> the average salary for a senior software engineer in the United States is right around $100K not $250k like it is at Google, etc.
Bay Area HNers would be wise to remember this line. The number of times I see comments stating that it's easy or typical to make $175-200k/yr just a few years out of school is far too high.
The number of people who frequent that sub with more than a year or two of professional experience is frightening. The discussion is so myopic it gives me a headache.
The obsession with money in this town boggles my mind. My parter makes ~$100k <1 year out of college working for a very big company. He likes what he does, has no commute and practically sets his own hours. He's already feeling antsy about the pay: Is it enough? Could I be making more?
The way I see it, he's already better off than a vast majority of people. Good pay, interesting work, professional validation. Why he's willing to risk it for a job he might hate for more money I can't figure out.
We all complain when NBA players strike over salary concerns.
But it's always relative. If someone who does the same thing as you at a similar competence level, and they make 2-3X what you make, naturally you're going to feel agitated.
Fallacy of relative privation. If you can be making more, by all means move, and make more. This is healthy process in the industry where it's not uncommon to see 20-30% net margins. This cow has plenty of milk in it.
The cow has plenty of milk, but how everyone gets it isn't equal. I understand the sentiment, I just can't relate. I'd rather enjoy my work for just "adequate" pay than constantly move from place to place. Money is just not important to me.
You seem to perceive it as an either/or proposition. It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well. Money is important, at least in the US where you're responsible for funding your own retirement.
>It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well.
And it's possible to leave a kickass, satisfying job that pays well and end up at a job that pays better but isn't as satisfying, or has unforeseen tradeoffs. My point isn't that it's an either/or proposition -- it's that there are other things to consider besides money, and the culture around here doesn't seem to value that. Leaving one job for the next one is a calculated risk. The more times you do it, the more chances you end up in a place that doesn't hit all the sweet spots.
The more times you do it, the _lower_ is the chance that you end up in a crappy job. If the job doesn't meet your needs, move. I'm not saying money is everything and it should be the only thing to optimize for. I'm just saying there's no shame in demanding more money if you can. As a bonus, awesomeness of "individual contributor" type jobs is well correlated with how much you get paid. Companies are typically interested in putting expensive folks on the meatiest problems.
Absolutely. But you've changed the premise to fit your argument. Recall:
>He likes what he does, has no commute and practically sets his own hours.
In this case, a move after <1 year at BigCo is optimizing only for money. I'm starting to get the impression that there's something in Silicon Valley's fog that suppresses risk aversion -- or maybe it causes FOMO?
If you ever want to buy a house around here, the difference between 100k and up is still significant, regardless of how it relates to the rest of the country.
In the bay area the average for juniors is only 90k, and most people cap out at 120k or so, unless they have top-tier degrees, incredible negotiating skills, or something.
From my experience, I'd say the cap is around $150k in the bay area or so for standard senior positions regardless of degree. The degree is absolutely irrelevant and in many cases if you have an advanced degree, (Masters, PHD) it can work against you (if you don't actually know how to build things).
For reference, with the cost of living being where it is, I'd say anything < $200k in the bay area is not enough to live on and save comfortably, but that's just my opinion. As far as I know, there aren't any startups offering $200k or above (or even close) for engineering jobs in the bay area.
The guy in the article linked an article, whose author (Dan Luu) seems to think that $250k (total compensation) is pretty much a given for anyone with 5 years of experience working for a big company (i.e. Google or Facebook or Microsoft), and claims that anyone who thinks you can't make that much talk to the tens of thousands of engineers that do. Is it really that common?
When I was interviewing in San Francisco and Seattle at big companies (Zynga and Disney) a couple of years ago, they were wanting to pay me around $130k for a senior position, which didn't seem worth the move.
I also interviewed at Google and while I didn't get as far as salary negotiations, I was lead to believe by the recruiter, I think, that it would start around $110k-ish, although it also wasn't for a senior role.
