I swear, every time I read an article on HN about salary it gives me anxiety. I'm perpetually worried that I'm not earning as much as I should be earning. I don't think it is healthy but I can't look away.
I have the same problem. I'm actually intentionally underpaid because this way (1) I have less anxiety about getting fired (2) I have less problems with imposter syndrome (3) I worry less about being underpaid since I know I'm underpaid. I know most people will think this is extremely irrational, but I'm paid about 3 times more than I can spend (I live very cheap and am happy this way) so I already save 2/3 of my take home paycheck. At this point, having better mental health and working in a nice company that lets me solve hard software problems is the most important thing, imho.
> I know most people will think this is extremely irrational
I think that's perfectly reasonable. I find it hard to believe it would be "extremely irrational" to most people. Maybe I'm underestimating the extent to which money is fetishized in your culture (I presume the US).
Also, being able to save 2/3 of your net salary is... a ludicrously privileged position, underpaid or not.
> Maybe I'm underestimating the extent to which money is fetishized in your culture
I worked in the Bay Area and currently in Boston. I live in the startup culture.
> Also, being able to save 2/3 of your net salary is... a ludicrously privileged position, underpaid or not.
Yes! We software engineers are lucky. Even when we're underpaid (I'm paid $90k and my friends with similar experience, same education, same interest/skills are paid $150k--$250k) we can afford to have a comfortable life. It seems like I won't be able to afford to buy a house any time soon compared to say a Google engineer making $300k a year, but that's the only disadvantage I can think of now. (I hate mortgage and what not)
I can admire you attitude and I wouldn't encourage you to chase money. Many people on Hacker News lack perspective because of the bland way that Hacker News works. But I would still fear that being underpaid isn't sustainable, especially not in the US. I see people all the time online that don't negotiate, or question the terms, of their contract and then get disappointed when they e.g. get laid off without notice. Are you sure you wouldn't be negatively affected if your landlord, manager or friends decides to screw you over?
There is nothing wrong with being underpaid, but in the long run you want to make sure that it is for a good reason. It is hard to focus on more important things and ignore inequality, because inequality sucks. It doesn't matter how much attachment your have to an area, or what it means for your quality of life to live close to that workplace, when your rent skyrockets. You will most likely move while instead your landlords and their new tenants do whatever they think is important.
Maybe you are prepared for it or found some way to avoid that, but to me the US often just seem fundamentally incompatible with caring about important things without a lot of effort or money to back it up.
How is it possible to save 2/3rds of a 90k salary in Boston? After tax, that's probably about 64k, which means you manage to live on 21k a year? The average studio in Boston rents for more than that a year...
I'm very young (21) so no need for a studio. My current rent is $900 including everything. I'm extremely conscious of what I eat to a paranoia level so I never eat out (except when I go out on a date with a girl or a close friends) so I cook home (I have a Trader Joe's literally next to my house) and my monthly food expense is $200. With various other stuff (gym, phone, entertainment, Uber etc...) I spend less than $1500 a month. I bike, so no transportation expense. My take home is ~$6000 a month. That lets me save around $4000/$4500 a month and $3000 on "bad" months (need to buy stuff, furniture etc...). I live comfortable enough that I don't know what I would do if I spent more than $1500 a month. I spend 90% of my free time in gym anyway :-)
This is simply not sustainable. As a veteran in this industry, I must tell you that a software engineer's career is very similar to an athlete or model's career in the sense that you make the most money in your career only in your early years ( 10 - 12 years after the first 3 to 5 years).
So if you started your career at 21 and if you are above average, your salary will grow from 25 to 25 / 37 or even 40. After that, ageism will play a role, so also newer tech that companies would prefer to hire the younger version of you rather than pay you your high salary.
Given that, if you already settle for a low salary and remain content at 21, you'll very quickly get priced out of your neighborhood in Boston (I own a rental unit there in Fenway and know the going rents for 1 BR, 2 BRs), and if you do end up getting married and having kids, your current lifestyle and saving will not be sustainable.
