4 ms·

No where in the article do they mention how they factor in cost of living into the comparison. As other commenters have pointed out, most studies naively make a

No where in the article do they mention how they factor in cost of living into the comparison. As other commenters have pointed out, most studies naively make a linear adjustment; i.e. if cost of living is 2x you need 2x the salary. This makes no sense. Say your cost of living is 30k and your salary is 100k in one city. In a 2nd City your cost of living is 60k and 180k. A rational economic decision would be to live in City 2 since it maximizes your savings. The linear adjustment based on cost of living only make sense if a person is saving 0% of their salary. The other issue is I don’t buy the 110k vs 130k difference in Austin. They are not considering total comp in which case the delta is way bigger. Finally, Hired is mostly used by startups and low to medium paying employers. There is a huger salary difference at large tech firms between SF and other cities. What this study is really saying is “if you want to work at medium size companies, don’t earn anything beyond a salary, and spend all of your salary San Francisco is not worth it”.

timr 9y ago
"Say your cost of living is 30k and your salary is 100k in one city. In a 2nd City your cost of living is 60k and 180k. A rational economic decision would be to live in City 2 since it maximizes your savings." This doesn't actually happen, except in the heads of naïve young dudes who want to justify living in SF right now. Total REAL compensation for a non-senior engineer in SF is somewhere around $130k right now, with some Magic Stock Bux (probably worthless! maybe not!) thrown in for fun...but those don't buy burritos. Total comp of $110k sounds reasonable for Austin, as well. You can shift the ranges up or down based on seniority, but the spread is about the same, and the range caps out at around $200k in both markets for all but the most exceptional people. In other words, the salary premium they're talking about here sounds right to me, and a premium of $20k a year is more than consumed by the 3x difference in rent, alone. You can perhaps justify going to SF on other grounds (career growth, networking, etc.), but it's not purely economically rational for most people.
- shados 9y ago
  Yeah, it is a gold rush. It's pretty easy (relatively speaking) to make well over 200k at a public company with some experience if you include stocks. And some people are lured by options of startups (it's a gamble!). It's harder to get that elsewhere. Not everyone (or most) get there, but a lot do, and even more try.
  - babaganoosh89 9y ago
    This, 200k+ is easy to get to in the Bay Area.
    - timr 9y ago
      No, it is not "easy" to get that. Most Bay Area jobs are not senior engineers at Google. Like I said before, a mid-level salary in SF is somewhere around $130k. The numbers are well-documented. If you win the stock lottery, or stay in the industry for a while and become one of the top 10% of earners, you can do upwards of $200k. But that excludes the bottom 90% of jobs, which is what most people actually have. As a PSA to all junior engineers: if you actually believe you can "easily" earn over $200k in the bay area, I strongly encourage you to take some phone screens before acting on your notions. Tell companies your salary expectations in advance.
      - sjg007 9y ago
        I agree with you and don't believe the high salaries reported here. The best reference set is the H1B salary data which trends with the glassdoor self reported data. https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm The folks making closest to 200k or higher are largely Computer and Information Systems Managers in Santa Clara county at levels 3 and 4. I imagine these are Senior Directors or VPs. http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=11-3021&area=41940&year=18&source=1 http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=11-30...
        joshuamorton 9y ago
- Cookingboy 9y ago
  What? Total comp for a non-senior engineer in Austin is somewhere between $75-90k, nowhere near your $110k number, that's senior engineer territory. Also $250-$400k is the norm for senior engineers in big companies here in the Bay Area. I graduated from UT Austin and now live in the Bay Area, financially speaking it's the best decision I've ever made since I'm now on track to retire before 35.
  - timr 9y ago
