7 ms·
A drop in salaries and in the number of jobs available in the Bay Area
- alephnerd 3y agoIt's a submarine article for Hired.
- WestCoastJustin 3y agoFYI for those that haven't read it before http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- tapanjk 3y agoExcellent article; thank you for sharing. It dates back to 2005, and the following caught my eye: > PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. Alas, the days of "bloggers are more authentic than the print media" are long gone. The PR people are now everywhere: blogs, social media, messaging apps, movies, OTT series etc. The "crap" pervades all media, not just print. The PR has indeed mutated as predicted. Basically, the general guidance in this post now applies to _anything_ you read.
- pliesfan97 3y agoIt’s quite sad to read him talk in 2005 about how online content was so authentic and not PR spam :/ I wonder if there will be another new type of media technology that will go through this same evolution, or if “authentic” content will gather somewhere else.
- spdionis 3y agoI think this is partially why things like discord and in general semi-private circles are very popular. Here on HN discord is often criticized cause it's inherently a closed platform but that also makes it less accessible for content enshittificators.
- SpaceNoodled 3y agoIt's also a bad fit for anything other than a very small group of people intending to engage in conversation.
- slaw 3y agoNeither google nor bing search for 'submarine article' gives any relevant result.
- opportune 3y agoForbes has 1500 contributors, and outside their flagship stuff, is more of a partially curated set of blogs. Half of this guy's articles are submarines with pretty low view counts IMO https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/?sh=27caaf163ec5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/?sh=27caaf163ec5 Ever since Forbes pivoted to basically being a hosted blogging platform I've felt their business, both directly and for contributors, is leveraging their historical brand and whatever benefits it confers for SEO and PR
- superfrank 3y ago> According to the report, when adjusting for inflation, tech salaries plunged to their lowest point in the past five years, decreasing 9% from $141,000 to $129,000 from 2022 to mid-2023. So, inflation adjusted, we're back to 2018 levels which doesn't seem too bad. Anecdotally, it felt like that was about when the whole "I get paid $200k and work 2 hours a day" type stories really started to take off. This doesn't feel like a massive issue. Just the bubble deflating a bit. > Tech professionals have been moving from expensive cities to lower-cost locations. U.S. inflation-adjusted remote salaries have been higher on average. Employers have decreased the number of open roles in high-cost-of-living markets by 19% and have nearly quadrupled the number of positions in low-cost-of-living markets to 9% since 2020. Completely unsurprising, IMO. It feels to me like big tech is trimming the fat now that they realized their race to hire as much talent as possible at any cost wasn't paying off and small companies that have embraced remote work have realized there's cheaper options elsewhere.
- makestuff 3y ago> Tech professionals have been moving from expensive cities to lower-cost locations. U.S. inflation-adjusted remote salaries have been higher on average. Employers have decreased the number of open roles in high-cost-of-living markets by 19% and have nearly quadrupled the number of positions in low-cost-of-living markets to 9% since 2020. I wonder if this trend will continue, or if companies will hire for in office roles which are in more HCOL markets. My guess is that the top paying jobs are going to be primarily in office (even when adjusted for COL) because executives will believe that in person collaboration gives them an edge.
- TehShrike 3y ago"tech salaries didn't climb with inflation"
- tekla 3y ago[flagged]
- fnordpiglet 3y agoIt’s hard to tell from the article but such a drop could be explained by the mix of jobs being more dominated by junior roles and a slow down in hiring of mid senior level roles (very senior roles don’t get posted more or less). It doesn’t feel like the market is very soft right now, but it does feel like things are adjusting in profile of talent demanded.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoWhere are you getting this info? In my anecdata, I've seen barely any junior or mid SWE roles but pretty much all senior+ roles being posted.
- almost_usual 3y agoInflation has skyrocketed in the past few years due to broad money supply. Everyone has taken a pay cut unless they had a pre-covid equity grant (RSUs) or saw their salary grow > 10% a year.
- addicted 3y agoAh yes. Broad money supply in the US and yet the US has among the lowest inflation in the world.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- almost_usual 3y agoNot sure how this is relevant to compensation in the Bay Area?
- steele 3y agoFAANG collusion; mass headcount reduction edition
- gruez 3y agoSynchronized action doesn't necessarily imply collusion. Companies reduce headcount all the time when economic conditions get worse. There's no need to invoke conspiracy when straightforward logic (ie. money gets expensive -> future profits gets valued less -> shareholders/board demand immediate profits rather than future growth -> executives oblige) explains the behavior just fine.
- sp332 3y agoIt's not a secret, investors told tech companies to reduce headcount and pay. https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-investor-calls-on-company-to-cut-headcount-and-pay-2022-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-investor-calls-on-c...
- gruez 3y agoIsn't that what I said in the original comment? >shareholders/board demand immediate profits rather than future growth -> executives oblige
- steele 3y agoGood thing there is absolutely no overlap between those shareholders, board members and executive leadership!
- gruez 3y agoIf you apply that logic, it'd be impossible for any publicly traded company to react to macroeconomic factors, because they all have overlaps in shareholders through institutional investors and/or ETFs.
- focusgroup0 3y agowhoa whoa whoa, you mean to tell me that importing hundreds of thousands of H1Bs every year (increasing supply) put downward pressure on compensation (demand)?