As a programmer/analyst/manager/architect of 34 years experience (goddamn it), that's not true unless you stay in a "grunt developer" role for your whole career.
The greatest acceleration of your salary occurs early in your career, but that applies to most careers. The sustained level of your income is dependent on how you progress.
Personally, I think the movement to project management is a Bad Idea for programmers, because we make lousy project managers and they get paid like crap, because PM-ing is considered a "generic" skill that is not IT specific.
Product Management and Architecture roles are paid better because they need the hind/foresight to actually lead the development of a product/service. That skill is pretty much only developed by experience.
So like any industry, your career development will lead to potential income changes. How that reflects your needs as an individual (eg family etc) is up to you.
Thanks I'll take this into consideration but, as a note, I live near Central Square, Cambridge and $900 is a pretty average rent for a mid sized room. I don't know what "you'll very quickly get priced out of your neighborhood in Boston" means. If suddenly housing market inflates and my rent increases, it's not like I won't be able to afford it? I've already been working for a while (I graduated early from uni) so I already have an emergency fund that's enough for me to live off of about 5 months without income.
I applaud you for finding a way to manage your anxiety, which allows you to live a sustainable and full life. You only get so many years on this earth, so live it however you want!
You are of course free to do this, but you bring up 3 points, let's inspect them.
I'm assuming you're being underpaid by $6k or more a year.
1: Fair, but should you worry about getting fired? Even if you are in danger, if save 2/3 of your paycheck for every month of work you can afford a month of unemployment with no adjustment in lifestyle, that's already large, but you could increase this padding by having a market-conforming salary.
2: Is this worth $500+ a month to you? If so, I'd suggest you seek a therapist, because that is a much healthier long-term way to solve this problem.
3: Well yes... You can also try to not worry about it while earning more.
A nice company, normal hours and a good and interesting job is certainly worth an enormous intangible amount!
However, all things being equal I would not recommend you keep being intentionally underpaid.
You're ignoring the fact that most highly paid positions come with a lot of bullshit. Depending on the position and company, that could be overwork, ridiculous politics, or the inability for your work to have any impact. I still make good money by my standards, but it's $65k less than my highest pay (cash, not RSUs). No regrets. I find your advice that somebody not maximizing their earnings "seek a therapist" a bit tone-deaf.
I know I am getting underpaid, but I am okay with it. For me, it is the ratio of money and stress that matters. Lets say I get 20% hike but it comes with 50% more stress. I'd say no thanks and be happy with what I got. Better work is welcome, but more stress isn't.
I made a similar calculation a while ago when I moved from working at small companies to enterprise level tech and cybersecurity positions.
My goal is to maximize the amount of money that can be made without the stress, pressure and demand of the job overtaking the enjoyment of the compensation.
Admittedly, I could be making more money and being more aggressive in my career but ultimately I am satisfied with the balance I have found.
I think there is definitely a stress ceiling after which I wouldn't accept any paycheck to let me do the job. But this is my personal opinion, I would imagine more stress => less demand on the job market => higher paycheck. For me, money isn't the end goal, but a necessary part of the adventure. When you play RPGs you don't try to make crazy money, you make enough to buy things you want in the game. That's kinda sorta how I see my financial situation.
I hear you... Money isn't the end-goal for me either. I'm just hoping I'll be able endure the stress long enough so I can retire early (at age ~50) and enjoy a virtually stress-free retirement but we'll see...
The other element I always consider is the risk. Right now the GP knows the amount of stress the job causes. Changing jobs has risk about his/her ability to estimate the stress caused by the new job.
I have a tendency to ignore things like stress (hard to measure) when selecting a job while overvaluing things that are easy to measure.
> working in a nice company that lets me solve hard software problems is the most important thing
A thousand times this. Working for a small company it is expected that they won't be able to pay a highly competitive salary, but I have quite a few benefits.
