4 ms·

So, my previous role was as a PE in AWS. I made a high multiple of my current salary, yes. I think the quality of people around me at UW is mostly just differe

So, my previous role was as a PE in AWS. I made a high multiple of my current salary, yes. I think the quality of people around me at UW is mostly just different. Domain expertise is much deeper - the image processing experts really know their stuff! While fundamental systems and devops stuff is pretty absent from anyone’s skillsets. I don’t think you can really simply say that the talent quality is better or worse - it’s different. I work at UW because I prefer the content of the work over my past at AWS. It turns out there are lots of people like me, who agree that $120k is plenty, and who made a very cushy pile of cash in the past at FAANG.

mentat 5y ago
It's plenty for people who already have a pile of cash. That seems a bit problematic right?
- xref 5y ago
  Depends on your lifestyle but for the bulk of Americans $120k is extremely cushy, at nearly 4x the median salary of $35k
  - bradlys 5y ago
    In Seattle though - it is not a cushy amount. If you’re wanting to buy a home without a huge commute - you need to make more than that.
    - xref 5y ago
      Similarly if you’re looking to buy in the southern tip of Manhattan, Star Island Miami, or Brentwood.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Depends on your lifestyle but for the bulk of Americans $120k is extremely cushy, at nearly 4x the median salary of $35k True, though it is closer to 3×
    - xref 5y ago
      lol, ok I'm not quite sure how discussing fractions of an integer would change the conversation in this case since we're already trying to compare one person's $120k to a statistical median of ~$35k. If you're actually interested in the numbers on different groups they're here [0]. For ex $120k is ~5.77x the median for a woman without a college degree. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I'm not quite sure how discussing fractions of an integer would change the conversation in this case It doesn't, really, hence the “True” part of “True, though...”
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    It apso puts you in the ~75th percentile for household income in the US, if your spouse also works you're doing far better than the vast majority of Americans.
- Invictus0 5y ago
  Uh, no, it's plenty for everyone. Leave it to HN to pretend that $120k is a starvation wage.
  - erwincoumans 5y ago
    According to Foster City (Bay area, California) affordable housing, a 4 person family is considered low income at 146,350 See the table under "What are the income limits for the program?" https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/frequently-asked-questions https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/frequently-asked-que...
- spenczar5 5y ago
  You’re getting unfairly teased for this; I do think its a bit weird. But it’s mostly a problem for FAANG. My advice to everyone who can get a job at FAANG is to put in 5 or 6 years there, raking in a few million dollars (!!). Pay off student debts and secure your future, and then work for ~100k on something you care about or good for the world. FAANG has to pay so much that they can actually have trouble retaining people. This pattern I have described seems to be becoming more common.
jonas21 5y ago
The number listed for you on the website is $57,800, and I assume that's what the parent was basing their comment on.
- spenczar5 5y ago
  Ah, that is confusing since it is for a fraction of the year. I am paid $120k/yr, which is typical.
omginternets 5y ago
What do you do at UW? I left academic research in an unrelated discipline (cognitive neuroscience) to become a software engineer. I really enjoy my work, but I also miss the deep expertise and intellectual stimulation of the academe. I might interested in this career path - $120k is plenty.
- spenczar5 5y ago
  I write software and basic infrastructure for astronomy. I spend most of my time on the upcoming Rubin Observatory, which is actively hiring software people: https://www.lsst.org/hiring/ https://www.lsst.org/hiring/ Academia has pluses and minuses. Less pay, but the overall mission is more interesting. Really really smart coworkers, but not a lot of structure for growth, since almost everyone just thinks in terms of tenure. Laid back pace, but sometimes too laid back; I wish expectations were a bit higher. Overall I certainly like it more than my time at AWS, but recognize its not for everyone.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Any advice for making the switch? In particular, which parts of your AWS experience did UWA find most relevant?
aerosmile 5y ago
That's all we needed to know - your primary motivation is not the max salary you can get. On that note, more power to you, I truly believe you're more likely to lead a happy life than most people. But you're really not in a good position to advocate for open salaries - you're an outlier. Most people deeply, deeply, deeply care about their salaries. It's what gets them out of the bed in the morning, it's what makes their partners respect them, it's what might perhaps provide for private schooling for their kids, etc. Most importantly, it's what makes them feel good about themselves. Yes, those are all wrong reasons, and yes, that's how most people are wired [1]. You'll notice that people who work in academia, military, government jobs, etc all have one thing in common - they are ok with not being able to make more than their peers. They get their happiness from other things in life. But the majority of people out there will happily go the extra mile to get an extra bump in their salary. Open salaries don't allow that - everyone is treated the same, everyone works the same, everyone's output is the same, everyone makes the same salary. If it sounds familiar to communism, it is - where I was born, everyone's salary was also the same and there was nothing you could do about it. It worked great for people in academia and military (and, coincidentally or not, those are generally the strengths of a communist regime), and it demoralized most people working in other parts of economy where there was supposed to be some competition in the market (which again, coincidentally or not, are the weaknesses of a communist regime). Notably, you won't find a lot of salary transparency in more evolved communist regimes like China, and that perfectly correlated with their economic growth. [1] Side note: I might sound like I am wired the same way, but I actually took a 6x reduction in salary about 10 years ago and have stayed much below my previous level ever since. Life was incredibly comfortable back then, but I am happier now.
- saulpw 5y ago
  > Most people deeply, deeply, deeply care about their salaries. It's what gets them out of the bed in the morning... This seems to be kind of a problem though? Both to be this person, and to have to work with them, and to have society composed of them. Billionaires are a drain on society and the economy, but the core issue is not the wealth inequality itself but the larger attitude in which "most people deeply care about money, first and foremost".
smsm42 5y ago
What you're saying is that if you're not motivated by money, and not worried about money, because you already have tons of money, then disclosing how much money you're making and knowing how much money your peers are making won't make much difference. Well, yes, probably. But I don't think this is the common case - especially when we're talking about academia, which attracts people with different set of motivations, usually.

