18 ms·

There are two problems with these: 1) If you aren't at one of these companies, it's not a fair comparison. It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who

There are two problems with these: 1) If you aren't at one of these companies, it's not a fair comparison. It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on. 2) It's kind of depressing. It's very easy to find people at similar experience levels as you making FAR more money (perhaps 50%, or even double), because you aren't at a FAANG company (or whatever we're calling them now). It can really make you feel like you haven't learned/grown/accomplished anything in your career when you see people starting at a similar comp to what you get for a decade+ of experience. Some people act as though these companies are an easy alternative for anyone, but the reality is that there are only a handful of them. For me, with a ruby background(+), I'm not particularly interesting to any of them, and I know I'm not the only one. It's neat that between Facebook/Apple/Google you can compare apples to apples, but for a lot of people, it's really an apples to oranges comparison, and a frustrating one. Also, I imagine it's that much worse for people outside the Bay Area. (+: While I'm happy to learn new languages on the job and not tied to any stack, it's still not easy. For instance, a Google recruiter once told me to spend a few months becoming a Python expert, and then they'd interview me (in Python); another time a Microsoft recruiter insisted that I do the interview in Java and then got frustrated when I struggled with syntax I hadn't touched in 5 years.)

seattleeng 8y ago
I agree that there are tiers of companies when it comes to compensation, and this site tends to skew towards recording datas for higher tiers (but many of the companies this site provides levels for do NOT pay as much as FAANG - as more salary data is added this will become clearer). And this can certainly be frustrating/depressing when comparing with individual compensation. It should be noted that the pay differential between top paying companies and those below comes from two factors: - Geography. US based companies in the Bay Area will almost always pay more than companies anywhere else in the world. Many companies have different compensation bands for different regions of the world, even within the US. - Equity. The base salary for an entry level developer position at a top company will pay somewhere in the range of 110-130k. I've seen many entry level dev jobs at startups in the bay area paying in the 80-110k range (I can't speak to hard data that supports this though, because open salary information is hard to come across!). So, the salary differential when comparing upper/lower bands between top companies and median companies exists but isn't outlandish (between 20-40% more). The difference is, entry level devs at Google & FB will also get a 50k/yr equity grant. Based on my experiences, this is an order of magnitude more than the median company (where lottery tickets or 1-5k/yr grants are common). So my personal advice for optimizing compensation would be: 1) Move to the US (Bay Area/NYC/Seattle) or work for a US (Bay Area/NYC/Seattle) company remotely or at a satellite office in another city. Obviously, everyone has personal restrictions so this may not possible. 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, Square's stock exploded over the past year and that equity today outcompetes many of the equivalent FAANG-level offers. Of course, the opposite could have also been the case -- I've heard stories of underwater options being granted pre-IPO by Square. Sure, a few years later they're worth a lot, but at the time, employees weren't happy. The world is wider than FAANG and tiny startups, and each company has its own set of hiring criteria (e.g. both Twitter and Square started as Rails shops so your Ruby experience would be more valuable to them than Google or FB). You can't predict the market, but if the choice is between 20 year old Company A that gives you 3k/yr in equity or a recently IPO'd Company B that gives you 1k/yr in equity, I would on average take the gamble with Company B (in practice taking into account team strength, product vision/market fit, & company direction after interviewing).
- YokoZar 8y ago
  > 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, Square's stock exploded over the past year and that equity today outcompetes many of the equivalent FAANG-level offers. Of course, the opposite could have also been the case -- I've heard stories of underwater options being granted pre-IPO by Square. Sure, a few years later they're worth a lot, but at the time, employees weren't happy. If you can already tell ahead of time which company's stocks are going up, just take more cash and use it to buy those stocks. You can probably figure out why telling people to pick a single winning stock isn't good repeatable advice. When you do get equity, sell your shares as soon as you're allowed. Don't bet on a single company more than you have to -- you're already staking a large chunk of your salary and career on them.
  - njs12345 8y ago
    I agree in general with your comment, but.. > If you can already tell ahead of time which company's stocks are going up, just take more cash and use it to buy those stocks. These are pre-IPO companies so you can't easily buy their shares.
  - JimboOmega 8y ago