However the most important part by far is being able to work solving software problems. Sometimes when doing explorative work I actually get to implement and (hopefully) reproduce recent scientific papers results. The highly technical work plus the low-pressure enviroment has been great for my mental health.
I even get to leave early the days I have classes, with no reduced pay.
In my experience, there's very little correlation between salary and longevity. There definitely seems to be a correlation between salary and "demand."
For instance, Kubernetes is really hot right now, and there's a limited supply of people who know it, so people that know it can make upwards of $200K.
OTOH, you could be the world's greatest Windows admin and you'll be lucky to make half that, because there's a million people who know Windows.
TLDR: specialization is more lucrative than sheer hard work and expertise.
Yes, although you always need to be looking toward the future. The market for Y2K consultants, even "world class" ones, wasn't so good in 2002. (Admittedly for a variety of reasons in addition to the obvious one.)
You may assume that would happen, but unless you really have a thing to show off, you'll keep a similar lifestyle and just watch your savings account growing. I know very few people who permanently changed their behaviour after a sudden change in their earnings. This is of course just anecdotal evidence.
But I am clearly not talking about lotto-winners, but someone who gets 2x salary, who may behave weird first couple of months and then becomes "normal". I fully agree about the lotto winners though. I had witnessed it actually as my school friend's parents won. For lack of a better description - they have become like animals with unlimited money, but money ended quickly though.
I get this same feeling reading the bogleheads.org investment forum. It's mostly comprised of the 1%, and while the investing advice really is wonderful, a lot of the questions asked are to the tune of "Is 3-10 million dollars enough to retire?" and "can I afford a 1 million dollar house making 510K a year?"
The life advice they offer has a different set of (mostly comical) issues. Mostly revolves around various permutations of "I worked 30-40 years at a company and got a pension paying out 10-20x what I contributed. If millennials would just work harder, they too could do that!"
I find them endlessly fascinating as well. My feelings are
1. Stop using the word "earning". We get paid, we don't necessarily earn our pay. Detach your pay from your perception about the work you do, and detach both from the value in the rest of your life. That may help you to take more money as well, if it turns out that that's what you really want.
2. As sibling comment says, it may be worth taking a pay cut in order to do something niche that interests you. I did this a long time ago and haven't regretted or reversed it. It returns the feeling of control to you.
3. Check out the country-wide or global statistics. I don't get paid all that much by HN standards, but I'm still in the top decile for my (rich) country.
4. People are very good at cutting cloth to what is available, and at making accommodations with it, so long as they are happy in other ways. I've had friends who get paid ten times what I do, and they are still living on the edge - one financial shock or employment setback and they're in trouble. My situation is no less secure than theirs.
Related to #1, I'd also suggest stop using the phrase "should be" in respect to "earning" / "paid", at least if the goal is to reduce anxiety or plan on how to accept or change the number. If it's just complaining, though, "should" language is pretty natural and fine...
The amount you get paid is a fact. It's comparable to other facts, but the comparisons themselves are also just facts. Maybe they and other facts will help you make a case for raising it (or to your manager, a case for lowering it), but if those arguments are couched in "should" language they are probably less likely to succeed.
If you're worried apply for another job and tell the hiring manager on the other end what you're expecting for a salary. Don't be ludicrous, but maybe ask for 20% more than you're making. See what they say.
If they don't blink and want you to come in, you're right: you're not making enough.
I've gotten, "Well, we should probably stop this call soon because my cap is X and you're asking for more than that." It was reassuring.
My advice is be to be ludicrous. Ask for far more than you think you're worth. As most people undervalue themselves you'll often find companies saying yes, or at least negotiating down to more than you'd have asked for if you capped your wage raise to 20%.
If they hire you you'll then be faced with the feeling that you're out of your depth, overpaid, and incapable of doing the job you took, but that's a different set of problems.
