4 ms·

The salary ranges seem very high from my experience. I've been developing for a few years, and I know a handful of excellent developers working for big-name com

• chrislloyd 14y ago
  They are very real. Perhaps you should sign up :P
  • andy_adams 14y ago
    If you are correct, I've been working for absolute peanuts the last few years :X.
    • bitsweet 14y ago
      These salary brackets are very real for US based developers.
      • andy_adams 14y ago
        If you could be so kind, could you clarify exactly who could expect these salaries? Are these entry/mid/senior level? 1, 5, 10 years experience? Top-tier developers only? I ask because there are plenty of companies hiring at sub-$70k salaries and they're having no trouble filling their positions with decent programmers. Are the programmers I know selling themselves short, or is $140k for extraordinarily experienced and talented programmers only?
        • smm2000 14y ago
          When I was looking for job in April the lowest offer I got was for 135k base + ~70k in stocks (vested over 4 years). All other offers were higher and some significantly higher. Dev with ~8 years experience.
        • graysnorf 14y ago
          I can only speak for web application development, but $140k is definitely not for "extraordinarily experienced and talented programmers only" in San Francisco for someone doing js/rails. Are the people you know working in startups where part of their compensation comes in equity, or the prestige of working at a well-known "great" place?
          • recursive 14y ago
            I'm working in the midwest where the average experience level among developers is "several" years. (I don't know exactly, but it's probably at least 5). I'd be surprised if the average engineer salary here is as high as the lowest pitchbox bracket.
            • graysnorf 14y ago
              Then I expect the average developer could get a big bump in salary working for an SF company. But it's not a free lunch: cost of living is high here and some things like commuting are terrible. I know developers who moved back to Minnesota so they could waste less of their lives in their cars. Hence the appeal of "work from Ohio". 100% remote seems to be an ever more realistic option, but I expect it's still harder to find work, although work is so easy to find this may not matter much. A bigger issue may be finding a 100% remote job at a company with a remote culture. Working remotely with a company whose culture is centred around an office can be an exercise in a thousand little tediums. The different social dynamics of working remotely can be a challenge as well. I feel as though my post reads a bit like "don't try to work for an SF company", but that's not really my intent. I mean more to convey that the pitchbox salaries are perfectly real, but it's not too good to be true. Moving to SF to work, or working remotely are options, but salary isn't everything and these choices won't be right for everyone.
• pacaro 14y ago
  A single number for income is always difficult. For me annual salary is base pay. Bonuses, stock options/awards, benefits are in addition to this. If that is the case then the ranges look reasonable (also I like the coarse granularity); if this is the sum of base-pay, bonus, stock-options, benefits, then this range is low by at least 50K