4 ms·

This is something I don't think gets discussed enough. In my first 10 years of career I basically doubled my salary, by moving every 2-3 years, but I also now k

This is something I don't think gets discussed enough. In my first 10 years of career I basically doubled my salary, by moving every 2-3 years, but I also now know I am pretty much hitting a plateau, anytime I talk with recruiters and talk about the salary I'd like to move which is about 10-20% (which is pretty reasonable given the benefits I got now) then people express reservations. Some people will end up making 200+ but I for an IC type position it seems to top out around 150 is the max, generally. If you want more you need to be an "Enterprise Architect" or "Director" which that becomes a whole different bag of worms. On the other hand love my job, I have enough money to provide for myself and my family, and am working on getting financially secure and paying off debt so I also don't have a strong drive to make more.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Well, what is there to discuss about it? (Genuine question). You could extend the curve and plateau higher, but then, that money is probably going to cause problems elsewhere for the younger generations. Meanwhile, the younger generations are seeking income increases so they can get the basics out of the way and start working towards their goals. They are already at the point where, despite studying for a long time and taking longer to enter the market, they are starting lower and have to delay their goals way more than the generations before them. I don't really see a solution here. You can make young people work earlier, but that'll flood the job market even more. Boosting young people will make the curve flatter, which exacerbates the problem. You could extend the curve otherwise, but that means your yearly growth at the start will be smaller (which hurts everyone along the curve). The only solution I see here is to take a larger portion of the profits, and stakeholders are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that.
Firmwarrior 4y ago
Good news, friend. I'm an IC making ~400k/year (it's half RSUs, so that number fluctuates a lot) with 15 years' experience and not much networking/politicking skill I have some friends making ~600, although a lot of that was getting lucky with RSUs, so I'm not sure they can keep it up in the long run Either way, the ceiling is a lot higher than 150
jcadam 4y ago
15 years in. Stuck at 200K, and I doubt that's going to go up much because the layoffs have started and we're heading back into "lucky to have a job" territory.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  >"Stuck at 200K, and I doubt that's going to go up much because the layoffs have started and we're heading back into "lucky to have a job" territory." Where have there have the layoffs started? What evidence do you have that we are "heading back into 'lucky to have a job' territory"?
  - jcadam 4y ago
    Were you around in 2008?
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      That's not an answer to the question. he/she was asking for evidence or an explanation, because your claim is not intuitive.
    - bogomipz 4y ago
      I sure was. I fail to see how your question answers either of the two questions I was asking however.
pyuser583 4y ago
It becomes increasingly stock heavy, and for good reason. Taxes become a huge thing. If you can get the income as long term capital gains, you get to keep a lot more. At the same time, money is money, and stock isn’t money.
websap 4y ago
You'll need to spend some time on levels.fyi

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Well, what is there to discuss about it? (Genuine question). You could extend the curve and plateau higher, but then, that money is probably going to cause problems elsewhere for the younger generations. Meanwhile, the younger generations are seeking income increases so they can get the basics out of the way and start working towards their goals. They are already at the point where, despite studying for a long time and taking longer to enter the market, they are starting lower and have to delay their goals way more than the generations before them. I don't really see a solution here. You can make young people work earlier, but that'll flood the job market even more. Boosting young people will make the curve flatter, which exacerbates the problem. You could extend the curve otherwise, but that means your yearly growth at the start will be smaller (which hurts everyone along the curve). The only solution I see here is to take a larger portion of the profits, and stakeholders are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that.

Firmwarrior 4y ago

Good news, friend. I'm an IC making ~400k/year (it's half RSUs, so that number fluctuates a lot) with 15 years' experience and not much networking/politicking skill I have some friends making ~600, although a lot of that was getting lucky with RSUs, so I'm not sure they can keep it up in the long run Either way, the ceiling is a lot higher than 150

jcadam 4y ago

15 years in. Stuck at 200K, and I doubt that's going to go up much because the layoffs have started and we're heading back into "lucky to have a job" territory.

bogomipz 4y ago
>"Stuck at 200K, and I doubt that's going to go up much because the layoffs have started and we're heading back into "lucky to have a job" territory." Where have there have the layoffs started? What evidence do you have that we are "heading back into 'lucky to have a job' territory"?
- jcadam 4y ago
  Were you around in 2008?
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    That's not an answer to the question. he/she was asking for evidence or an explanation, because your claim is not intuitive.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    I sure was. I fail to see how your question answers either of the two questions I was asking however.

pyuser583 4y ago

It becomes increasingly stock heavy, and for good reason. Taxes become a huge thing. If you can get the income as long term capital gains, you get to keep a lot more. At the same time, money is money, and stock isn’t money.

websap 4y ago

You'll need to spend some time on levels.fyi