5 ms·

The implication of the article, that such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the Unit

The implication of the article, that such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the United States, seems pretty reasonable to me. Another thing one could note is the bump in compensation in recent years, which could be a combination of stock going up, more experience making the author a more valuable employee, or market rates for software engineers at large software companies have gone up. None of the numbers strike me as particularly unusual for the author’s circumstances, so if they strike you as unusual (and you are able to work in the US), then it might be worth considering trying to get yourself into similar employment, if that’s what you’d want. If you can’t work in the US, things are different and potentially a lot worse, but the other thing the OP states is that a professional on a more modest income ought to be able to do well making sensible investments[1] and cutting costs. I think that’s true in basically any developed country. You claim that the author’s route was not average, but I think it probably was reasonably average for a software engineer working at large US tech companies in NYC/SF/Silicon Valley. The less average thing is perhaps saving lots of money, making reasonable investments, and not having a load of expensive kids. [1] e.g. 60% of the increase in net worth between 2020 and 2021 comes from investments rather than the ‘earning half a million dollars a year’ and those investments came from earning less than that (obviously such incomes still generally aren’t available to people who aren’t software engineers at big US tech companies, and it may be reasonable to complain that a path that >100k people follow is unreasonable but within this path I think it’s pretty reasonable).

giantg2 5y ago
"I learnt that even an average engineer with a five-figure salary can become a millionaire by her late 30s, through financial discipline and investment planning." Then why doe the article mention average as part of the target audience? "The implication of the article, that such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the United States, seems pretty reasonable to me." I'm moderately compentent and work for a large company. Why do I make under $100k? It seems your perspective might be skewed as it is not common, as evidenced by the median dev salary of about $105k. "None of the numbers strike me as particularly unusual for the author’s circumstances, so if they strike you as unusual (and you are able to work in the US), then it might be worth considering trying to get yourself into similar employment, if that’s what you’d want." Again, I think there's a drastic perception issue here. These number are by definition unusual or rare given the median. It's simply not possible for an average person like me to make that kind of money. "60% of the increase in net worth between 2020 and 2021 comes from investments rather than the ‘earning half a million dollars a year’ and those investments came from earning less than that (obviously such incomes still generally aren’t available to people who aren’t software engineers at big US tech companies, and it may be reasonable to complain that a path that >100k people follow is unreasonable but within this path I think it’s pretty reasonable)." And again, the majority of the US devs fall at or below the median, putting them right around or under that $100k number. So yeah, use "normal" people get a little pissed off with people telling us that it's not unusual to be making multiple times our salaries and we could easily achieve this too if only we were "moderately competent".
- gxespino 5y ago
  "It's simply not possible for an average person like me to make that kind of money." Putting these sort of limitations on yourself, from my experience, will dampen the effort that you put in to achieve new levels, if you even try at all. That reduced effort will result in exactly what you predicted for yourself. So, begs the question, what sort of effort have you put in to increase your pay past the median dev salary.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Masters, extra hours, working above my level, taking on extra responsibility, volunteering for initiatives at work, working on personal projects in my own time, multiple certs, business acumen certs, etc. The number of opportunities to make significantly more money are exceedingly rare. Especially with family constraints like not being allowed to move or no longer able to work extensive unplanned extra hours due to childcare responsibilities.
    - gxespino 5y ago
      You have the resume for sure. Have you worked on your social/emotional intelligence/interviewing skills?
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I interview well. I'm slow at the code screen since I don't get to specialize in any language/stack (working 8 or so apps in multiple languages/stacks). It seems they just pick random languages too.. like my last code screen was in JS, which I haven't used in 5 years (other than to brush up 2 days before the interview). My soft skills are generally good. There aren't a lot of opportunities in my area (Philly region). Even many remote jobs are not worth applying to (only going to switch if it pays at least $100k).
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  Exactly half of US devs earn at or below the median. Which also means half earn at or above it (ignoring the small percentage at exactly the median). I don’t know where you’re statistic comes from but obviously for most of the companies in the OP, salary is only part of the compensation with stock being another part. So someone with a salary of $105k at such a company probably earns more than that when you include stock/bonus. A median being much lower than the numbers reported by the article could be explained by a few things: 1. That compensation is bimodal 2. That there are more people at more junior levels than at senior levels (either more people coming into the field or older people leaving or more experienced people changing roles to e.g. management at some companies and no longer counting towards the ‘software engineer’ category) I think it’s a bit of both, but good data is hard to come by. I don’t know about your circumstances. I don’t know what your constraints are. If you are in the United States, I would encourage you to suppose that a path like the one described in the article is reasonably achievable for a software engineer in the United States[1]. If you think it is true and that you are therefore unfairly treated, then maybe you would re-evaluate your opportunities and consider interviewing (yes this process sucks…) to try to find out whether or not it really is true, as you’d have a lot to gain and not much to lose. If you think it’s true and that you are in an acceptable position then you can avoid having an emotional reaction to threads where people state that the thing you think is true is true. If you think it’s false and it turns out that you were wrong, you may regret not acting sooner. If you can’t participate in the US labour market, that’s quite different. For example many experienced software engineers in the U.K. will earn less than $70k though I don’t have statistics to hand. Larger companies offer higher pay now but the market seems quite different from the one in the US. I hope you don’t think I’m attacking you. I’d like you to feel like you’re able to make deliberate, informed decisions rather than that it is all luck. [1] If you believe it is achievable for someone working at these big tech companies, consider that there aren’t that many software engineers in the United States and that a rough low lower bound for the number of engineers employed by companies meeting the above description would be 100k (I think the real number is >3x higher, but this 100k number could be found by looking at a small number of companies) so in percentage terms, it can’t be too uncommon to work at such places. A second thing to say is that high compensation in the US does not require you to live in Silicon Valley or New York. Many well-paying large tech companies have satellite offices in smaller metros offering only slightly lower pay, or offer remote work with either no cost of living adjustments, or an adjustment that still allows for high compensation. A third thing is that opportunities aren’t equal, for example hardware engineers, game developers, and possibly people in the embedded space tend to be paid (potentially much) more poorly than more general software engineers. Finally, maybe everything will change. I don’t have a great reason for software engineers to be so highly paid and there might be some big crash or other correction that stops that being the case.
ac29 5y ago
> such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the United States The author made $625k in compensation this year. Even for large US tech companies, that's far above the "moderately competent" level. According to levels.fyi, this is approximately what a Principal SWE makes at Amazon, the third highest compensation level listed.
- crakhamster01 5y ago
  My guess would be a higher end SDE3/L6 - I believe Amazon backloads their vesting schedule so the jump seems reasonable?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Rational, maybe. Reasonable, not from my perspective.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  You're looking at take-home, while levels.fyi shows granted amounts. AMZN and GOOG have both ~tripled since early 2018, so if you joined with a large stock grant (and as the other user mentioned, amazon's are backloaded), you'd be getting 3x the modelled amount. So someone who joined with a 160K salary and 400K stock grant at Amazon, which is modelled compensation of just a bit over 250K would take home 160K + .4 * 400K * 3 = 640K this year. That translates to the high side of L5 or low side of L6 at amazon, which is to say well within the "Senior" band.

