Instead of downvoting, please check the median salary for a PRINCIPAL software engineer on Glassdoor (it is self-reported, I believe) - it is 140K, nationally.
Glassdoor skews heavily downwards. Even for companies I've worked at, where I knew what everyone made, its data was roughly 25-40% below reality.
Also, why look at median salary? We're arguing over whether it's "possible" to become affluent as a mere employee—even if only the top 20% of engineers are capable of it, it's certainly possible.
Maybe I am a total loser, but I am not aware of any companies which "routinely" pay $300K for technical positions, not even at the Director level, in the Boston area.
I find in these conversations that some people are talking about salary and others are talking about salary + bonus + stock options. In particular, the stock option portion to me (but YMMV) seems disingenuous.
As an example, I'm in the Boston area and ~2 rungs away from a "director" type title, working at a company known to not pay top dollar and without things like stock. It wouldn't take much stock for me to enter into the range that's being discussed here, albeit likely the lower side of it. OTOH none of the people I talk about this stuff with are remotely near the top end of that range when you take stock options out of the picture.
Google and Facebook etc often give 'restricted stock units', ie stock that vests over time. That's almost as good as cash, since you can sell them anytime after they are vesting.
Stock in startups and options in general are a gamble, of course.
They're way better than startup-y options, definitely. However if for some reason I don't stay there long enough, it's not at all the same as cash.
They're still plenty valuable, as opposed to startup options which I consider worthless, but my point was that IMO this is one of the sources of all of these debates as to how much people make. Some people will count them and others won't
At Google you wait for a year, and then get stock vesting every month. I just treat it like monthly salary (and don't even pay too much attention to how much unvested stock I theoretically have: if I stay, they'll top it up anyway; if I leave it's gone.)
Yes, totally agree, if you want to compare numbers, you have to agree on what you compare.
In theory, we could just always talk about total compensation, and just plug in standard financial valuation models. (Those models would typically value startup equity at close to zero value---especially the kind of equity that tends to get horribly diluted.)
Because these companies don't exist. Top companies pay SDE3s and tech leads like 300-400k. Medium-sized companies in high cost of living areas pay directors around that much. No one pays engineers that much. Literally no one.
No, they just don't consider the millions they receive in stock. Given that an intern at Facebook earns $8000 a month plus free luxury rent, do you honestly think a director makes only 70% more in a tech company?
At most companies tech lead means someone who is planning the technical work of a team, but is not the manager. The tech lead is an engineer. So that company has separated manager and tech leadership. Google works this way. There are some groups at google where someone does both tech lead and manager, they call that person the TLM.
I have a friend that works there as an engineer and as far as he has told me they pay about average to a bit below average and the engineers sit in an open plan office.
Just checked glassdoor, and a senior software engineer makes ~114k so that gives you a pretty good idea of their compensation structure...average.
Not to call you a liar or anything, but I get emails from wayfair recruiters all the time and my understanding of their compensation has led me not to respond but I'd love to be wrong.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/principal-software-engine...