For recruiters who contact me from companies that aren’t my usual area of career interest, I do this to see what the upper bound is. It once backfired on me. Shortly after finishing grad school, a recruiter contacted me about a quantitative finance position and asked what range I was looking for. I replied “about $350k”. He responded, “We can work with that.” I think I had to scrape my jaw off the floor. I didn’t go any further with the process because the job seemed to require extensive travel and 80+ hour work weeks (and who knows if I could have even passed their rigorous interview process), but his reply was quite the revelation for someone who had never been in the workforce.
There are thousands of engineers at Google/Facebook/etc making $350k/year or more while working 40-45 hour weeks. For a position where you're expected to dedicate your entire life to the job, nothing under a million would be "ludicrous".
Meanwhile, over here in London, last time i was looking, i asked a recruiter for 10% more than i was then getting, and they audibly paused before ending the conversation as quick as they could!
That’s most likely the recruiter bring jealous. I had the same experience when I was honest with a Dublin recruiter what it would take for me to uproot my life and move to Dublin.
To add to your anxiety: right now might be the best time to negotiate for life-changing salary in your lifetime.
All the market drivers are in place to make companies compete for senior/principle talent. Your salary is always a symptom of these economic drivers, not your tenure in the field.
Your financial well-being will be defined by negotiating during these goldrushes. Taking a “good” salary during these times could be the biggest mistake of your career.
Never evaluate yourself based on an abstracted metric of a population, without considering inescapable underlying correlated factors in the negative direction. (If all you know is reported salaries from anonymous people, then you don't know how much stress this distribution of people are under, and you don't know what tradeoffs they've had to make that you might not be willing to make, such as enough free time to enjoy the world of literature for instance.)
I get the same weird anxiety reading these threads. I was making 50k base as a post-doc, anxious about ex-academic friends making 80k in the "real world". Then I got a corporate job making ~$120k, and felt anxious that I wasn't making the ~$150k some of my bosses and friends were making. Switched jobs, making ~$200k in a small southern city, and I come into threads like this ("$500k comp at FAANG) feeling anxious that I'm not making enough in my mid-thirties and don't have enough saved up for retirement.
The crazy thing is, going from 50k to 200k, I can't honestly pinpoint whether I'm signficantly happier or not. So I try to not get envy about even the more ridiculous salaries. How does one get off the hamster wheel and feel content enough with salary to just live?
~200k in a small southern city if you adjust for cost of living is about equivalent to $500k at a FAANG in SF/NYC. When you know people who brag about how cheap their $2000 a month tiny studio in an old poorly maintained building in midtown Manhattan you'd understand you have it pretty good making a salary like that in a place you actually have the freedom to move around without running into someone and easily afford a really nice house & property.
Recognize that getting more salary is a fun goal to strive for, that might even get you some more options, but that you’ll be fine forever at your current salary regardless.
I guess I’ve made it one of my goals to strive for more, but If I’d end my career at my current salary that would still be a solid endgame.
"Humans are designed not to be happy, but to pursue happiness -- including wealth and status. Unfortunately, such a pursuit partly promotes unhappiness. Discomfort with our current lot gives us the drive for absolute & relative success -- an evolutionarily useful trait." from a footnote in Anti Ilmanen, _Expected Returns_
If you are making enough to live comfortably and save for the future, you're doing better than the majority of the population, don't worry about the comparisons!
I'm worried and it's given me cause of action to prepare for interviews at companies that I know pay more for SWEs than my current company.
To me, I see rising trends in terms of cost of healthcare, cost of buying a home, schooling for kids, kids themselves, caring for aging parents, etc. I just think "Damn, even with a salary that is way above median for the country, can I realistically reach all my goals in 'due time'?".
Right now I'm not sure if the answer to that question is yes, but I know that when looking at some of the salaries I see around there that grabbing a job at that salary can definitely ease my anxiety.
Preparing for SWE interviews is definitely a rat race, and I may need to move to a high COL area to earn these types of salaries, but it's a trade-off I'm willing to make to help ensure that I can reach the goals I've set for myself.