I don't see how Dan Luu is thinking $200k+ salary is on the low end out there. If I could expect to get that I might actually consider moving to the west coast.
$250k is certainly not a given. I think that includes equity compensation like the other post mentions. My experience is that Google and Microsoft pay around $170-200k to start base compensation for a Sr. Engineer so it's generally a little higher than the $150-160k you'd expect at a regular bay area company or the $130k or so you can reasonably expect in Seattle. The higher end of that I'd expect in the bay area and the lower end in Seattle.
"Only" counts for something when you have to pay half of it to live in a reasonable location. That 90k in SF is around 50k in Hampton-Roads VA. That 90k in Oakland is around 60k.
Do people not commute from Oakland? Is the BART ride too long? Or are rents in Oakland just as high? I've only visited the Bay Area a few times, so please feel free to correct me on this one.
I managed to make do with 50K a year, but I lived in San Jose and didn't have the expenses of car ownership.
Living in SJ required a 20 minute walk to CalTrain and then a 45 minute ride to the city by CalTrain (if I caught the express) and then another 15 minute walk to work.
BART from Oakland only goes along Market, which is only walking distance from about half of SOMA (where most of the tech people work). That whole area can be pretty rough, especially after dark. Personally I'd rather walk to 4th & King and commute via Caltrain, but the peninsula is more expensive and Caltrain only has one stop in downtown SF vs 4 for BART (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center).
2. To some, yes, because BART is getting crowded so many end up standing in a wall to wall claustrophobic space.
3. They are climbing higher, especially since Uber is moving to there, and they're only the vanguard. It's also been discussed as a cheaper alternative to SF for at least two or three years now.
Are there no places available in the lower end range with 1 hour commutes? I know there is a shortage of low priced apartments, but they have to exist.
The median 2 bedroom apartment in SF is currently about $4600/month. This means that even with a roommate to split the bills with, at a salary of $90k you're looking at spending nearly 50% of your take home just on rent. Add in utilities, food, transportation, etc and $90k pretty rapidly stops looking so great.
You could easily live in a 3-bedroom and pay $1700 a month in rent. You'll only have $3000 a month to pay for food and transportation - oh my god, the privation, how is anyone supposed to make it?
"in SF" in a pretty important qualifier. On top of a 28% federal tax rate you're paying 12% state income tax. San Francisco has a 1.5% income tax as well. So on $90k/yr you're down to about $4500 a month take home but that's excluding any payroll taxes outside of income. Several hundred dollars there. You're already in "spend half my check on rent" territory.
Even though 90k is ~3x the average personal income for the US, when you're living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, you can absolutely be broke on that.
SF does not have an income tax. It does have a 1.5% payroll tax that is paid by employers, but that is already factored into your your gross pay (IOW, if a company offers you 90k the pay the $1,350 in taxes and you never deal with it).
You can argue it effectively pushes down the size of the offers people get, but you don't have to worry about it when you calculate your net take home.
You are right, (marginal) state tax on $90k is "only" 9.3% and that's on about 40% of the income.
My point was that on $90k in SF proper, if you want a "nice" place, even a 1BR or studio you're going to be spending a huge percentage of your income on rent and basic necessities.
I agree. Like even in the Minneapolis area, the salary is probably more like 70-80k/yr for a senior developer unless you're with a much larger company and you have some specialized skills on top of project management experience then the number I can see sorta push above 80k/yr. But honestly, I've never seen it such figures beyond that for senior developer positions around here.
By then, most people I assume have to much into a management track to see larger numbers (more responsibilities and the like with come with it).
That's seems way low. Even for the Midwest. I assume you're looking at companies with comp packages and that figure is simply the salary, not the entire comp (which is generally above $100k)
That's got to be the low end. Even in the midlands of SC (not exactly a high-value area) you can expect to earn that much as an intermediate developer at relatively small companies.
Bay Area HNers would be wise to remember this line. The number of times I see comments stating that it's easy or typical to make $175-200k/yr just a few years out of school is far too high.