4 ms·

I'm curious about this. Was it true that engineers in the Valley made good money before Google and the like? I joined the industry after the dotcom boom, and

I'm curious about this. Was it true that engineers in the Valley made good money before Google and the like? I joined the industry after the dotcom boom, and I got the impression that older companies such as IBM were very very mediocre in pay, nothing like Google. Was that not always true? You see that many people who joined after the IPO were able to retire after 15 years at Google (or Amazon), did that really happen at places like IBM for the average senior engineer? You'd here about engineers who sometimes became multi-millionaires from an IPO that went well, but now people can become multi-millionaires from W-2 RSUs and a little bit of stock growth.

dekhn 3y ago
Engineers in Silicon Valley did well, but the multiple over other work wasn't as high. I think that's still true for many employers in Silicon Valley- they pay better than average, but when you factor in all the details (long commute, high prices for everything, decaying infra) it's not really a premium.
no_wizard 3y ago
IBM wasn't Silicon Valley. IBM was IBM, and then there was Silicon Valley. IBM is cut from a very different cloth than Silicon Valley companies that were actually founded and ran in SV in the 80s / 90s. I wouldn't use them as the measuring stick. Microsoft was pretty well known to pay really well too (granted out of Seattle / Redmond, but they grafted the SV culture really well). They also had perks and bonuses and big stock grants. Netscape, Yahoo! etc. They all had some variation of this going on.
bluedino 3y ago
Netscape and SGI are two good examples that were making people into millionaires in the 1990's. Not to mention all the "Microsoft millionaires" (stock options, baby) https://www.zdnet.com/article/secretaries-get-rich-in-the-internet-age/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/secretaries-get-rich-in-the-in...
Retric 3y ago
It’s hard to do direct comparisons when most of this isn’t public information, the job requirements are so different, and inflation plays such a big role in these comparisons. A dollar is nominally worth 1/2 what it was in 1995, but if you’re looking at housing etc the difference is much larger. My understanding is adjusted for inflation the minimally skilled developer was actually better off on the mid to late 90’s. The median developer was in a roughly similar situation. The elite’s pay was comparable, but today we have a larger percentage of people in that elite category. PS: IBM isn’t Silicon Valley. Many developers today are still making sub 120k, but that’s really not what we’re talking about.

dekhn 3y ago

Engineers in Silicon Valley did well, but the multiple over other work wasn't as high. I think that's still true for many employers in Silicon Valley- they pay better than average, but when you factor in all the details (long commute, high prices for everything, decaying infra) it's not really a premium.

no_wizard 3y ago

IBM wasn't Silicon Valley. IBM was IBM, and then there was Silicon Valley. IBM is cut from a very different cloth than Silicon Valley companies that were actually founded and ran in SV in the 80s / 90s. I wouldn't use them as the measuring stick. Microsoft was pretty well known to pay really well too (granted out of Seattle / Redmond, but they grafted the SV culture really well). They also had perks and bonuses and big stock grants. Netscape, Yahoo! etc. They all had some variation of this going on.

bluedino 3y ago

Netscape and SGI are two good examples that were making people into millionaires in the 1990's. Not to mention all the "Microsoft millionaires" (stock options, baby) https://www.zdnet.com/article/secretaries-get-rich-in-the-internet-age/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/secretaries-get-rich-in-the-in...

Retric 3y ago

It’s hard to do direct comparisons when most of this isn’t public information, the job requirements are so different, and inflation plays such a big role in these comparisons. A dollar is nominally worth 1/2 what it was in 1995, but if you’re looking at housing etc the difference is much larger. My understanding is adjusted for inflation the minimally skilled developer was actually better off on the mid to late 90’s. The median developer was in a roughly similar situation. The elite’s pay was comparable, but today we have a larger percentage of people in that elite category. PS: IBM isn’t Silicon Valley. Many developers today are still making sub 120k, but that’s really not what we’re talking about.