5 ms·

The median T5 Google eng does not have 200k base. (It's less than that) and lol bonus is not 200k. Bonus is 15% of base. Not sure where you are pulling your num

The median T5 Google eng does not have 200k base. (It's less than that) and lol bonus is not 200k. Bonus is 15% of base. Not sure where you are pulling your numbers from but Facebook is very similar. Most senior devs at big tech are not making 200k base (more like 150-190k). It is more like top 20% making that base. But base doesn't matter. The money is in the RSUs anyway.

dunpeal 8y ago
I'm obviously including RSU in the "bonus" portion, in addition to cash. There are also companies who pay these kind of total bonus figures in cash, but in big tech it's typically paid in stocks. I'm pulling these numbers from direct contact with recruiters in these companies, and in some cases job offers. Incidentally, there's an anonymous reply from a Facebook engineer under one of my other comments in this thread. His total compensation last year was $450k.
- toephu2 8y ago
  So? That's one engineer. I said top 20%. You act like the median engineer is pulling 400k at FB. They aren't.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    The median employee at FB is making $240k. We can safely assume the median engineer is making more than that. I never claimed that median engineer is making $400k. This entire thread is about the senior engineers and their payout after 4-5 of working at a company like FB vs at a startup. If you could do good work as an engineer at a startup for 4-5 years, pulling $400k at FB is very realistic for you. With the median being $240k, it's not going to be a whole lot less. I'm not sure why you're trying to prove me wrong, but let's face facts: even that absolute median of $240k that includes non-engineers is better than what most engineers would pull at a startup. Bottom line: if you can stick it out as a senior engineer at a startup for the 4-5 years it takes your options to vest, then you can realistically pull $400k/yr at FB. Except at the startup, you'd make maybe $180k base, and your "bonus" would be your bottom-preference 0.01% equity that would almost certainly be worth 0.
    - pm90 8y ago
      > I'm not sure why you're trying to prove me wrong, but let's face facts: even that absolute median of $240k that includes non-engineers is better than what most engineers would pull at a startup. I think there has been a common disbelief among many commenters on this forum about engineers making that high compensation. There really isn't any upside to trying to convince others of this reality. Its easier to mock you here than to face the facts that many are losing quite a lot in opportunity cost by not working in SV. So its natural you will face a lot of animosity here.
      - dunpeal 8y ago
        You're probably right, it's just my first time encountering this.
      - tedsanders 8y ago
        No one doubts that some developers are paid that much. What they doubt is that that compensation is normal. To me, the argument implicitly seems to be over the definition of what's "normal" rather than the actual existence or non-existence of highly paid developers. Of course highly paid developers exist.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        That's really just a distinction without a difference. The point is that for reasonable definitions of normal, this is true. Some people don't believe that. Sure not every engineer takes home that much, but its also not only the top 5 or 10%, its significantly more than that.
        tedsanders 8y ago
        What evidence do you have that significantly more than 10% of engineers earn more than $400K? Are you talking software engineers? Software engineers in the Bay Area? Software engineers in the Bay Area working for a subset of companies? I suspect the reason this 'debate' exists is that we are not specific enough with our language to make our meanings clear to one another. :) To me it's difficult to tell whether the commenters here are disagreeing over the objective reality of compensation distributions or the subjective reality of what counts as 'normal'.

dunpeal 8y ago

I'm obviously including RSU in the "bonus" portion, in addition to cash. There are also companies who pay these kind of total bonus figures in cash, but in big tech it's typically paid in stocks. I'm pulling these numbers from direct contact with recruiters in these companies, and in some cases job offers. Incidentally, there's an anonymous reply from a Facebook engineer under one of my other comments in this thread. His total compensation last year was $450k.

toephu2 8y ago
So? That's one engineer. I said top 20%. You act like the median engineer is pulling 400k at FB. They aren't.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  The median employee at FB is making $240k. We can safely assume the median engineer is making more than that. I never claimed that median engineer is making $400k. This entire thread is about the senior engineers and their payout after 4-5 of working at a company like FB vs at a startup. If you could do good work as an engineer at a startup for 4-5 years, pulling $400k at FB is very realistic for you. With the median being $240k, it's not going to be a whole lot less. I'm not sure why you're trying to prove me wrong, but let's face facts: even that absolute median of $240k that includes non-engineers is better than what most engineers would pull at a startup. Bottom line: if you can stick it out as a senior engineer at a startup for the 4-5 years it takes your options to vest, then you can realistically pull $400k/yr at FB. Except at the startup, you'd make maybe $180k base, and your "bonus" would be your bottom-preference 0.01% equity that would almost certainly be worth 0.
  - pm90 8y ago
    > I'm not sure why you're trying to prove me wrong, but let's face facts: even that absolute median of $240k that includes non-engineers is better than what most engineers would pull at a startup. I think there has been a common disbelief among many commenters on this forum about engineers making that high compensation. There really isn't any upside to trying to convince others of this reality. Its easier to mock you here than to face the facts that many are losing quite a lot in opportunity cost by not working in SV. So its natural you will face a lot of animosity here.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      You're probably right, it's just my first time encountering this.
    - tedsanders 8y ago
      No one doubts that some developers are paid that much. What they doubt is that that compensation is normal. To me, the argument implicitly seems to be over the definition of what's "normal" rather than the actual existence or non-existence of highly paid developers. Of course highly paid developers exist.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        That's really just a distinction without a difference. The point is that for reasonable definitions of normal, this is true. Some people don't believe that. Sure not every engineer takes home that much, but its also not only the top 5 or 10%, its significantly more than that.
        tedsanders 8y ago
        What evidence do you have that significantly more than 10% of engineers earn more than $400K? Are you talking software engineers? Software engineers in the Bay Area? Software engineers in the Bay Area working for a subset of companies? I suspect the reason this 'debate' exists is that we are not specific enough with our language to make our meanings clear to one another. :) To me it's difficult to tell whether the commenters here are disagreeing over the objective reality of compensation distributions or the subjective reality of what counts as 'normal'.