    I'm curious, how often do post-IPO companies give options versus RSUs? I am used to thinking all public companies issue RSUs, but the last one I worked at didn't. My strike was at a relatively brief high point, and the value declined to about 2/3s of that before the company got acquired, but obviously those options were worthless - they wouldn't have been if they were RSUs.
  - seattleeng 8y ago
    I agree with what you've written, and the phrasing I used was unclear. I was mainly making a note about joining a mid to late stage pre-IPO startup (series B or later) vs joining a large, low growth public company. You can't easily invest in most pre-IPO companies today (though with secondary markets growing in popularity this might change in 5 years). In the case of choosing between two large public companies, sure, take the cash & liquidate your positions as soon as you vest so you can stick them in SPY or vanguard.
malvosenior 8y ago
There are a lot of companies that will pay like this, even outside of California. Be aggressive with your negotiating. Companies that make millions/billions off of software will pay high salaries, but you have to negotiate well.
kasey_junk 8y ago
Finance pays similar rates as this in lots of places (Chicago, New York, Austin, Houston, Dallas). These are just jobs I know of in my network. I’ve heard that these pay band exists in other industries as well (consulting, specialist niche, etc).
- _sword 8y ago
  Most finance roles don't anymore. There's a large supply of candidates looking for roles across finance in e.g. NYC, but the industry is also shrinking in many areas, leading to compensation compression. I'm particularly thinking of sell-side roles.
  - corporateslaver 8y ago
    This is true, I’ve recieved a number of offers in finance that were good but underwhelming.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  I'll take a finance software engineering job in NYC at these rates. It'll mean relocating, but for a 50% salary hike, I can manage.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mav3rick 8y ago
So what you're saying is that this tool is bad because it makes you sad ?. Information is empowering use it to make informed choices about your career. If you're taking less money, make sure there is some trade off you're happy with. Also, most Google jobs are language agnostic. You can code in pretty much one of C/C++, Java, Python, Google hires for generalists. Your Ruby experience is not what's holding you back, so don't get bogged down.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  Says google is code agnostic. Provides list of the three languages you specifically need to code in. Perhaps agnostic means something different in my language :p
  - mav3rick 8y ago
    Those are the 3 big ones. You can code in pretty much whatever as long as you're interviewer can understand your logic. Please post here when employees in your company understand all languages possible. Op maybe an outlier but many employees go above and beyond to not make language a factor.
  - danillonunes 8y ago
    I think code agnostic in this case means they don’t hire based on a language, but they still work with a limited set. It makes sense if you think about it. A small startup with 5 Python engineers can’t afford to hire one with heavy experience in Ruby and who knows a thing or two about Python. First, it may be the case that this person can actually transfer their knowledge and do a good job with Python, but there’s also a chance they can’t and that will disturb the entire operation for a team that small, that’s a big risk. Also, this person is not going to be paid as a Jr. Python because they have the options to be paid as a Sr. Ruby somewhere else, so the startup need to step up their pay game, now that’s a big and expensive risk. A big company like Google, on the other hand, can afford to have that risk. If everything goes right, they end up with a great Ruby and Python engineer, if things goes wrong, Google is so big they probably have some other projects somewhere that can use a good Rubyst, and in the worst case scenario, if the person really can’t fit anywhere, a company like Google can still afford to let them go and eat the costs of a wrong hire.
stygiansonic 8y ago
I wouldn't exactly call these problems. For (1), I agree that you might have trouble getting startups (if that's what you mean by pre-IPO) to equal the total comp that big tech offers, if for no other reason that startup equity just isn't as close to cash as big tech equity is. For (2), I'd say that depends on your mindset. For both of your points, the argument is basically how does this sort of transparency affect things? While salary can always be a touchy subject, I'm generally always in favor of transparency. Having this information can make it easier for one to decide whether it's worth the effort to pursue getting a job at a big tech company, and also allow you to spot BS when some other company's recruiter says that they pay "top of market" for software engineers. So again, I wouldn't see these as problems.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  As for 1) I literally meant pre-IPO. Companies that are not publicly traded. Even very very large ones(e.g. Uber) tend to issue options instead of RSUs. When you get hired, the value of those options is a big 0 - that's where they set the strike price. You can't really compare options to RSUs. You can't assume the stock will go up 50% in value or anything in particular. So they are hard to value as anything other than 0 (I'd love to hear other ways you think about it) Transparency is good. I'm not exactly against this information. I mostly wish it were available in a way that applies to the rest of us. Also, I wish it didn't make me feel bad. Call it mindset but salary discussions tend to.
