9 ms·

> "compensation packages people are talking are still like a quarter of what was typical a year ago if that" You mean much less stock? I can't imagine a senior

> "compensation packages people are talking are still like a quarter of what was typical a year ago if that" You mean much less stock? I can't imagine a senior engineer getting a $50k in annual salary, only in the cash component.

benreesman 3y ago
I have less intuition for how equity packages are working because that tends to happen a little later in the conversation at least in my geography and at my tenure. Broadly people seem to be signaling looser equity purse strings to go along with massively tighter cash purse strings YoY. I’m sort of L7/L8 with an ML infra focus in California and total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k and now people are seeming to need to “call upstairs” to talk above 150. So maybe half-ish would be closer than the quarter-ish I threw out in my comment. I was kind of factoring in inflation and that stock comp in a mature public company at a 30-40 PE is unlikely to hold up for 4 years.
- cornholio 3y ago
  > total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k That was probably an unsustainable bubble on the long run, inflation adjusted, unless you hold exceptionally rare skills that can't be replicated or taught. It was simply the result of a severely unbalanced market. I'm sure some people still make 400k+, but I'm also sure their performance and contribution is scrutinized quarterly and they are the first on the chopping block unless they hold internal political clout or are famous.
  - benreesman 3y ago
    I don’t think that I hold exceptionally rare skills but I’m probably like an L8 which is give or take junior director level. I’ve got 20 years of experience and am experienced in ML/AI, not at a researcher level certainly but I know my stuff. When I was a FAANG EM I was an L7, so like one below director. The market will be what the market will be, there’s no absolute right and wrong, but it doesn’t seem totally crazy that someone leveled around there would make what a successful doctor or lawyer does. I’m a childless bachelor so it’s not particularly important to me to hit those comp levels again, but as a general thing I think software engineers should be considered on par for a given experience as any other job that requires decades of intense practice to get really good at in a field where one’s employer is making a healthy profit.
  - idkyall 3y ago
    I think it's hard to comment because this depends on the HCOL/LCOL area, the company and the level very wildly. I believe Netflix Seniors make that level of cash comp, and I'm sure staff/principal+ at a large tech company in the bay area or HCOL could push 300k in salary.
rprospero 3y ago
Hi! I’m a senior engineer getting $53k in annual salary. Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included (government job, so I know the salaries). Also, it’s a government job, so obviously zero stock. Anyway, just letting you know that we’re out here.
- moneywoes 3y ago
  May I ask what country?
- cuttysnark 3y ago
  > Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included I'm curious—how does this work? More responsibility ought to mean more compensation—what incentive is there to be a boss if you'll make the same as your reports?
  - okennedy 3y ago
    Differing skillsets? Managing people doesn't have to mean more responsibility. Some people are good at doing, others are good at the bureaucracy game and buffering for the doers. Both are critical, and in a good org, both have different, but not necessarily differing scales of responsibility.
  - rprospero 3y ago
    I am at the max salary band for my position. His position can admit a higher salary band. After a few years, he’ll have a track record proving his competence in the new position and can apply to be raised to a higher band. I believe the theory is to avoid the Peter principle. If someone is promoted into a position for which they are not competent, then they can be transferred back to their old position without lowering their salary (since it’s been the same salary the whole time). I also think there’s some stuff about passion, grit, and drive that’s been imported from the private sector.
    - cuttysnark 3y ago
      This makes perfect sense now, thanks for explaining.
danaris 3y ago
I've been working in tech for 20 years now (longer, if you count internships during college), and while I'm making more than $50K now, it's not by a hell of a lot. Please, please try to remember that not only is Silicon Valley relatively small in terms of the total number of programmers (of whatever particular job title) it employs, it's also a massive outlier in terms of compensation. Most places that programmers work don't offer equity of any kind, and $100k is still a high salary for many types of programming and tech work outside of SV.

benreesman 3y ago

I have less intuition for how equity packages are working because that tends to happen a little later in the conversation at least in my geography and at my tenure. Broadly people seem to be signaling looser equity purse strings to go along with massively tighter cash purse strings YoY. I’m sort of L7/L8 with an ML infra focus in California and total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k and now people are seeming to need to “call upstairs” to talk above 150. So maybe half-ish would be closer than the quarter-ish I threw out in my comment. I was kind of factoring in inflation and that stock comp in a mature public company at a 30-40 PE is unlikely to hold up for 4 years.

cornholio 3y ago
> total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k That was probably an unsustainable bubble on the long run, inflation adjusted, unless you hold exceptionally rare skills that can't be replicated or taught. It was simply the result of a severely unbalanced market. I'm sure some people still make 400k+, but I'm also sure their performance and contribution is scrutinized quarterly and they are the first on the chopping block unless they hold internal political clout or are famous.
- benreesman 3y ago
  I don’t think that I hold exceptionally rare skills but I’m probably like an L8 which is give or take junior director level. I’ve got 20 years of experience and am experienced in ML/AI, not at a researcher level certainly but I know my stuff. When I was a FAANG EM I was an L7, so like one below director. The market will be what the market will be, there’s no absolute right and wrong, but it doesn’t seem totally crazy that someone leveled around there would make what a successful doctor or lawyer does. I’m a childless bachelor so it’s not particularly important to me to hit those comp levels again, but as a general thing I think software engineers should be considered on par for a given experience as any other job that requires decades of intense practice to get really good at in a field where one’s employer is making a healthy profit.
- idkyall 3y ago
  I think it's hard to comment because this depends on the HCOL/LCOL area, the company and the level very wildly. I believe Netflix Seniors make that level of cash comp, and I'm sure staff/principal+ at a large tech company in the bay area or HCOL could push 300k in salary.

rprospero 3y ago

Hi! I’m a senior engineer getting $53k in annual salary. Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included (government job, so I know the salaries). Also, it’s a government job, so obviously zero stock. Anyway, just letting you know that we’re out here.

moneywoes 3y ago
May I ask what country?
cuttysnark 3y ago
> Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included I'm curious—how does this work? More responsibility ought to mean more compensation—what incentive is there to be a boss if you'll make the same as your reports?
- okennedy 3y ago
  Differing skillsets? Managing people doesn't have to mean more responsibility. Some people are good at doing, others are good at the bureaucracy game and buffering for the doers. Both are critical, and in a good org, both have different, but not necessarily differing scales of responsibility.
- rprospero 3y ago
  I am at the max salary band for my position. His position can admit a higher salary band. After a few years, he’ll have a track record proving his competence in the new position and can apply to be raised to a higher band. I believe the theory is to avoid the Peter principle. If someone is promoted into a position for which they are not competent, then they can be transferred back to their old position without lowering their salary (since it’s been the same salary the whole time). I also think there’s some stuff about passion, grit, and drive that’s been imported from the private sector.
  - cuttysnark 3y ago
    This makes perfect sense now, thanks for explaining.

danaris 3y ago

I've been working in tech for 20 years now (longer, if you count internships during college), and while I'm making more than $50K now, it's not by a hell of a lot. Please, please try to remember that not only is Silicon Valley relatively small in terms of the total number of programmers (of whatever particular job title) it employs, it's also a massive outlier in terms of compensation. Most places that programmers work don't offer equity of any kind, and $100k is still a high salary for many types of programming and tech work outside of SV.