- geepytee 3y agoTbh your argument might be stronger if you blame ChatGPT for it
- mavelikara 3y agoH-1B program has been in place since mid 90s. Bay Area tech wages have been climbing all those years. How does your supply-demand theory explain that? As an aside, H-1B admits 85K new people every year; not sure where you got the “hundreds of thousands” number.
- 01100011 3y agoI've been getting 1-2% raises for a couple years now. Granted I think I was a little overpaid for a while. RSU cliff just hit though so next year I'll be going from ~$250k of equity to maybe $80k. Base is $250k. Since I'm in such a high tax bracket I don't expect to feel it too much. I might use it as an excuse to switch companies but I'm not sure yet.
- sathvikl 3y agowhat do you do? and for how many years
- 01100011 3y agoSystems SWE w/ 20+ years experience. C/C++ mostly.
- cornfutes 3y agoMeanwhile, mortgage rates his 7%
- sulam 3y agoUnsolicited advice: have a real talk conversation with your manager explaining that while his HR help may not make it easy to see this across the team, your total comp is about to take a nose dive and for opportunity cost reasons you may have to start accepting recruiter conversations. Many of the companies I've worked for as a manager, including reputable tech companies, make it incredibly difficult to work out when people in your team are hitting these cliffs. Of course this is predicated on you wanting to work there and them wanting to retain you. For the latter half of that equation this may be the exact litmus test you need to give you the signal on where you stand. Many of the places I've worked will refresh stock grants for at least the top 10% of their employee pool, even if that's not an explicitly stated policy.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- schreiaj 3y ago
- callwhendone 3y agoCurrently looking for a job and they have become more difficult to come by and are paying less.
- postalrat 3y agoI keep hearing people repeat they are much more productive working from home. I guess with all that extra productivity these companies can keep fewer people working.
- opportune 3y agoHired's report is inflation adjusted per https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=202208&year2=202308 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=2... (latest data available is August 2023) we've had 3.67% inflation from August 2022 to August 2023 So the inflation adjusted "drops" of 163->161 and 161->156 were nominally increases from 157.23->161 and 155.30->156 respectively, which were less than inflation. Given that inflation is uneven and also that the headline is much more alarming as-is than "after adjusting for inflation" (A huge portion of hourly and less-privileged salary workers get 0% nominal raises every year, just not often in tech) it seems like a whole lot of nothing.
- altdataseller 3y agoWhat is the source of this data? Does Hired have inside info into what people are getting paid? is it crowdsourced like Glassdoor or do they survey employers? It doesn't seem like they do both
- Ericson2314 3y agoThis is inflation adjust silliness. High paying jobs across the board saw less wage growth --- we've had a massive decline in income inequality these past few years. National inflation is also just not that useful. See https://www.employamerica.org/researchreports/real-wages-and-aggregation/ https://www.employamerica.org/researchreports/real-wages-and... for why (classic dividing aggregates issues). If we want to look at a "Bay Area price consumer price index", clearly housing dominates. The recently passed YIMBY laws are very promising in this regard. If housing prices continue to level off, and even come done, Bay Area tech worker purchasing power will go up a lot further than the methods in this document would indicate.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gdsdfe 3y agoThe hedge funds just ravaged an industry to get a better bottom line and reduce cost
- xyzelement 3y agoWhat does that mean?
- gustavus 3y agoThere was an article a few days ago about how wall street firms put pressure on tech companies to do layoffs in order to reduce wages.
- ggm 3y agoAnd, the C suites got KPI rewards for doing it. So that pay? it went from your hands (as an employee) to their hands (as the people who invested in the company, and who sacked you). It's beautiful.
- LispSporks22 3y agoI feel like Bay Area salaries are much closer to even "zone c" places like Alabama now. Been lookin at this a lot lately.
- dboreham 3y agoUnlikely.
- wizerdrobe 3y agoI’ve wondered, for the Average Joe, if that was the case (is it?) Anecdotally, I’m used to getting recruiters for Bay Area firms reaching out for, say, a 50k jump in compensation. On paper that’s a great deal more but rents always seemed exorbitant for a simple 1 bedroom such that I never bothered contemplating these pitches. It seemed like my quality of life would remain or lessen (cheap, small city) to (expensive, large city) with most of my increased income being sucked up by landlords, increased taxation, and (presumed) higher cost of goods. So, for the typical guy working at an off-brand company, not making 300k+ at FAANG was SF ever really worth the move?
- zhivota 3y agoFor a long time it really was. The cost of living increases didn't eat up all the salary increases. I think even today it might still be the case, if you consider all of total comp (base, bonus, and stock), but not quite like they heyday of the last 10 years or so, when FAANG stock appreciation was so high that the stock award alone made it worthwhile. If it's anywhere close to flat, as in all the extra wages are eaten up by cost of living increases (pretty easy to price this out with Zillow + tax calculator + nomadlist for daily expenses), it's not worth it IMO, because what you're doing is adding risk to your situation. What I mean by that is a lower cost of living is just less risky, because if you ever lose your job or need to go without work for some other reason (like when I needed to go home and help my parents for a while a few years back), lower fixed expenses make that easier.