rco8786 8y ago
I’ve written extensive ruby at 2 of the companies listed on this site (including my current job which is 100% ruby)
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  Which? I've had conversations worth Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon that all got weird about Ruby. If there are hidden Ruby jobs, I'd love a referral to them
  - rco8786 8y ago
    Would rather not say, they're not FAANG but they're on the website and you've heard of both of them. I've never spoke w/ Microsoft or Amazon in any depth - but have gone through interview processes w/ Google and FB, neither were too concerned about seeing Ruby on my resume. Curious what "getting all weird" means?
    - JimboOmega 8y ago
      Typically, the recruiter asks me to do a simple challenge in e.g. a google doc. I'm then strongly pressured to do it in one of their preferred languages, or if I do it in Ruby, I have to explain all of the syntax and it takes a lot of time and mental focus away from the actual task. For instance, in a recent interview, I couldn't remember the substr() function in Javascript, which Google insisted I do the challenge in. Instead I wound up using the ruby [range] operator and explaining ranges and what that operator meant. To Google's credit and my moderate surprise, I passed that round of the interview. But I have definitely had interviews where the result is a mash of languages that nobody can really understand. Or they let me do it in ruby and I have to explain every line of the syntax (for instance, how ruby does iteration). There have also definitely been times where they flat out told me that they want a specific language and I should contact them again when I've gotten skill in it. Alternately, if languages don't match, they'll focus the interview on a skill that they need for whatever position, but for which I only have limited expertise. Take SQL. I know what indexes are, I can open a console to identify long running queries, but I mostly work with it through an ORM. But if they hear I have some SQL experience they'll decide to grill me on details of how Postgres handles things like logging and persistence and maintaining multiple versions of rows in memory and what are tuples and so on. I'm not a DBA and will do only mediocre in such interviews. I always mix up the different types of joins, because I hardly ever write join queries and usually look it up when I need it. I'm fairly certain they'd have given me Java questions if I knew Java, but the thing I had experience in that the recruiter knew was SQL.
morgante 8y ago
> For instance, a Google recruiter once told me to spend a few months becoming a Python expert, and then they'd interview me (in Python); Most SWE hires are generalists at Google, not tied to a specific language. Unless you're being hired for a specialist role, you should absolutely be able to interview in the language of your choice. It's sometimes harder to put together an interview slate for a less popular language, but that definitely shouldn't make your recruiter force Python. > Also, I imagine it's that much worse for people outside the Bay Area. Actually, FAANG companies are some of the only ones with strong compensation in offices all over the country and globe.
- gregschlom 8y ago
  > you should absolutely be able to interview in the language of your choice. Except the choice is between Java, C++ and Python. They are very clear about that, asking what your preference is during the scheduling phase. I went through the interview process this year, and even tried to ask my interviewers if it was ok to do Kotlin instead of Java. It wasn't.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Maybe that's your experience, but there are a number of people that didn't have that experience. I mean, you think Google isn't going to let you use a language they invented in an interview? Maybe your interviewer was a jerk, or maybe this was for a very specific role in which only those languages are applicable, but almost all jobs at Google are generalists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasondclinton 8y ago
    Google SWE interviewer here. You can absolutely interview in Ruby. I have it listed on my language interviewing skills page. It is harder to schedule for more obscure languages because we have to find 4 people with that language who are available.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I'm not particularly interested either; I like to think I'm in the top x % of developers in my country, but that's not enough. For Google I'd need to pass (iirc) some CS tests, which I'm just not good in (I couldn't remember what bubblesort is let alone how to implement it, mostly because it's not relevant / important in my day to day job). Second reason is that I'd have to relocate abroad. No thanks. Third reason, politics. I doubt I'd be able to climb up the proverbial ladder - or be promoted / paid more based on merit alone - without playing the game. I heard something about getting commendations or something? Just as easily you can get shafted by the mob who push their own people up the ladder.
filmgirlcw 8y ago
