4 ms·

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,

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.
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    To be clear I expect entry and mid level FAANG to be clearing 200k+. I agree the rest of the industry should be making about 150k. But in case it's unclear most of that 200k+ comes in the form of RSUs or other equity compensation. I don't expect Exxon to compete on that because their stock can't support it, they can probably compete on the cash portion though. I don't expect FAANG people to have "rare technical acumen" I do think most people working at a FAANG are 80th percentile and up. So upper quartile in technical capability. Thing is Carmack and Dean types are 0.1% talent, they make anywhere from 700k to over a million at a FAANG. I don't think you're correctly level set on what people are earning. A person making 400k at a FAANG is like a staff engineer. But their base salary is probably 200-250k? The rest of that is bonuses and equity compensation in the form of RSUs. For the record I'm in this earning bracket (not the dean/carmack one, but a high earning senior dev) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about with these numbers.
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      Also once you get to like Carmack/Dean levels it's like pointless to talk about their compensation because the answer is "a lot" and super variable, I don't have that level of leverage so I can't tell you but it's not something even an above average, or even a really good engineer can begin to contemplate, we're talking one in several generations type of talent. You could tell me Jeff Dean clears 10M from google yearly and I'd be like sure, makes sense.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      Well I've never worked in FAANG, so yeah my knowledge of exact compensation levels is Glassdoor stats, which largely match up with what you're saying. Perhaps my perspective is slightly skewed. Even just comparing to FAANG base salaries: From the perspective of a big defense contractor, we recently had a new grad start on our team, level 1 software engineer with a bachelor's in computer science from a mid-rank university, and he's making 85k/year. Maybe in 5 years he can expect to make about 115k between yearly raises and promotion to level 2, maybe 130k if he busts his ass and makes level 3 in that time. 200k+ is reserved for the engineers that manage to get their names on patents and know the right people/get lucky, and typically have decades of experience at the company and extremely deep knowledge of a high-value subject.

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.
- ianbutler 4y ago
  To be clear I expect entry and mid level FAANG to be clearing 200k+. I agree the rest of the industry should be making about 150k. But in case it's unclear most of that 200k+ comes in the form of RSUs or other equity compensation. I don't expect Exxon to compete on that because their stock can't support it, they can probably compete on the cash portion though. I don't expect FAANG people to have "rare technical acumen" I do think most people working at a FAANG are 80th percentile and up. So upper quartile in technical capability. Thing is Carmack and Dean types are 0.1% talent, they make anywhere from 700k to over a million at a FAANG. I don't think you're correctly level set on what people are earning. A person making 400k at a FAANG is like a staff engineer. But their base salary is probably 200-250k? The rest of that is bonuses and equity compensation in the form of RSUs. For the record I'm in this earning bracket (not the dean/carmack one, but a high earning senior dev) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about with these numbers.
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    Also once you get to like Carmack/Dean levels it's like pointless to talk about their compensation because the answer is "a lot" and super variable, I don't have that level of leverage so I can't tell you but it's not something even an above average, or even a really good engineer can begin to contemplate, we're talking one in several generations type of talent. You could tell me Jeff Dean clears 10M from google yearly and I'd be like sure, makes sense.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    Well I've never worked in FAANG, so yeah my knowledge of exact compensation levels is Glassdoor stats, which largely match up with what you're saying. Perhaps my perspective is slightly skewed. Even just comparing to FAANG base salaries: From the perspective of a big defense contractor, we recently had a new grad start on our team, level 1 software engineer with a bachelor's in computer science from a mid-rank university, and he's making 85k/year. Maybe in 5 years he can expect to make about 115k between yearly raises and promotion to level 2, maybe 130k if he busts his ass and makes level 3 in that time. 200k+ is reserved for the engineers that manage to get their names on patents and know the right people/get lucky, and typically have decades of experience at the company and extremely deep knowledge of a high-value subject.