The point about location is reasonable: it's harder to get a six-figure salary doing remote work, which is effectively what this is. Still I think people shouldn't be shocked about the amount of money in play here. Given the risk, it's a good payout but not a great one for someone of his (clearly very high) skill level.
The higher your salary the less your employer is paying as a percentage of your income. There's very little difference in overhead between someone making $100k and someone making $150k. The overhead difference will only be a few thousand dollars more for the person making $150k.
Logically, you would think so, but remember that many benefits scale with salary/seniority. Things like retirement plan matching and vacation accrual rate. Also perks like better offices, parking, "training" in attractive destinations.
Is it really fair to say developer salaries around the $200k mark are being inflated?
Developers work can have an impact on millions of people, yet we keep expecting all of this work for a $60k salary.
I've found that only developers/programmers do this self flagellation, almost all other professions complain about $200k being too low, not too high, and expect more. (Lawyers, Doctors, and even some electrical/mechanical engineers)
It's just a shame, as I find it hard finding good work as a programmer as my peers fight for lower and lower salaries.
I had a naive hope that this industry would mature and fight for higher salaries, but whenever I see programmers getting paid half that of a Lawyer or Doctor, self flagellation start to come into play.
Such as shame for an industry with the most potential to change the world.
I rented a 1700sq ft, 2 bed room, 2.5 bathroom, 2 story townhouse a 25 minute drive from Downtown Atlanta for $850/mo, and it had some luxury and I could have easily found lower prices than that moving a little further out (longer commute) or lowering the size/luxury.
225K is low compared to the standard? What standard are you talking about?
Either way, very impressive and well deserved.
Come on, how many bugs do you produce, while writing code? Do you bet 500$ that you are bug-free? Do you bet 500$ that the libraries that you are using are bugs-free? I don't.
In this sense I think guys like him are having a way of thinking more similar to a gamer : "I need to do this and I come to the next level, but the experience playing is more important than the next level!"
So... I doubt he thinks there's a 50% chance. He's just too good "gamer" and he knows the games so good that he actually won the four different versions of it.
Depends on location.
It's like the stock market. In the long run there are no miracles.
Many vuln research/development companies do offer bonuses for every effective exploit you write though, in which case it probably is better to work for such a company than to rely solely on bug bounties and competitions for income. Unfortunately, those same companies usually sell the exploits to the NSA and the intelligence agencies of other governments.
You can still sell your exploit to the black(site) market and later collect a bounty on it. You take some risk that someone else finds it or the party you sold it to leaks it.
Price accordingly.
Sounds like a good way to make dangerous enemies.
Legitimate question: What’s the difference?