giantg2 5y ago

"I learnt that even an average engineer with a five-figure salary can become a millionaire by her late 30s, through financial discipline and investment planning." Then why doe the article mention average as part of the target audience? "The implication of the article, that such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the United States, seems pretty reasonable to me." I'm moderately compentent and work for a large company. Why do I make under $100k? It seems your perspective might be skewed as it is not common, as evidenced by the median dev salary of about $105k. "None of the numbers strike me as particularly unusual for the author’s circumstances, so if they strike you as unusual (and you are able to work in the US), then it might be worth considering trying to get yourself into similar employment, if that’s what you’d want." Again, I think there's a drastic perception issue here. These number are by definition unusual or rare given the median. It's simply not possible for an average person like me to make that kind of money. "60% of the increase in net worth between 2020 and 2021 comes from investments rather than the ‘earning half a million dollars a year’ and those investments came from earning less than that (obviously such incomes still generally aren’t available to people who aren’t software engineers at big US tech companies, and it may be reasonable to complain that a path that >100k people follow is unreasonable but within this path I think it’s pretty reasonable)." And again, the majority of the US devs fall at or below the median, putting them right around or under that $100k number. So yeah, use "normal" people get a little pissed off with people telling us that it's not unusual to be making multiple times our salaries and we could easily achieve this too if only we were "moderately competent".

