6 ms·

It seems like a lot of HN readers are continually playing the "maximize salary" game and use like articles like this one to figure out how well they're doing.

It seems like a lot of HN readers are continually playing the "maximize salary" game and use like articles like this one to figure out how well they're doing. If you want to play that game, then good luck, have fun. I understand the desire. But it's not for everyone. Are you able to live comfortably on $175k per year? Do you enjoy what you do and the people that you work with? If so, I don't think there should be any shame in staying where you are. Don't feel like you have to chase every last dollar.

foota 5y ago
Honestly, I make 300k TC and joined one company out of college and stayed there for the last 4 years. I live in Seattle. I just want to show that not everyone making > 200k switches companies every 2 years trying to minmax.
- therealdrag0 5y ago
  How much of that is from your stock that you got 4 years ago vesting while the market has gone up? Or is your newly infused grants and cash 300?
  - foota 5y ago
    That's both currently the amount I am getting per year towards my bank account and the amount I'm being granted per year * 4 + cash (I got promoted ~a year ago, meaning my new grants though missing the time value have a higher dollar value at grant time)
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  The argument is money isn’t everything. You left after the 4 year cliff. That’s hardly an argument against keeping the same or higher TC though.
  - foota 5y ago
    Actually I'm still there :-) Nothing against people trying to move and make more, but I just want to let people know that you don't _have_ to do that to be successful (plus refute people that might claim that it's the only way to do so in tech)
franciscop 5y ago
Everything else being the same, it's better to make 300k than 175k/year. And not everything is the same, normally in those better paid jobs you have better Engineers, a lot of challenging problems, many nice perks, etc. What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week. Also you don't get highly ethical companies, just average ones at that (and it might actually be better to donate the diff between 300k and 175k vs working in a slightly more ethical place for 175k). So as far as general advice goes, it makes sense to recommend trying to get those FAANG jobs if you can.
- lumost 5y ago
  It's worth highlighting that this was the opposite device a decade ago when the large caps were IBM/MSFT/CISCO etc. The marginal value of a good software engineer is very high when there is good cash flow. It's difficult to increase cash flow without engaging in some software activity. Organizations tend to find that growing a large software organization is counterproductive to effective development vs. growing a better software organization.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  You might have better engineers in FAAnG but it’s not given that you love your work. Many of my colleagues in those places are bored out of their minds because of how silly or numbing the work is. Part of the reason why I’ve not tried the transition yet.
  - franciscop 5y ago
    Yes, of course, that's how statistics and probability work, you are not guaranteed anything. But chances are higher.
  - postmeta 5y ago
    plenty of low paying silly and mind-numbing work out there too tho
- tubby12345 5y ago
  >What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time).
bit_logic 5y ago
I'm also not into trying to maximize every dollar and care a lot about other factors like WLB. But these days I'm feeling a lot of pressure due to inflation. Everything is going up and I feel like I need to switch jobs and increase salary just to keep up. Yesterday, I read a news article that Social Security benefits are increasing by 5.9% next year due to inflation. And that's from Social Security which historically was under-adjusting for inflation (usually like 1.5% per year). So if the stingy SS program is going 5.9%, what does that say about the actual inflation? And I've never seen anything close to 5.9% for COL from any company. Most companies don't give that even for top performers. I don't think companies are prepared to give 5.9% COL, most companies are already so short sighted they would rather lose their entire engineering department instead of give raises to keep up with the market rate (even though they would be willing to pay that market rate when hiring a replacement). That kind of short sighted thinking simply does not allow a massive COL increase, no matter how much data is out there.
- SergeAx 5y ago
  Inflation is not a universal metric, it's individual. Every person, every household has their own inflation rate depending on spending profile. I would not use government figures to make decisions about my financial affairs.
matco11 5y ago
I believe it’s good practice to think about your compensation not only as “what you get for what you do”, but also as “what you get for not doing what you would rather be doing”. Some companies, some products, some teams, some (lower) level of stress, some amount of learning you are getting, some work/life flexibility - at some (temporary?) point in your life - might make a lot of sense to be considered together with the $ you get paid. I am all up for maximizing what you get out of your job, but you might want to optimize for multiple factors, not just salary. Also, this discussion is very centered on yearly comp. It’s good practice to ask yourself how risk prone you are? That early stage startup equity comp might turn into much more than you will ever get paid at a large established company. So when you are maximizing, ask yourself over what time horizon you want to maximize? One year?Three? Five? Ten years? It’s rare to get truly great things instantly.
burntoutfire 5y ago
> Are you able to live comfortably on $175k per year? Most people can't live comfortably while holding a full-time job, esp. a demanding one. The job just eats too much time and energy. The exceptions are people with very high energy levels and people for whom the job is their passion (but even for them, it's usually temporary - passions change over the duration of one's life).