I wholly disagree. Even if the results are depressing (and they can be depressing for people at those companies who see the ranges that others at their same level make -- maybe even more depressing), it's so important to have information when negotiating for a raise or for a new position. Information is power and it is in companies of all sizes best-interest for workers not to discuss wages. That's fine -- I understand why from a business perspective, the corporation doesn't want to share this information. But for workers, this information is extremely important and it should be discussed. Sadly, it often isn't because of cultural/social norms that deem talking about money "rude" and because plenty of people are embarrassed to admit they make more/less than their peers. But it's important we know this information. This is even more true for underrepresented groups, who historically are worse at negotiating and get paid less as a result -- and may not have the networks to know what they should be asking for/expecting. When I worked in media (where the pay is considerably different than tech), I used to ask more junior co-workers that I had a good rapport with what they made -- not to be nosey -- but to help them negotiate better. It took me a long time to figure out my own worth and ask for it. AND STILL, even knowing this, I fucked up when I switched careers because I knew how much I was worth in my old career, but not in the new career. Glassdoor only goes so far and until you're in the system, you don't understand the intricacies. I stupidly didn't negotiate my offer -- in part because it was substantially more than I made in my old career -- but I'm underpaid -- compared to my team members at my same level and got a shittier sign-on/stock package as a result. That sucks for me (and it's 100% my fault. I don't blame the recruiter in the slightest), but the more data I can gather about what the mean -- or even median -- is for my company/position, the better I can negotiate in the future, either at my current employer or somewhere else. Knowledge is power and having resources like this -- even if they carry an implied asterisk because of things that charts like this can't necessarily account for (division of a company, demand for certain skillsets, area of expertise, etc.), I'm glad stuff like this exists. It's certainly better than looking at Blind, where most of the posters are quasi-sociopaths and liars with negative intentions.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  I absolutely agree that it's useful to have this information in general, especially so if you work at one of those companies. However, I wanted to point out that having a big set of apples to compare to when you're looking through oranges isn't useful, and can be harmful, mentally speaking. I think it's a net positive, I just wanted to point out how it can be hard for some of us. Seeing numbers like those make me really wonder what I can do to get myself in that position, but most people (especially on somewhere like Blind) act like that is a trivial thing to accomplish. I'd also love to see what performance is expected at what levels, and what gets you promoted to other levels. It is of course very possible to be performing the job several levels above where you are, and not get promoted there because you are in one of those underrepresented groups, or bureaucracy, or any number of any other causes. When I last worked at companies large enough for that sort of thing to matter, the levels were actually the important part. Your boss would typically say he couldn't promote or give you a raise above a single digit percent, even though your work was amazing, because of levels and salary bands and slots he had open and so on. That was your queue to go work across the street for a couple years at the higher level, and then switch back to the original company at a much higher level. It was basically the only way to advance and increase your salary. And you'd never know if it you didn't realize you were outperforming your level. It's also the easiest way to take advantage of an underrepresented person (keeping them at a low level, versus underpaying them within a level)
empath75 8y ago
According to this thing if I had a similar level job at google I’d be making $150k more a year in total comp than i’m making now but I’m like 90% sure I can’t get that job at google.
- rco8786 8y ago
  That’s a pretty defeatist attitude
  - twoquestions 8y ago
    That's a funny way of spelling "realistic". These companies want The Right Stuff, and it's easy to tell if you yourself aren't it.
    - rco8786 8y ago
      These companies have hired 10s of thousands of engineers just like you. And yes, exactly, it's easy to tell yourself you aren't the right stuff and thus never try. That's defeatism, not realism.
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
      i assume you don't actually know anyone at FAANG. There are plenty, believe me plenty, of average people. Of course there are superstars, and superstars gravitate there for the high pay as well as the chance to work with and learn from other superstars. but when you employ this many people, you also bring along many, many average joes.
jiveturkey 8y ago
> It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, huh? that's not the point. It's difficult because there are zero startups or pre-IPO companies that will pay you like this. > if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on it's very easy. dollar value of options = $0.