As a Canadian, I've learned to just not worry. I can't compare myself to the creme del la silicon valley crop, and that's ok. And as a millennial "work until I die" seems very natural as well.
My friends and family rate has drifted down as low as $75 an hour recently, and I have gone as high as $400 an hour but it is uncommon.
I don't "work" that much and make just shy of 200k a year. I also round out the 40 hour weeks when I'm not billable by doing networking, marketing and tools development.
Don’t sweat these. Every HN salary thread, people come out of the woodwork to note that their sister’s roommate’s brother works at Facebook and makes $300k, therefore all tech workers everywhere in Silicon Valley make that much on average. For some reason, people here love to take outlier employees at outlier companies and hold them up as averages.
For the lazy: "Median comp package at FB is $240k/yr (this number is skewed low since it's over all employees, not just engineers). Google, Amazon, etc. pay similarly. Combined, these companies employ > 100k programmers in the U.S out of maybe 3M-ish programmers." Directly followed by a screenshot of one of ryandrake's older comments.
FWIW, I don't make $300k, or even $240k (yet) nor work at FAANGM. I also don't live anywhere near the bay area, but that matters less these days (at least if you're in the US). Neither of the numbers are unreasonable targets.
I’m addressing OP’s anxiety. These threads can leave the average tech employee thinking his average salary is hopelessly low, where, in reality they are reading top examples from people at outlier companies. It’s like comparing yourself to the highlight-reel best moments of your social media friends.
EDIT: For what it’s worth, I’d like to point out you’re attacking me personally in your message, and not even addressing what I said, which is that people tend to take a bunch of exaggeration and extrapolate.
It's fine advice to not compare yourself to unreachable heights. My issue with your comment is that you characterize $300k/yr as an "outlier at outliers" number and it just isn't true. The salary numbers at Facebook (which you brought up as an explicit example) suggest it's very close to the median there, which knocks off "outlier at" easily. $300k/yr is entirely reachable without living in the bay area, without being a mythical unicorn who people only report sightings of based on 4th-hand accounts, and without driving a Porsche and having a supermodel SO.
To reiterate: $300k/yr is not an exaggeration. If you continue making the same sort of message in future threads relating to dev salary, I'd encourage you to up the number considerably or change your location frame to somewhere not in the US. You're right I was overly aggressive in my opening remark, I'm sorry for that.
Yeah, this is something I always wonder. Every time salaries come up here the anecdotal numbers batted around as "standard" in Silicon Valley get higher, and every time I neurotically search around the net for corroborating information and find little to none. I don't doubt these high salary figures are real, but I have doubts they represent the median.
Those numbers are probably TC (total compensation) which includes stocks and sometimes bonuses. If you go on Blind you can see people are receiving offers in that ballpark from Facebook and Google, who seem to be in a bidding war of sorts for talent.
All of the valley is in a bidding war for talent right now. I don't think there has ever been a better time to be a software engineer.
There was a while when startups were more attractive for compensation than FAANGs, but the big companies really stepped up their game.
Nowadays you can work at a startup and hope to make a few million dollars in the unlikely event that it IPOs and you got in early enough to have a lot of shares, or you can work at a FAANG and be guaranteed to make a million dollars every 4-5 years, or even more frequently, and you'll have better benefits too.
a lot of FAANG-a-likes structure compensation in parts. base salary alone is not the whole picture. RSUs are anywhere from 50% to 100% of salary and vest quarterly or monthly. yearly bonuses are 15% to 25%.
at the low end a person making 130k in base is pushing 200k total comp.
The key is to accept that you'll never "earn as much as you should", let it go, and just live your life, find problems worth solving, and solve them. The rat race pays you one price in your hand while simultaneously taking another one out of your back pocket.
A good sales manager in a busy new car dealership will make 140K a year. A general sales manager is at 165K. A General manager could be over 200K... these folks typically have a HS diploma in their pocket.