foota 5y ago

Honestly, I make 300k TC and joined one company out of college and stayed there for the last 4 years. I live in Seattle. I just want to show that not everyone making > 200k switches companies every 2 years trying to minmax.

therealdrag0 5y ago
How much of that is from your stock that you got 4 years ago vesting while the market has gone up? Or is your newly infused grants and cash 300?
- foota 5y ago
  That's both currently the amount I am getting per year towards my bank account and the amount I'm being granted per year * 4 + cash (I got promoted ~a year ago, meaning my new grants though missing the time value have a higher dollar value at grant time)
aiisjustanif 5y ago
The argument is money isn’t everything. You left after the 4 year cliff. That’s hardly an argument against keeping the same or higher TC though.
- foota 5y ago
  Actually I'm still there :-) Nothing against people trying to move and make more, but I just want to let people know that you don't _have_ to do that to be successful (plus refute people that might claim that it's the only way to do so in tech)

franciscop 5y ago

Everything else being the same, it's better to make 300k than 175k/year. And not everything is the same, normally in those better paid jobs you have better Engineers, a lot of challenging problems, many nice perks, etc. What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week. Also you don't get highly ethical companies, just average ones at that (and it might actually be better to donate the diff between 300k and 175k vs working in a slightly more ethical place for 175k). So as far as general advice goes, it makes sense to recommend trying to get those FAANG jobs if you can.

lumost 5y ago
It's worth highlighting that this was the opposite device a decade ago when the large caps were IBM/MSFT/CISCO etc. The marginal value of a good software engineer is very high when there is good cash flow. It's difficult to increase cash flow without engaging in some software activity. Organizations tend to find that growing a large software organization is counterproductive to effective development vs. growing a better software organization.
ramraj07 5y ago
You might have better engineers in FAAnG but it’s not given that you love your work. Many of my colleagues in those places are bored out of their minds because of how silly or numbing the work is. Part of the reason why I’ve not tried the transition yet.
- franciscop 5y ago
  Yes, of course, that's how statistics and probability work, you are not guaranteed anything. But chances are higher.
- postmeta 5y ago
  plenty of low paying silly and mind-numbing work out there too tho
tubby12345 5y ago
>What you don't normally have is flexibility to negotiate special conditions e.g. 4day work week This isn't true. Google allows you to "scale" your work (eg 80% pay for 80% time).

bit_logic 5y ago

I'm also not into trying to maximize every dollar and care a lot about other factors like WLB. But these days I'm feeling a lot of pressure due to inflation. Everything is going up and I feel like I need to switch jobs and increase salary just to keep up. Yesterday, I read a news article that Social Security benefits are increasing by 5.9% next year due to inflation. And that's from Social Security which historically was under-adjusting for inflation (usually like 1.5% per year). So if the stingy SS program is going 5.9%, what does that say about the actual inflation? And I've never seen anything close to 5.9% for COL from any company. Most companies don't give that even for top performers. I don't think companies are prepared to give 5.9% COL, most companies are already so short sighted they would rather lose their entire engineering department instead of give raises to keep up with the market rate (even though they would be willing to pay that market rate when hiring a replacement). That kind of short sighted thinking simply does not allow a massive COL increase, no matter how much data is out there.

SergeAx 5y ago
Inflation is not a universal metric, it's individual. Every person, every household has their own inflation rate depending on spending profile. I would not use government figures to make decisions about my financial affairs.

matco11 5y ago

I believe it’s good practice to think about your compensation not only as “what you get for what you do”, but also as “what you get for not doing what you would rather be doing”. Some companies, some products, some teams, some (lower) level of stress, some amount of learning you are getting, some work/life flexibility - at some (temporary?) point in your life - might make a lot of sense to be considered together with the $ you get paid. I am all up for maximizing what you get out of your job, but you might want to optimize for multiple factors, not just salary. Also, this discussion is very centered on yearly comp. It’s good practice to ask yourself how risk prone you are? That early stage startup equity comp might turn into much more than you will ever get paid at a large established company. So when you are maximizing, ask yourself over what time horizon you want to maximize? One year?Three? Five? Ten years? It’s rare to get truly great things instantly.

burntoutfire 5y ago

> Are you able to live comfortably on $175k per year? Most people can't live comfortably while holding a full-time job, esp. a demanding one. The job just eats too much time and energy. The exceptions are people with very high energy levels and people for whom the job is their passion (but even for them, it's usually temporary - passions change over the duration of one's life).