Ask HN: Is this a good package for an Engineering Manager in Seattle? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is this a good package for an Engineering Manager in Seattle?

$175k base + $80k Signing Bonus + $150k Stock

I think it is too low, for a person of your experience and past salary history and the responsibilities that you will be taking on.

At least this comment pays sarcastic homage to the lack of information in the question.

We really should discourage these obscure questions.

As an engineering manager who has been in 3 major tech companies here. I would say that's a good offer. I'm going to guess that signing bonus is over two years (pretty typical here), and stock is over 4 years (pretty typical here too). So you're looking at around a ~$250k/year salary. I know some engineering managers that have a higher total comp, but I know many more engineering managers that have a lower total comp.

Other things to consider (if you're comparing to bay area) is that total cost of living is much lower here and WA has no state tax.

Stating the stock in a dollar amount makes it harder to evaluate. I know that recruiters love to do that, but it obfuscates some important factors. That said, this doesn't seem out of line with the compensation I've seen for that position in Seattle. It does vary pretty widely depending on the company and experience. In some companies this would be higher than anything I've seen, and in others you could likely get more. It's hard to give a more concrete opinion with so little information.

K, I have a hard time not guessing that this is Amazon. If it is, you can do better.

Can't be Amazon. They cap base salary to $160k.

Related question: What is the most reasonable way to actually find relevant compensation info for this level of a position? Glassdoor responses seem to be wildly inaccurate.

Stock or stock options.

What a dilemma. :)

Figure out if that is sufficient for you to live on. Personally, I would take it, but negotiate the stock or signing bonus up if possible.

Your value to a company has nothing (AT ALL) to do with what you personally need to live on. That shouldn't enter into the equation.

The table has two sides.

For the company it's probably not relevant but for the employee it is. As long as the pay is financially sufficient for you then it's more important if the job is something you will enjoy doing and are a good fit for.

The pay does reflect how much value you bring to the company. The better you are for a position the greater value you should be providing and your pay should reflect this.

That's one way to look at it. If someone paid me a certain amount to live and work in Hawaii, for example, and I knew I would live well on that amount and it would make me happy then how do you optimize for happiness?

I make more than the proposed compensation and am no happier than when I was making half of that. I probably did something wrong in making my arrangements but it wasn't in the money department.

So actually Hawaii has an incredibly high cost of living.

Turns out there are lots of people who are attracted to the allure, and a limited amount of space.

Were you offered this, or are you an employer trying to attract talent?

There needs to be some minimum of context before anybody can answer this.

150k stock yearly? Options or straight stock? Figure out their actual (yearly) value first.

Is $150k stock per year or for 4 year period?

depends on the company and level

Reply on news.ycombinator.com