seattleeng 8y ago

I agree that there are tiers of companies when it comes to compensation, and this site tends to skew towards recording datas for higher tiers (but many of the companies this site provides levels for do NOT pay as much as FAANG - as more salary data is added this will become clearer). And this can certainly be frustrating/depressing when comparing with individual compensation. It should be noted that the pay differential between top paying companies and those below comes from two factors: - Geography. US based companies in the Bay Area will almost always pay more than companies anywhere else in the world. Many companies have different compensation bands for different regions of the world, even within the US. - Equity. The base salary for an entry level developer position at a top company will pay somewhere in the range of 110-130k. I've seen many entry level dev jobs at startups in the bay area paying in the 80-110k range (I can't speak to hard data that supports this though, because open salary information is hard to come across!). So, the salary differential when comparing upper/lower bands between top companies and median companies exists but isn't outlandish (between 20-40% more). The difference is, entry level devs at Google & FB will also get a 50k/yr equity grant. Based on my experiences, this is an order of magnitude more than the median company (where lottery tickets or 1-5k/yr grants are common). So my personal advice for optimizing compensation would be: 1) Move to the US (Bay Area/NYC/Seattle) or work for a US (Bay Area/NYC/Seattle) company remotely or at a satellite office in another city. Obviously, everyone has personal restrictions so this may not possible. 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, Square's stock exploded over the past year and that equity today outcompetes many of the equivalent FAANG-level offers. Of course, the opposite could have also been the case -- I've heard stories of underwater options being granted pre-IPO by Square. Sure, a few years later they're worth a lot, but at the time, employees weren't happy. The world is wider than FAANG and tiny startups, and each company has its own set of hiring criteria (e.g. both Twitter and Square started as Rails shops so your Ruby experience would be more valuable to them than Google or FB). You can't predict the market, but if the choice is between 20 year old Company A that gives you 3k/yr in equity or a recently IPO'd Company B that gives you 1k/yr in equity, I would on average take the gamble with Company B (in practice taking into account team strength, product vision/market fit, & company direction after interviewing).

YokoZar 8y ago
> 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, Square's stock exploded over the past year and that equity today outcompetes many of the equivalent FAANG-level offers. Of course, the opposite could have also been the case -- I've heard stories of underwater options being granted pre-IPO by Square. Sure, a few years later they're worth a lot, but at the time, employees weren't happy. If you can already tell ahead of time which company's stocks are going up, just take more cash and use it to buy those stocks. You can probably figure out why telling people to pick a single winning stock isn't good repeatable advice. When you do get equity, sell your shares as soon as you're allowed. Don't bet on a single company more than you have to -- you're already staking a large chunk of your salary and career on them.
- njs12345 8y ago
  I agree in general with your comment, but.. > If you can already tell ahead of time which company's stocks are going up, just take more cash and use it to buy those stocks. These are pre-IPO companies so you can't easily buy their shares.
- JimboOmega 8y ago
  I'm curious, how often do post-IPO companies give options versus RSUs? I am used to thinking all public companies issue RSUs, but the last one I worked at didn't. My strike was at a relatively brief high point, and the value declined to about 2/3s of that before the company got acquired, but obviously those options were worthless - they wouldn't have been if they were RSUs.
- seattleeng 8y ago
  I agree with what you've written, and the phrasing I used was unclear. I was mainly making a note about joining a mid to late stage pre-IPO startup (series B or later) vs joining a large, low growth public company. You can't easily invest in most pre-IPO companies today (though with secondary markets growing in popularity this might change in 5 years). In the case of choosing between two large public companies, sure, take the cash & liquidate your positions as soon as you vest so you can stick them in SPY or vanguard.

