5 ms·

I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA

I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA whatever make 300k+ a year and like 450k+ at the staff level. They make that because they're architecting and scaling services to literally something like 50% of the global population, and theoretically with deep knowledge of the distributed systems algos and gotchas needed to do so. And because of the difference in profitability of these tech cos compared to typical industries. Like if you have normal modern tech skills you shouldn't expect to make top 0.1%th percentile of the industry salaries. People with those normal skills make 50th percentile and up salaries. Which are high relative to other industries, but not top of our industry high, sorry. Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P Not to mention that the available amount of positions at these top tech companies are limited. Not everyone will get to them, because there just aren't enough. Edit: However, I'm a big believer in the idea of "You can eat what you can catch." So if you can otherwise raise your earning power to that of a FAANG Eng for doing normal work -- more power to you.

giantg2 4y ago
"Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P" My labor in particular is even less so.
foobarian 4y ago
> Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters Furthermore: pray tell who do you think built Kubernetes and web services?
- ianbutler 4y ago
  I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but since I imagine there are plenty of people who don't actually know: Kube is a descendant of Borg, and for those who don't know that's Google's internal container management solution. General web services are a little more muddy but most of the top frameworks and services are the conception of devs either in or formerly from FAANG/MAANG/ACRONYM whatever. Like there's still a reason having those names on your resume is used as signal in a lot of places. It doesn't always mean the dev is the best thing since sliced bread, but I get why people use it as signal.
scottLobster 4y ago
Having worked with people who both came from and went to Google and Facebook, that has not been my experience. Sure maybe a select few fall into that category, and all of the people I've worked with who went to/from FAANG were technically talented and decent to work with, but they got things wrong too. They weren't gods among engineers. At no point did I look at something they coded and think "no way I could have done that". In fact they generally produced over-complicated, poorly documented modules. So maybe demanding 300-400k/year is a bit much just due to the difference in industry/business models, but even the entry level FAANG salaries can be superior. Managers at my company are constantly complaining in all-hands meetings about losing people to better paying positions in the more-private sector. So they are competing with SV to some degree, and should act accordingly or be generally happy with second-tier talent. Sounds like Exxon is fine with being in the second category. From my perspective the Exxon engineers in question are just asking why they aren't being paid market rate. Labor-scarcity often pushes salaries up more than talent.
- ianbutler 4y ago
  "were technically talented and decent to work with" that is my point in it's entirety. I didn't say they were gods among engineers I said they had skillsets general engs don't have or learn just from working at normal co. Getting things wrong is still very much a human thing, which everyone is, technical talent -- which is what these tech cos look for means they can pick up the skillset while at whatever acronym co they're at. To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything." That's good. I think I probably have a deep latent jealousy or dislike for how much they make. Maybe that's just midlife regret.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Sure, but I could say the same about roughly 2/3 of my immediate co-workers, and most of the rest are at least good to work with. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but you seemed to imply that engineers at FAANG making FAANG-level salaries in part earn those salaries due to rare technical acumen. My point is, for many of them, that probably isn't the case. Sure the 300/400k positions will go to the Wozniak and Carmack-equivalents of the world, but the 150k entry/mid level positions at FAANG are still well above entry/mid level for traditional industry despite, as best I can tell, performing roughly the same work with roughly the same talent. I don't know exactly what kind of salary the disgruntled Exxon engineers had in mind, but I don't think a market correction to that 150k level would be out of order if these companies really want to put their money where their mouth is, particularly given inflation and, in the case of Exxon, record profits.

giantg2 4y ago

"Your (the general your, not you in particular) labor is valuable but not that valuable :P" My labor in particular is even less so.

foobarian 4y ago

> Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters Furthermore: pray tell who do you think built Kubernetes and web services?

ianbutler 4y ago
I'm assuming this was rhetorical, but since I imagine there are plenty of people who don't actually know: Kube is a descendant of Borg, and for those who don't know that's Google's internal container management solution. General web services are a little more muddy but most of the top frameworks and services are the conception of devs either in or formerly from FAANG/MAANG/ACRONYM whatever. Like there's still a reason having those names on your resume is used as signal in a lot of places. It doesn't always mean the dev is the best thing since sliced bread, but I get why people use it as signal.

scottLobster 4y ago

Having worked with people who both came from and went to Google and Facebook, that has not been my experience. Sure maybe a select few fall into that category, and all of the people I've worked with who went to/from FAANG were technically talented and decent to work with, but they got things wrong too. They weren't gods among engineers. At no point did I look at something they coded and think "no way I could have done that". In fact they generally produced over-complicated, poorly documented modules. So maybe demanding 300-400k/year is a bit much just due to the difference in industry/business models, but even the entry level FAANG salaries can be superior. Managers at my company are constantly complaining in all-hands meetings about losing people to better paying positions in the more-private sector. So they are competing with SV to some degree, and should act accordingly or be generally happy with second-tier talent. Sounds like Exxon is fine with being in the second category. From my perspective the Exxon engineers in question are just asking why they aren't being paid market rate. Labor-scarcity often pushes salaries up more than talent.

ianbutler 4y ago
"were technically talented and decent to work with" that is my point in it's entirety. I didn't say they were gods among engineers I said they had skillsets general engs don't have or learn just from working at normal co. Getting things wrong is still very much a human thing, which everyone is, technical talent -- which is what these tech cos look for means they can pick up the skillset while at whatever acronym co they're at. To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything." That's good. I think I probably have a deep latent jealousy or dislike for how much they make. Maybe that's just midlife regret.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Sure, but I could say the same about roughly 2/3 of my immediate co-workers, and most of the rest are at least good to work with. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but you seemed to imply that engineers at FAANG making FAANG-level salaries in part earn those salaries due to rare technical acumen. My point is, for many of them, that probably isn't the case. Sure the 300/400k positions will go to the Wozniak and Carmack-equivalents of the world, but the 150k entry/mid level positions at FAANG are still well above entry/mid level for traditional industry despite, as best I can tell, performing roughly the same work with roughly the same talent. I don't know exactly what kind of salary the disgruntled Exxon engineers had in mind, but I don't think a market correction to that 150k level would be out of order if these companies really want to put their money where their mouth is, particularly given inflation and, in the case of Exxon, record profits.