I found myself on here (the only H-1B at my company), and the salary is almost $20k less than what I was being paid by the time the visa stamp actually arrived, and $80k less than today (3 years in).
As frustrating as actually going through the US immigration system is, I do appreciate that they put out some good data on it.
I'm currently going through PERM (and again, frustrations, audits, and personal nightmares aside), it's great to see that I can look at all the processed applications from just 1-2 days ago - and see details on company/role. There are plenty of sites that the ugly/difficult data that govt puts out itself, and makes it a bit easier to navigate; one example I've used is dolstats.com
This is part of the strategy to get through application approval, since one of the criteria for approval is whether or not the person is making more than the average salary for citizens working the same SOC job in the region.
You can read more about SOC and see the raw data (disclosure data) that was used in this tool here:
For example, if a company is hiring a "senior software developer" in NYC, and the US government considers $120k to be the prevailing salary of a senior software developer in NYC, then the company must pay that person at least that much; Google can't pay any less, even if it wanted to. The wage database is public .
So that gives you the minimum, at least.
Our immigration lawyer decided on this job title, I didn't even know I was going to be Software Engineer before I got my visa. It's just that my college has a PhD and I don't. So, his profile fits that of a Data Scientist.
Level 4 Wage:$52.80 hour - $109,824 year
The amount of information they provide is incredible. There are no explicit names, but for small startup or exec position it is easy to guess who is who.
As far as I know this is the biggest LCA database so far.
Would it be possible to search for role + location instead of company first? Essentially the refine functionality you provide on company's yearly page  to be at the root. You can perhaps make state or city mandatory so that it doesn't hit your backend hard.
You can also search Green Card PERMs.
What kind of skills of knowledge or experience do you have to have so that you take more than quarter million of dollars??? Incredible!!
If you could (make a case that you) consistently decrease churn then you'd pay for yourself at that rate.
 http://www.up.co/communities/usa/san-francisco/startup-weeke... (Use promo code "hn" for 70% off)
As it is the plots aren't particularly useful for comparing the distribution of salaries between companies etc.
I did notice that searching for Google gives you 5 different entities that are all Google.
Down the road, I'm planning on providing a couple of cool charts/map about trends and evolutions.
- ratio of LCAs to total permanent full time employees. This will show which companies are really leaning on the H1-B visa (I'd estimate my "household name" software company is at about 50%)
- Source of prevailing wage. Interestingly employers don't have to use the BOL published data and can self report. I'd be interested to see how many self report.
- The average delta between prevailing wage and salary per employer/job title.
- A way to search by geographic region.
I also noticed that the sort buttons (for salary) behave backwards of what I'd intuitively expect?
Would it be possible to auto-merge likely duplicate company names?
Great job, keep it up!! :)
- LCA for a candidate is filed only once per company as long as he is in the same job role. Factos like getting promoted to Senior X, recent pay-hikes would not get reflected in LCA.
- Wage listed may not include bonus, and other compensation. So dont leave money on the table while negotiating. Crosscheck with glassdoor.
- Companies also go through frequent job title changes, so it is possible you might miss more dataset hidden in other job titles.
- When you are looking for wage related idea, only latest year matters.
- Some people have mentioned earlier that H1B have 10-20% less salary. My personal experience says otherwise. There is always bound to be variation even among non H1B.
- I am not a lawyer, and none of it are legal or professional advice.
Yeah, once you factor in RSUs and bonus my actual salary is about 40% higher than what was listed on my LCA.
A lot of engineers (especially in the Bay Area) either want the excitement and IPO potential of a start up or the stability of working for a large, established company. It makes recruiting difficult for mid-sized companies like mine.
It is a bit exploitative of the immigrants, by which I meant that the companies use the strict/stupid US immigration system as leverage. But citizens or taxpayers in the US have no reason of complaining. Maybe these H-1Bs are preventing an entirely cut-throat competition for talent, but on overall, those people add to the economy, and in a big way. Anyone who earns like 100K a year creates numerous other jobs and pays a lot of taxes...
But you mentioned being "let go" during that period, and needing to move back to your country. (A problem created by the H-1B's lack of a stipulated grace period.) Is Netflix considered a poor choice as it's seen to be quicker to fire, therefore this situation is more likely?
Btw, how do you feel about this? Does this fear really exist?
Is it possible for a good engineer to have a relaxed life and atmosphere and a family friendly situation at Netflix?
But in any case, H1-B visas can lower the wages of engineers without H1-B holders earning less than Americans. It's just like any import. The import itself doesn't have to be sold for cheaper, it's just that the presence of the import lowers the price via competition, so that both the import and the local good are cheaper than the price before importing started.
Unless you went into bodyshop companies like TCS, Infosys etc. to make yourself feel angry.
The only reason to limit immigration is externalities. For example, Israel has very open immigration for Jews. It does not allow open immigration for African refugees because they believe it would have a negative impact on their society. For some strange reason, other nations are fearful of stating the same thing, but they clearly have something like this in mind when they limit immigration.
Cheap labor is a net positive. The only valid reason to oppose immigration (and I think it is very valid) is the negative social externalities that immigration causes.
How do I get this job? :)
EDIT: The application was withdrawn. That saved them some money.