gxespino 5y ago
"It's simply not possible for an average person like me to make that kind of money." Putting these sort of limitations on yourself, from my experience, will dampen the effort that you put in to achieve new levels, if you even try at all. That reduced effort will result in exactly what you predicted for yourself. So, begs the question, what sort of effort have you put in to increase your pay past the median dev salary.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Masters, extra hours, working above my level, taking on extra responsibility, volunteering for initiatives at work, working on personal projects in my own time, multiple certs, business acumen certs, etc. The number of opportunities to make significantly more money are exceedingly rare. Especially with family constraints like not being allowed to move or no longer able to work extensive unplanned extra hours due to childcare responsibilities.
  - gxespino 5y ago
    You have the resume for sure. Have you worked on your social/emotional intelligence/interviewing skills?
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I interview well. I'm slow at the code screen since I don't get to specialize in any language/stack (working 8 or so apps in multiple languages/stacks). It seems they just pick random languages too.. like my last code screen was in JS, which I haven't used in 5 years (other than to brush up 2 days before the interview). My soft skills are generally good. There aren't a lot of opportunities in my area (Philly region). Even many remote jobs are not worth applying to (only going to switch if it pays at least $100k).
dan-robertson 5y ago
Exactly half of US devs earn at or below the median. Which also means half earn at or above it (ignoring the small percentage at exactly the median). I don’t know where you’re statistic comes from but obviously for most of the companies in the OP, salary is only part of the compensation with stock being another part. So someone with a salary of $105k at such a company probably earns more than that when you include stock/bonus. A median being much lower than the numbers reported by the article could be explained by a few things: 1. That compensation is bimodal 2. That there are more people at more junior levels than at senior levels (either more people coming into the field or older people leaving or more experienced people changing roles to e.g. management at some companies and no longer counting towards the ‘software engineer’ category) I think it’s a bit of both, but good data is hard to come by. I don’t know about your circumstances. I don’t know what your constraints are. If you are in the United States, I would encourage you to suppose that a path like the one described in the article is reasonably achievable for a software engineer in the United States[1]. If you think it is true and that you are therefore unfairly treated, then maybe you would re-evaluate your opportunities and consider interviewing (yes this process sucks…) to try to find out whether or not it really is true, as you’d have a lot to gain and not much to lose. If you think it’s true and that you are in an acceptable position then you can avoid having an emotional reaction to threads where people state that the thing you think is true is true. If you think it’s false and it turns out that you were wrong, you may regret not acting sooner. If you can’t participate in the US labour market, that’s quite different. For example many experienced software engineers in the U.K. will earn less than $70k though I don’t have statistics to hand. Larger companies offer higher pay now but the market seems quite different from the one in the US. I hope you don’t think I’m attacking you. I’d like you to feel like you’re able to make deliberate, informed decisions rather than that it is all luck. [1] If you believe it is achievable for someone working at these big tech companies, consider that there aren’t that many software engineers in the United States and that a rough low lower bound for the number of engineers employed by companies meeting the above description would be 100k (I think the real number is >3x higher, but this 100k number could be found by looking at a small number of companies) so in percentage terms, it can’t be too uncommon to work at such places. A second thing to say is that high compensation in the US does not require you to live in Silicon Valley or New York. Many well-paying large tech companies have satellite offices in smaller metros offering only slightly lower pay, or offer remote work with either no cost of living adjustments, or an adjustment that still allows for high compensation. A third thing is that opportunities aren’t equal, for example hardware engineers, game developers, and possibly people in the embedded space tend to be paid (potentially much) more poorly than more general software engineers. Finally, maybe everything will change. I don’t have a great reason for software engineers to be so highly paid and there might be some big crash or other correction that stops that being the case.

ac29 5y ago

> such compensation is reasonably possible to a moderately competent software developer working for big companies in the United States The author made $625k in compensation this year. Even for large US tech companies, that's far above the "moderately competent" level. According to levels.fyi, this is approximately what a Principal SWE makes at Amazon, the third highest compensation level listed.

crakhamster01 5y ago
My guess would be a higher end SDE3/L6 - I believe Amazon backloads their vesting schedule so the jump seems reasonable?
- giantg2 5y ago
  Rational, maybe. Reasonable, not from my perspective.
joshuamorton 5y ago
You're looking at take-home, while levels.fyi shows granted amounts. AMZN and GOOG have both ~tripled since early 2018, so if you joined with a large stock grant (and as the other user mentioned, amazon's are backloaded), you'd be getting 3x the modelled amount. So someone who joined with a 160K salary and 400K stock grant at Amazon, which is modelled compensation of just a bit over 250K would take home 160K + .4 * 400K * 3 = 640K this year. That translates to the high side of L5 or low side of L6 at amazon, which is to say well within the "Senior" band.