mentat 5y ago

It's plenty for people who already have a pile of cash. That seems a bit problematic right?

xref 5y ago
Depends on your lifestyle but for the bulk of Americans $120k is extremely cushy, at nearly 4x the median salary of $35k
- bradlys 5y ago
  In Seattle though - it is not a cushy amount. If you’re wanting to buy a home without a huge commute - you need to make more than that.
  - xref 5y ago
    Similarly if you’re looking to buy in the southern tip of Manhattan, Star Island Miami, or Brentwood.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Depends on your lifestyle but for the bulk of Americans $120k is extremely cushy, at nearly 4x the median salary of $35k True, though it is closer to 3×
  - xref 5y ago
    lol, ok I'm not quite sure how discussing fractions of an integer would change the conversation in this case since we're already trying to compare one person's $120k to a statistical median of ~$35k. If you're actually interested in the numbers on different groups they're here [0]. For ex $120k is ~5.77x the median for a woman without a college degree. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I'm not quite sure how discussing fractions of an integer would change the conversation in this case It doesn't, really, hence the “True” part of “True, though...”
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  It apso puts you in the ~75th percentile for household income in the US, if your spouse also works you're doing far better than the vast majority of Americans.
Invictus0 5y ago
Uh, no, it's plenty for everyone. Leave it to HN to pretend that $120k is a starvation wage.
- erwincoumans 5y ago
  According to Foster City (Bay area, California) affordable housing, a 4 person family is considered low income at 146,350 See the table under "What are the income limits for the program?" https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/frequently-asked-questions https://www.fostercity.org/commdev/page/frequently-asked-que...
spenczar5 5y ago
You’re getting unfairly teased for this; I do think its a bit weird. But it’s mostly a problem for FAANG. My advice to everyone who can get a job at FAANG is to put in 5 or 6 years there, raking in a few million dollars (!!). Pay off student debts and secure your future, and then work for ~100k on something you care about or good for the world. FAANG has to pay so much that they can actually have trouble retaining people. This pattern I have described seems to be becoming more common.

jonas21 5y ago

The number listed for you on the website is $57,800, and I assume that's what the parent was basing their comment on.

spenczar5 5y ago
Ah, that is confusing since it is for a fraction of the year. I am paid $120k/yr, which is typical.

omginternets 5y ago

What do you do at UW? I left academic research in an unrelated discipline (cognitive neuroscience) to become a software engineer. I really enjoy my work, but I also miss the deep expertise and intellectual stimulation of the academe. I might interested in this career path - $120k is plenty.

spenczar5 5y ago
I write software and basic infrastructure for astronomy. I spend most of my time on the upcoming Rubin Observatory, which is actively hiring software people: https://www.lsst.org/hiring/ https://www.lsst.org/hiring/ Academia has pluses and minuses. Less pay, but the overall mission is more interesting. Really really smart coworkers, but not a lot of structure for growth, since almost everyone just thinks in terms of tenure. Laid back pace, but sometimes too laid back; I wish expectations were a bit higher. Overall I certainly like it more than my time at AWS, but recognize its not for everyone.
- omginternets 5y ago
  Any advice for making the switch? In particular, which parts of your AWS experience did UWA find most relevant?

aerosmile 5y ago

That's all we needed to know - your primary motivation is not the max salary you can get. On that note, more power to you, I truly believe you're more likely to lead a happy life than most people. But you're really not in a good position to advocate for open salaries - you're an outlier. Most people deeply, deeply, deeply care about their salaries. It's what gets them out of the bed in the morning, it's what makes their partners respect them, it's what might perhaps provide for private schooling for their kids, etc. Most importantly, it's what makes them feel good about themselves. Yes, those are all wrong reasons, and yes, that's how most people are wired [1]. You'll notice that people who work in academia, military, government jobs, etc all have one thing in common - they are ok with not being able to make more than their peers. They get their happiness from other things in life. But the majority of people out there will happily go the extra mile to get an extra bump in their salary. Open salaries don't allow that - everyone is treated the same, everyone works the same, everyone's output is the same, everyone makes the same salary. If it sounds familiar to communism, it is - where I was born, everyone's salary was also the same and there was nothing you could do about it. It worked great for people in academia and military (and, coincidentally or not, those are generally the strengths of a communist regime), and it demoralized most people working in other parts of economy where there was supposed to be some competition in the market (which again, coincidentally or not, are the weaknesses of a communist regime). Notably, you won't find a lot of salary transparency in more evolved communist regimes like China, and that perfectly correlated with their economic growth. [1] Side note: I might sound like I am wired the same way, but I actually took a 6x reduction in salary about 10 years ago and have stayed much below my previous level ever since. Life was incredibly comfortable back then, but I am happier now.

saulpw 5y ago
> Most people deeply, deeply, deeply care about their salaries. It's what gets them out of the bed in the morning... This seems to be kind of a problem though? Both to be this person, and to have to work with them, and to have society composed of them. Billionaires are a drain on society and the economy, but the core issue is not the wealth inequality itself but the larger attitude in which "most people deeply care about money, first and foremost".

smsm42 5y ago

What you're saying is that if you're not motivated by money, and not worried about money, because you already have tons of money, then disclosing how much money you're making and knowing how much money your peers are making won't make much difference. Well, yes, probably. But I don't think this is the common case - especially when we're talking about academia, which attracts people with different set of motivations, usually.