6 ms·

In the bay area the average for juniors is only 90k, and most people cap out at 120k or so, unless they have top-tier degrees, incredible negotiating skills, or

In the bay area the average for juniors is only 90k, and most people cap out at 120k or so, unless they have top-tier degrees, incredible negotiating skills, or something.

gearoidoc 11y ago
"Only" 90k.
- rwmurrayVT 11y ago
  "Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.
    - Apocryphon 11y ago
      1. More and more people are commuting from there. 2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space. 3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.
    - BrianEatWorld 11y ago
      Oakland is almost just as bad. I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership. Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.
    - coke12 11y ago
      BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).
  - wdmeldon 11y ago
    What the hell does "reasonable location" even mean?
    - rwmurrayVT 11y ago
      It means you aren't spending 4 hours a day commuting. The comments all around you describe the situation in SF and the surrounding area.
      - wdmeldon 11y ago
        Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.
- m3talridl3y 11y ago
  Don't worry, 75% will go to the cost of the privilege of living in the bay area.
- gsibble 11y ago
  90k is essentially broke in SF.
  - no_wave 11y ago
    You're insane
    - beambot 11y ago
      In SF, a nice two bedroom apartment runs about $6k/mo. It is insane, not GP.
    - kec 11y ago
      The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.
      - no_wave 11y ago
        You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?
    - pc86 11y ago
      "in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory. Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.
      - lgg 11y ago
akhilcacharya 11y ago
How much worse off would you say a non-top tier grad would be in the Bay, if at all?
joesmo 11y ago
From my experience, I'd say the cap is around $150k in the bay area or so for standard senior positions regardless of degree. The degree is absolutely irrelevant and in many cases if you have an advanced degree, (Masters, PHD) it can work against you (if you don't actually know how to build things). For reference, with the cost of living being where it is, I'd say anything < $200k in the bay area is not enough to live on and save comfortably, but that's just my opinion. As far as I know, there aren't any startups offering $200k or above (or even close) for engineering jobs in the bay area.
- cableshaft 11y ago
  The guy in the article linked an article, whose author (Dan Luu) seems to think that $250k (total compensation) is pretty much a given for anyone with 5 years of experience working for a big company (i.e. Google or Facebook or Microsoft), and claims that anyone who thinks you can't make that much talk to the tens of thousands of engineers that do. Is it really that common? When I was interviewing in San Francisco and Seattle at big companies (Zynga and Disney) a couple of years ago, they were wanting to pay me around $130k for a senior position, which didn't seem worth the move. I also interviewed at Google and while I didn't get as far as salary negotiations, I was lead to believe by the recruiter, I think, that it would start around $110k-ish, although it also wasn't for a senior role. I don't see how Dan Luu is thinking $200k+ salary is on the low end out there. If I could expect to get that I might actually consider moving to the west coast.
  - swimorsinka 11y ago
    Take a look at Glassdoor. What you're saying is accurate, but where Google, Facebook, etc really take off is in equity compensation. In my case at Goog, I started off with a small equity grant, vesting over 4 years. So after the first year, I had equity vesting every quarter. Assuming you do ok/well, you'll get refresher grants every single year after that. Fast forward 3 or 4 years, and you have 4 separate grants vesting every single quarter. This quickly adds up to 50+K a year, and that's where these numbers come from, even if they're not reflected in your base pay.
  - 11y ago

In the bay area the average for juniors is only 90k, and most people cap out at 120k or so, unless they have top-tier degrees, incredible negotiating skills, or something.

gearoidoc 11y ago

"Only" 90k.

rwmurrayVT 11y ago
"Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.
  - Apocryphon 11y ago
    1. More and more people are commuting from there. 2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space. 3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.
  - BrianEatWorld 11y ago
    Oakland is almost just as bad. I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership. Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.
  - coke12 11y ago
    BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).
- wdmeldon 11y ago
  What the hell does "reasonable location" even mean?
  - rwmurrayVT 11y ago
    It means you aren't spending 4 hours a day commuting. The comments all around you describe the situation in SF and the surrounding area.
    - wdmeldon 11y ago
      Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.
m3talridl3y 11y ago
Don't worry, 75% will go to the cost of the privilege of living in the bay area.
gsibble 11y ago
90k is essentially broke in SF.
- no_wave 11y ago
  You're insane
  - beambot 11y ago
    In SF, a nice two bedroom apartment runs about $6k/mo. It is insane, not GP.
  - kec 11y ago
    The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.
    - no_wave 11y ago
      You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?
  - pc86 11y ago
    "in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory. Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.
    - lgg 11y ago

akhilcacharya 11y ago

How much worse off would you say a non-top tier grad would be in the Bay, if at all?

joesmo 11y ago

From my experience, I'd say the cap is around $150k in the bay area or so for standard senior positions regardless of degree. The degree is absolutely irrelevant and in many cases if you have an advanced degree, (Masters, PHD) it can work against you (if you don't actually know how to build things). For reference, with the cost of living being where it is, I'd say anything < $200k in the bay area is not enough to live on and save comfortably, but that's just my opinion. As far as I know, there aren't any startups offering $200k or above (or even close) for engineering jobs in the bay area.

cableshaft 11y ago
The guy in the article linked an article, whose author (Dan Luu) seems to think that $250k (total compensation) is pretty much a given for anyone with 5 years of experience working for a big company (i.e. Google or Facebook or Microsoft), and claims that anyone who thinks you can't make that much talk to the tens of thousands of engineers that do. Is it really that common? When I was interviewing in San Francisco and Seattle at big companies (Zynga and Disney) a couple of years ago, they were wanting to pay me around $130k for a senior position, which didn't seem worth the move. I also interviewed at Google and while I didn't get as far as salary negotiations, I was lead to believe by the recruiter, I think, that it would start around $110k-ish, although it also wasn't for a senior role. I don't see how Dan Luu is thinking $200k+ salary is on the low end out there. If I could expect to get that I might actually consider moving to the west coast.
- swimorsinka 11y ago
  Take a look at Glassdoor. What you're saying is accurate, but where Google, Facebook, etc really take off is in equity compensation. In my case at Goog, I started off with a small equity grant, vesting over 4 years. So after the first year, I had equity vesting every quarter. Assuming you do ok/well, you'll get refresher grants every single year after that. Fast forward 3 or 4 years, and you have 4 separate grants vesting every single quarter. This quickly adds up to 50+K a year, and that's where these numbers come from, even if they're not reflected in your base pay.
- 11y ago