malvosenior 8y ago

There are a lot of companies that will pay like this, even outside of California. Be aggressive with your negotiating. Companies that make millions/billions off of software will pay high salaries, but you have to negotiate well.

kasey_junk 8y ago

Finance pays similar rates as this in lots of places (Chicago, New York, Austin, Houston, Dallas). These are just jobs I know of in my network. I’ve heard that these pay band exists in other industries as well (consulting, specialist niche, etc).

_sword 8y ago
Most finance roles don't anymore. There's a large supply of candidates looking for roles across finance in e.g. NYC, but the industry is also shrinking in many areas, leading to compensation compression. I'm particularly thinking of sell-side roles.
- corporateslaver 8y ago
  This is true, I’ve recieved a number of offers in finance that were good but underwhelming.
JimboOmega 8y ago
I'll take a finance software engineering job in NYC at these rates. It'll mean relocating, but for a 50% salary hike, I can manage.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mav3rick 8y ago

So what you're saying is that this tool is bad because it makes you sad ?. Information is empowering use it to make informed choices about your career. If you're taking less money, make sure there is some trade off you're happy with. Also, most Google jobs are language agnostic. You can code in pretty much one of C/C++, Java, Python, Google hires for generalists. Your Ruby experience is not what's holding you back, so don't get bogged down.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago
Says google is code agnostic. Provides list of the three languages you specifically need to code in. Perhaps agnostic means something different in my language :p
- mav3rick 8y ago
  Those are the 3 big ones. You can code in pretty much whatever as long as you're interviewer can understand your logic. Please post here when employees in your company understand all languages possible. Op maybe an outlier but many employees go above and beyond to not make language a factor.
- danillonunes 8y ago
  I think code agnostic in this case means they don’t hire based on a language, but they still work with a limited set. It makes sense if you think about it. A small startup with 5 Python engineers can’t afford to hire one with heavy experience in Ruby and who knows a thing or two about Python. First, it may be the case that this person can actually transfer their knowledge and do a good job with Python, but there’s also a chance they can’t and that will disturb the entire operation for a team that small, that’s a big risk. Also, this person is not going to be paid as a Jr. Python because they have the options to be paid as a Sr. Ruby somewhere else, so the startup need to step up their pay game, now that’s a big and expensive risk. A big company like Google, on the other hand, can afford to have that risk. If everything goes right, they end up with a great Ruby and Python engineer, if things goes wrong, Google is so big they probably have some other projects somewhere that can use a good Rubyst, and in the worst case scenario, if the person really can’t fit anywhere, a company like Google can still afford to let them go and eat the costs of a wrong hire.

stygiansonic 8y ago

I wouldn't exactly call these problems. For (1), I agree that you might have trouble getting startups (if that's what you mean by pre-IPO) to equal the total comp that big tech offers, if for no other reason that startup equity just isn't as close to cash as big tech equity is. For (2), I'd say that depends on your mindset. For both of your points, the argument is basically how does this sort of transparency affect things? While salary can always be a touchy subject, I'm generally always in favor of transparency. Having this information can make it easier for one to decide whether it's worth the effort to pursue getting a job at a big tech company, and also allow you to spot BS when some other company's recruiter says that they pay "top of market" for software engineers. So again, I wouldn't see these as problems.

