5 ms·

I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one. Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not kno

I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one. Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not known for low pay.

CaptSpify 11y ago
You'd be surprised how low people are willing to go in a tough economy. I think the bigger issue is also that techs aren't given a fair-income, especially at places like Amazon, because of the H-1B scam. If you are young and trying to get your foot in the door, you'll put up with the low pay.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Considering most entry-level positions in big tech pay well but come with outrageous hours and no overtime, an accusation of low pay seems justified. I know plenty of Google engineers who recently started in the Bay Area at around $86,000. Considering the amount of time they're expected to work and the costs of living there, that's pretty pathetic for a huge company with deep pockets.
- lbotos 11y ago
  >Entry level Position. Median salary for SF Region in 2014 was $75,900. Thats ~10k over the median for an ENTRY level position. Sure, could Google pay them more, absolutely. But I don't think 86k a year is anything to scoff at.
  - nilkn 11y ago
    Why should you expect a very technically demanding position that requires passing strenuous filters and interviews to not pay much beyond the median in the entire area across all jobs? Should doctors who've just completed their residency start at $75-85k too just because they're technically entry-level?
- nilkn 11y ago
  $86k at Google in 2015? That's the lowest starting salary there I've heard in 5+ years. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that not even the cachet of Google could get me to accept that salary in the Bay Area when I could get the same salary in Texas and live twice as nice of a life.
- gogthr 11y ago
  I don't believe there are full time engineers at Google making less than 6 figures. Right out of college at Google I'm making 105 base and way more with stocks/bonuses.
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    Wait, so you're making only ~5% more than the threshold you don't believe exists? You don't think that among the many thousands of people working at Google, perhaps someone has 10% worse negotiating ability than you, or someone's background and experience impressed their interviewers 10% less? Or work in an area of the country with 10% less cost of living?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      You missed this bit: > and way more with stocks/bonuses. The base pay is one thing, the total is quite another. Don't be surprised if the total comes to 200K +.
seiji 11y ago
Pay is not an absolute number. If you make $100,000 per year at an 8 person company, but the company's profit is $12 billion per year — do you have low pay? The tech industry has discovered you can make employees happy by paying them more than "average," but it's still a lot lower than the benefits, productivity, and supernormal growth powers employees are providing to companies. A productive software developer is worth at a minimum $3 million per year.
- ColinCochrane 11y ago
  Not that I necessarily disagree, but how did you arrive at $3 million per year?
  - seiji 11y ago
    Take your yearly salary and turn it into an hourly rate. The standard number is 2087 hours per year for a salaried employee. So, let's say $100k per year. That's (roughly, rounded up) $50 per hour. What's minimum wage? A few places have minimum, uneducated, non-creative wage of $15 per hour. Your hourly rate of $50/hr is about 3x of just somebody who does manual, non-creative labor. Are you worth more than 3x of a restaurant employee? I sure am. Then, what's your "better than a non-creative womp" multiplier for your output? 10x? Surely you provide more than 10x value as compared to a fast food employee. You're a creative force (or, you can be when you apply yourself). 100x? That's more in the correct range. So, 100x * minimum wage of $15/hr * 2087 hours/year = $3 million per year.
- sgustard 11y ago
  Amazon's profit per employee is about $2400. Not sure they can swing that. (360m/150k)
  - seiji 11y ago
    Well, Amazon profit is fictional since they dump so much back into R&D&Growth. Amazon simply canceled $170 million (http://recode.net/2014/10/23/amazon-takes-170-million-writedown-on-weak-fire-phone-sales/ http://recode.net/2014/10/23/amazon-takes-170-million-writed...) due to their fire phone failure. Or, they could have given each employee working on the project a bonus of a little over a million dollars. Easy come, easy go.
cryoshon 11y ago
Hm, based off of the wage-fixing done by some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, I'd say that the pay that tech workers actually get is probably lower than what they're worth. Doesn't mean they have low pay in absolute terms, but I think that for the most part, tech workers could do much better, given the high demand we're seeing right now.