    Total comp for a non-senior engineer in Austin is somewhere between $75-90k, nowhere near your $110k number, that's senior engineer territory." OK, that's fair. I haven't been a junior engineer in Austin, so I'm estimating from what I see on hiring sites. $130k is at the top of the SF range for a junior engineer, too, so let's call it a $40k spread. That's still entirely consumed by the difference in rent and taxes. "Also $250-$400k is the norm for senior engineers in big companies here in the Bay Area." On this point, you are absolutely full of it. You're talking to a "senior engineer", formerly in the Bay Area. Real-dollar compensation for elite people can get that high, but most people aren't elite. Also, I don't count future value of Magic Stock Bux as salary (nor should you). Comments about retiring at $some_young_age are treated with the same respect as when they were coming from 20-somethings in 1998: put up actual numbers or shut up. Internet People have been ambiguously bragging about their early retirement scenarios since the internet supported bragging.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      Which end of that range do you consider "that high?" Anecdote for anecdote: most of the people I know who are in the 3-5 year experience range are earning closer to $200k/year than $140k. In my bracket (>10 years) it's closer to $250k than $200k for average senior developers (in which bucket I place myself). Also $40k is not consumed by the difference in rent and taxes. At most about 85%-90% of it is (say, $20k for rent, a generous $15k for taxes).
      - timr 9y ago
        The low end of that range starts at the high end for a mid-level engineer, and goes up into VP and director levels. Again: I count only compensation that is liquid. Magic Stock Bux don't get marked to market, and "bonus" is a number that can fluctuate dramatically from year to year. A mid-level Googler might be making $250k in a good year, all-in, but their base salary is a fraction of that, you won't get nearly as much outside of the big tech giants.
- throwthisawayt 9y ago
  Ok, your salary estimates for SF are completely off. Let me level set by saying I went to a bootcamp and have two years experience. I make 165K (25% higher than 130) and my 3 close bootcamp colleagues all make around the same. I don’t work for some hot company like Google - 95% of people reading this haven’t heard of us. And just to be clear this is all liquid compensation (cash, bonus, and public stock equity). So yes for me and my closest friends with comparable experience SF is by far the best option economically. Note as others have mentioned; I don’t think that will be the case when I start a family.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    I don't get this thread... both cities are close enough in salary and cost that the exact economics become less of an issue. Other things, like the cities themselves and the people in them become more important.
    - throwthisawayt 9y ago
      Ok maybe I should clarify that I’m originally from Texas and work in sf so I have some pretty direct experience and know that there is a big economic difference and the salary differential is not that small. I completely agree that there is way more to life than economics, but for the young single engineer the business case for Bay Area (and even more Seattle) is very compelling. To put it in perspective, when I compare myself to a friend with similar skills my net worth is already 2x greater.
      - speedplane 9y ago
        I'm sure there are folks with similar skills as you that started in Seattle, moved to Texas, and have 2x your own net worth. Some people choose to make less to lead a different lifestyle, and would happily give up that 2x net worth to do so.
  - timr 9y ago
    "Let me level set by saying I went to a bootcamp and have two years experience. I make 165k...(cash, bonus, and public stock equity)." I lived and worked in SF for nearly a decade until this year. I operated a company for a good portion of that time. I know what the market rates are. Personal anecdotes doesn't mean much when the aggregate numbers disagree with you. Maybe you're special. Maybe you're lucky. You're probably underestimating what you'd make elsewhere. But I'll say this: if you're truly getting a significant fraction of your salary in liquid RSUs, you are at a public company, and are quite likely being paid above market. If you are counting illiquid RSUs, you are doing funny math.