JimboOmega 8y ago
As for 1) I literally meant pre-IPO. Companies that are not publicly traded. Even very very large ones(e.g. Uber) tend to issue options instead of RSUs. When you get hired, the value of those options is a big 0 - that's where they set the strike price. You can't really compare options to RSUs. You can't assume the stock will go up 50% in value or anything in particular. So they are hard to value as anything other than 0 (I'd love to hear other ways you think about it) Transparency is good. I'm not exactly against this information. I mostly wish it were available in a way that applies to the rest of us. Also, I wish it didn't make me feel bad. Call it mindset but salary discussions tend to.

rco8786 8y ago

I’ve written extensive ruby at 2 of the companies listed on this site (including my current job which is 100% ruby)

JimboOmega 8y ago
Which? I've had conversations worth Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon that all got weird about Ruby. If there are hidden Ruby jobs, I'd love a referral to them
- rco8786 8y ago
  Would rather not say, they're not FAANG but they're on the website and you've heard of both of them. I've never spoke w/ Microsoft or Amazon in any depth - but have gone through interview processes w/ Google and FB, neither were too concerned about seeing Ruby on my resume. Curious what "getting all weird" means?
  - JimboOmega 8y ago
    Typically, the recruiter asks me to do a simple challenge in e.g. a google doc. I'm then strongly pressured to do it in one of their preferred languages, or if I do it in Ruby, I have to explain all of the syntax and it takes a lot of time and mental focus away from the actual task. For instance, in a recent interview, I couldn't remember the substr() function in Javascript, which Google insisted I do the challenge in. Instead I wound up using the ruby [range] operator and explaining ranges and what that operator meant. To Google's credit and my moderate surprise, I passed that round of the interview. But I have definitely had interviews where the result is a mash of languages that nobody can really understand. Or they let me do it in ruby and I have to explain every line of the syntax (for instance, how ruby does iteration). There have also definitely been times where they flat out told me that they want a specific language and I should contact them again when I've gotten skill in it. Alternately, if languages don't match, they'll focus the interview on a skill that they need for whatever position, but for which I only have limited expertise. Take SQL. I know what indexes are, I can open a console to identify long running queries, but I mostly work with it through an ORM. But if they hear I have some SQL experience they'll decide to grill me on details of how Postgres handles things like logging and persistence and maintaining multiple versions of rows in memory and what are tuples and so on. I'm not a DBA and will do only mediocre in such interviews. I always mix up the different types of joins, because I hardly ever write join queries and usually look it up when I need it. I'm fairly certain they'd have given me Java questions if I knew Java, but the thing I had experience in that the recruiter knew was SQL.

morgante 8y ago

> For instance, a Google recruiter once told me to spend a few months becoming a Python expert, and then they'd interview me (in Python); Most SWE hires are generalists at Google, not tied to a specific language. Unless you're being hired for a specialist role, you should absolutely be able to interview in the language of your choice. It's sometimes harder to put together an interview slate for a less popular language, but that definitely shouldn't make your recruiter force Python. > Also, I imagine it's that much worse for people outside the Bay Area. Actually, FAANG companies are some of the only ones with strong compensation in offices all over the country and globe.

gregschlom 8y ago
> you should absolutely be able to interview in the language of your choice. Except the choice is between Java, C++ and Python. They are very clear about that, asking what your preference is during the scheduling phase. I went through the interview process this year, and even tried to ask my interviewers if it was ok to do Kotlin instead of Java. It wasn't.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Maybe that's your experience, but there are a number of people that didn't have that experience. I mean, you think Google isn't going to let you use a language they invented in an interview? Maybe your interviewer was a jerk, or maybe this was for a very specific role in which only those languages are applicable, but almost all jobs at Google are generalists.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jasondclinton 8y ago
  Google SWE interviewer here. You can absolutely interview in Ruby. I have it listed on my language interviewing skills page. It is harder to schedule for more obscure languages because we have to find 4 people with that language who are available.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

I'm not particularly interested either; I like to think I'm in the top x % of developers in my country, but that's not enough. For Google I'd need to pass (iirc) some CS tests, which I'm just not good in (I couldn't remember what bubblesort is let alone how to implement it, mostly because it's not relevant / important in my day to day job). Second reason is that I'd have to relocate abroad. No thanks. Third reason, politics. I doubt I'd be able to climb up the proverbial ladder - or be promoted / paid more based on merit alone - without playing the game. I heard something about getting commendations or something? Just as easily you can get shafted by the mob who push their own people up the ladder.