I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one. Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not known for low pay.

CaptSpify 11y ago

You'd be surprised how low people are willing to go in a tough economy. I think the bigger issue is also that techs aren't given a fair-income, especially at places like Amazon, because of the H-1B scam. If you are young and trying to get your foot in the door, you'll put up with the low pay.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Considering most entry-level positions in big tech pay well but come with outrageous hours and no overtime, an accusation of low pay seems justified. I know plenty of Google engineers who recently started in the Bay Area at around $86,000. Considering the amount of time they're expected to work and the costs of living there, that's pretty pathetic for a huge company with deep pockets.

lbotos 11y ago
>Entry level Position. Median salary for SF Region in 2014 was $75,900. Thats ~10k over the median for an ENTRY level position. Sure, could Google pay them more, absolutely. But I don't think 86k a year is anything to scoff at.
- nilkn 11y ago
  Why should you expect a very technically demanding position that requires passing strenuous filters and interviews to not pay much beyond the median in the entire area across all jobs? Should doctors who've just completed their residency start at $75-85k too just because they're technically entry-level?
nilkn 11y ago
$86k at Google in 2015? That's the lowest starting salary there I've heard in 5+ years. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that not even the cachet of Google could get me to accept that salary in the Bay Area when I could get the same salary in Texas and live twice as nice of a life.
gogthr 11y ago
I don't believe there are full time engineers at Google making less than 6 figures. Right out of college at Google I'm making 105 base and way more with stocks/bonuses.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  Wait, so you're making only ~5% more than the threshold you don't believe exists? You don't think that among the many thousands of people working at Google, perhaps someone has 10% worse negotiating ability than you, or someone's background and experience impressed their interviewers 10% less? Or work in an area of the country with 10% less cost of living?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    You missed this bit: > and way more with stocks/bonuses. The base pay is one thing, the total is quite another. Don't be surprised if the total comes to 200K +.

seiji 11y ago

Pay is not an absolute number. If you make $100,000 per year at an 8 person company, but the company's profit is $12 billion per year — do you have low pay? The tech industry has discovered you can make employees happy by paying them more than "average," but it's still a lot lower than the benefits, productivity, and supernormal growth powers employees are providing to companies. A productive software developer is worth at a minimum $3 million per year.

ColinCochrane 11y ago
Not that I necessarily disagree, but how did you arrive at $3 million per year?
- seiji 11y ago
  Take your yearly salary and turn it into an hourly rate. The standard number is 2087 hours per year for a salaried employee. So, let's say $100k per year. That's (roughly, rounded up) $50 per hour. What's minimum wage? A few places have minimum, uneducated, non-creative wage of $15 per hour. Your hourly rate of $50/hr is about 3x of just somebody who does manual, non-creative labor. Are you worth more than 3x of a restaurant employee? I sure am. Then, what's your "better than a non-creative womp" multiplier for your output? 10x? Surely you provide more than 10x value as compared to a fast food employee. You're a creative force (or, you can be when you apply yourself). 100x? That's more in the correct range. So, 100x * minimum wage of $15/hr * 2087 hours/year = $3 million per year.
sgustard 11y ago
Amazon's profit per employee is about $2400. Not sure they can swing that. (360m/150k)
- seiji 11y ago
  Well, Amazon profit is fictional since they dump so much back into R&D&Growth. Amazon simply canceled $170 million (http://recode.net/2014/10/23/amazon-takes-170-million-writedown-on-weak-fire-phone-sales/ http://recode.net/2014/10/23/amazon-takes-170-million-writed...) due to their fire phone failure. Or, they could have given each employee working on the project a bonus of a little over a million dollars. Easy come, easy go.

cryoshon 11y ago

Hm, based off of the wage-fixing done by some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, I'd say that the pay that tech workers actually get is probably lower than what they're worth. Doesn't mean they have low pay in absolute terms, but I think that for the most part, tech workers could do much better, given the high demand we're seeing right now.