timr 9y ago

"Say your cost of living is 30k and your salary is 100k in one city. In a 2nd City your cost of living is 60k and 180k. A rational economic decision would be to live in City 2 since it maximizes your savings." This doesn't actually happen, except in the heads of naïve young dudes who want to justify living in SF right now. Total REAL compensation for a non-senior engineer in SF is somewhere around $130k right now, with some Magic Stock Bux (probably worthless! maybe not!) thrown in for fun...but those don't buy burritos. Total comp of $110k sounds reasonable for Austin, as well. You can shift the ranges up or down based on seniority, but the spread is about the same, and the range caps out at around $200k in both markets for all but the most exceptional people. In other words, the salary premium they're talking about here sounds right to me, and a premium of $20k a year is more than consumed by the 3x difference in rent, alone. You can perhaps justify going to SF on other grounds (career growth, networking, etc.), but it's not purely economically rational for most people.

shados 9y ago
Yeah, it is a gold rush. It's pretty easy (relatively speaking) to make well over 200k at a public company with some experience if you include stocks. And some people are lured by options of startups (it's a gamble!). It's harder to get that elsewhere. Not everyone (or most) get there, but a lot do, and even more try.
- babaganoosh89 9y ago
  This, 200k+ is easy to get to in the Bay Area.
  - timr 9y ago
    No, it is not "easy" to get that. Most Bay Area jobs are not senior engineers at Google. Like I said before, a mid-level salary in SF is somewhere around $130k. The numbers are well-documented. If you win the stock lottery, or stay in the industry for a while and become one of the top 10% of earners, you can do upwards of $200k. But that excludes the bottom 90% of jobs, which is what most people actually have. As a PSA to all junior engineers: if you actually believe you can "easily" earn over $200k in the bay area, I strongly encourage you to take some phone screens before acting on your notions. Tell companies your salary expectations in advance.
    - sjg007 9y ago
      I agree with you and don't believe the high salaries reported here. The best reference set is the H1B salary data which trends with the glassdoor self reported data. https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm The folks making closest to 200k or higher are largely Computer and Information Systems Managers in Santa Clara county at levels 3 and 4. I imagine these are Senior Directors or VPs. http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=11-3021&area=41940&year=18&source=1 http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?code=11-30...
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
Cookingboy 9y ago
What? Total comp for a non-senior engineer in Austin is somewhere between $75-90k, nowhere near your $110k number, that's senior engineer territory. Also $250-$400k is the norm for senior engineers in big companies here in the Bay Area. I graduated from UT Austin and now live in the Bay Area, financially speaking it's the best decision I've ever made since I'm now on track to retire before 35.
- timr 9y ago
  Total comp for a non-senior engineer in Austin is somewhere between $75-90k, nowhere near your $110k number, that's senior engineer territory." OK, that's fair. I haven't been a junior engineer in Austin, so I'm estimating from what I see on hiring sites. $130k is at the top of the SF range for a junior engineer, too, so let's call it a $40k spread. That's still entirely consumed by the difference in rent and taxes. "Also $250-$400k is the norm for senior engineers in big companies here in the Bay Area." On this point, you are absolutely full of it. You're talking to a "senior engineer", formerly in the Bay Area. Real-dollar compensation for elite people can get that high, but most people aren't elite. Also, I don't count future value of Magic Stock Bux as salary (nor should you). Comments about retiring at $some_young_age are treated with the same respect as when they were coming from 20-somethings in 1998: put up actual numbers or shut up. Internet People have been ambiguously bragging about their early retirement scenarios since the internet supported bragging.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Which end of that range do you consider "that high?" Anecdote for anecdote: most of the people I know who are in the 3-5 year experience range are earning closer to $200k/year than $140k. In my bracket (>10 years) it's closer to $250k than $200k for average senior developers (in which bucket I place myself). Also $40k is not consumed by the difference in rent and taxes. At most about 85%-90% of it is (say, $20k for rent, a generous $15k for taxes).
    - timr 9y ago
      The low end of that range starts at the high end for a mid-level engineer, and goes up into VP and director levels. Again: I count only compensation that is liquid. Magic Stock Bux don't get marked to market, and "bonus" is a number that can fluctuate dramatically from year to year. A mid-level Googler might be making $250k in a good year, all-in, but their base salary is a fraction of that, you won't get nearly as much outside of the big tech giants.
throwthisawayt 9y ago
Ok, your salary estimates for SF are completely off. Let me level set by saying I went to a bootcamp and have two years experience. I make 165K (25% higher than 130) and my 3 close bootcamp colleagues all make around the same. I don’t work for some hot company like Google - 95% of people reading this haven’t heard of us. And just to be clear this is all liquid compensation (cash, bonus, and public stock equity). So yes for me and my closest friends with comparable experience SF is by far the best option economically. Note as others have mentioned; I don’t think that will be the case when I start a family.
- speedplane 9y ago
  I don't get this thread... both cities are close enough in salary and cost that the exact economics become less of an issue. Other things, like the cities themselves and the people in them become more important.
  - throwthisawayt 9y ago
    Ok maybe I should clarify that I’m originally from Texas and work in sf so I have some pretty direct experience and know that there is a big economic difference and the salary differential is not that small. I completely agree that there is way more to life than economics, but for the young single engineer the business case for Bay Area (and even more Seattle) is very compelling. To put it in perspective, when I compare myself to a friend with similar skills my net worth is already 2x greater.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      I'm sure there are folks with similar skills as you that started in Seattle, moved to Texas, and have 2x your own net worth. Some people choose to make less to lead a different lifestyle, and would happily give up that 2x net worth to do so.
- timr 9y ago
  "Let me level set by saying I went to a bootcamp and have two years experience. I make 165k...(cash, bonus, and public stock equity)." I lived and worked in SF for nearly a decade until this year. I operated a company for a good portion of that time. I know what the market rates are. Personal anecdotes doesn't mean much when the aggregate numbers disagree with you. Maybe you're special. Maybe you're lucky. You're probably underestimating what you'd make elsewhere. But I'll say this: if you're truly getting a significant fraction of your salary in liquid RSUs, you are at a public company, and are quite likely being paid above market. If you are counting illiquid RSUs, you are doing funny math.