filmgirlcw 8y ago

I wholly disagree. Even if the results are depressing (and they can be depressing for people at those companies who see the ranges that others at their same level make -- maybe even more depressing), it's so important to have information when negotiating for a raise or for a new position. Information is power and it is in companies of all sizes best-interest for workers not to discuss wages. That's fine -- I understand why from a business perspective, the corporation doesn't want to share this information. But for workers, this information is extremely important and it should be discussed. Sadly, it often isn't because of cultural/social norms that deem talking about money "rude" and because plenty of people are embarrassed to admit they make more/less than their peers. But it's important we know this information. This is even more true for underrepresented groups, who historically are worse at negotiating and get paid less as a result -- and may not have the networks to know what they should be asking for/expecting. When I worked in media (where the pay is considerably different than tech), I used to ask more junior co-workers that I had a good rapport with what they made -- not to be nosey -- but to help them negotiate better. It took me a long time to figure out my own worth and ask for it. AND STILL, even knowing this, I fucked up when I switched careers because I knew how much I was worth in my old career, but not in the new career. Glassdoor only goes so far and until you're in the system, you don't understand the intricacies. I stupidly didn't negotiate my offer -- in part because it was substantially more than I made in my old career -- but I'm underpaid -- compared to my team members at my same level and got a shittier sign-on/stock package as a result. That sucks for me (and it's 100% my fault. I don't blame the recruiter in the slightest), but the more data I can gather about what the mean -- or even median -- is for my company/position, the better I can negotiate in the future, either at my current employer or somewhere else. Knowledge is power and having resources like this -- even if they carry an implied asterisk because of things that charts like this can't necessarily account for (division of a company, demand for certain skillsets, area of expertise, etc.), I'm glad stuff like this exists. It's certainly better than looking at Blind, where most of the posters are quasi-sociopaths and liars with negative intentions.

JimboOmega 8y ago
I absolutely agree that it's useful to have this information in general, especially so if you work at one of those companies. However, I wanted to point out that having a big set of apples to compare to when you're looking through oranges isn't useful, and can be harmful, mentally speaking. I think it's a net positive, I just wanted to point out how it can be hard for some of us. Seeing numbers like those make me really wonder what I can do to get myself in that position, but most people (especially on somewhere like Blind) act like that is a trivial thing to accomplish. I'd also love to see what performance is expected at what levels, and what gets you promoted to other levels. It is of course very possible to be performing the job several levels above where you are, and not get promoted there because you are in one of those underrepresented groups, or bureaucracy, or any number of any other causes. When I last worked at companies large enough for that sort of thing to matter, the levels were actually the important part. Your boss would typically say he couldn't promote or give you a raise above a single digit percent, even though your work was amazing, because of levels and salary bands and slots he had open and so on. That was your queue to go work across the street for a couple years at the higher level, and then switch back to the original company at a much higher level. It was basically the only way to advance and increase your salary. And you'd never know if it you didn't realize you were outperforming your level. It's also the easiest way to take advantage of an underrepresented person (keeping them at a low level, versus underpaying them within a level)

empath75 8y ago

According to this thing if I had a similar level job at google I’d be making $150k more a year in total comp than i’m making now but I’m like 90% sure I can’t get that job at google.

rco8786 8y ago
That’s a pretty defeatist attitude
- twoquestions 8y ago
  That's a funny way of spelling "realistic". These companies want The Right Stuff, and it's easy to tell if you yourself aren't it.
  - rco8786 8y ago
    These companies have hired 10s of thousands of engineers just like you. And yes, exactly, it's easy to tell yourself you aren't the right stuff and thus never try. That's defeatism, not realism.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    i assume you don't actually know anyone at FAANG. There are plenty, believe me plenty, of average people. Of course there are superstars, and superstars gravitate there for the high pay as well as the chance to work with and learn from other superstars. but when you employ this many people, you also bring along many, many average joes.

jiveturkey 8y ago

> It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, huh? that's not the point. It's difficult because there are zero startups or pre-IPO companies that will pay you like this. > if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on it's very easy. dollar value of options = $0.