But I just can't stop wishing for those engineers using their immense knowledge, authority and financial resources to bootstrap own tech companies and improve the diversity of the tech ecosystem. They don't need venture backing, they don't have pressing need to compromise and have the means to experiment with new business models, whether it is open source, open-* or social enterprises.
I would not wish startup lifestyle on anyone and I don't advocate for that. I may have been unclear, but the engineers in question are exactly the kind of people who don't need to take outside investments and are able to bootstrap (as in use their own funds and rely on immediate/eventual cashflow).
They would have the independence, resources and authority to create self-sustaining social enterprises ( maximizing social impact rather than profits for external shareholders.), rallying supporters around their mission.
Seeding acquired knowledge back into the ecosystem is an orthogonal/complementary activity and depends more on their employer. I am not sure we can encourage the engineers to do that. Also, while sharing innovation "blueprints" is definitely a net positive for the ecosystem, I think it disproportionally benefits the megacorps, while indies and middle-sized tech businesses are being slowly squeezed out. The web is becoming more centralized and I am wary of that trend.
no, they're exactly the kind of person who wouldn't do a startup. you're thinking about this from the wrong end. risk averse people are generally the ones who make $1M/year at salaried jobs, exceptions like financial traders notwithstanding.
quite frankly if i could make $1M/year working for a megacorp i wouldn't have started my own company. these two things are mutually exclusive for me. why would i bust my ass if i could take 2-week vacations whenever i wanted and get paid $1M/year due to my elite skills?
in many respects, i started a company because i wasn't good enough to really 'make it' as an industry leading developer. i capped myself out as a consultant at about 150k/year. but i wanted more money.
many of my associates who also own businesses (tech or otherwise) also started because they were basically unemployable due to a variety of factors. issues with authority, massive egos, chip on their shoulder due to a previous fuck-over or failure, inability to kiss ass, did terribly in school, have a felony conviction from their misspent youth, etc.
these kinds of things aren't talked about in mainstream media but if you dig deep into an entrepreneur's past, you'll find this stuff a lot. normal, employable, salary-seeking people generally do not start companies of any kind.
> I would not wish startup lifestyle on anyone and I don't advocate for that. I may have been unclear, but the engineers in question are exactly the kind of people who don't need to take outside investments and are able to bootstrap (as in use their own funds and rely on immediate/eventual cashflow).
The provide data is gross income, not net. Subtract federal and state taxes and you're at a more realistic figure for net income. Then subtract cost of living (i.e. property taxes, utilities) etc., and you're at a much lower figure for net expendable income than the numbers here. Your argument also assumes they're in a position personally to take on the associated risks of leaving stable employment and pursue a "moonshot" relying on savings and hopeful future cashflow. They might not be there. Also, running a business/organization is a far cry from slinging code and architecting and requires a different temperament, personality, and skill set. The individuals we're speaking of might be lacking in those or the desire to pursue such an activity. They might rather solve problems than deal with GAAP vs non-GAAP compliance issues, HR policies, marketing, or revenue generation. All things a corporate leader must address that an engineer solving problems might only ever have to address tangentially.
> They would have the independence, resources and authority to create self-sustaining social enterprises ( maximizing social impact rather than profits for external shareholders.), rallying supporters around their mission.
There are a lot of assumptions rolled into that sentence that I want to unpack.
First, what you're describing sounds incredibly similar to a non-profit and we're swimming in them. Why would engineers do a better job at building organizations that maximize social impact than people who spend their entire lives doing nothing but? The only comparative advantages I see are (possible) money and engineering acumen.
Second, how are we defining "social impact"? That's an incredibly nebulous term and one could argue that being part of a business generates social impact. Think of profit and revenue as an indicator of value provided. The more people buying and using my services generally implies I'm providing something of value. Ergo, pursuit of a profit and providing services people will expend money to pay for might be indicative of activities having a "social impact". People are willing to expend money for your solution to $PROBLEM over the possible alternatives indicating you're providing some value. As an engineer if I help the company solve a problem that lets them scale services to increase the number of people who can use it, offer new features, etc. I'm increasing the corporation's value proposition and providing a service to people to help solve their problems and meet their needs, I would argue that is a positive social impact.
Third, what is a "self-sustaining social enterprise"? Generally, I've heard those called corporations and they resemble normal every day businesses. What is different about your notion other than they're privately held? They'll still need to generate a profit in order to grow and increase revenues to meet growing payroll and expenses. I'm having a hard time understanding how you're seeing social impact as different from bringing in $$$ in exchange for providing a solution to problems.
The other assumption here I think we need to address is the notion that the individuals possess the charisma to rally people to the cause. You're describing someone with an incredibly charismatic personality that draws people in, that's a significant minority of the population. Why is that skill set attributed to engineers making big figures? Generally, I've found the opposite to be true, the charismatics and visionaries tend to not be engineers -- engineering is generally too rigid for the charismatics and the people stuff can be too squishy and shades of grey for the engineering types.
> Seeding acquired knowledge back into the ecosystem is an orthogonal/complementary activity and depends more on their employer. I am not sure we can encourage the engineers to do that. Also, while sharing innovation "blueprints" is definitely a net positive for the ecosystem, I think it disproportionally benefits the megacorps, while indies and middle-sized tech businesses are being slowly squeezed out. The web is becoming more centralized and I am wary of that trend.
The open source culture is booming compared to what it was a few years ago. More people are involved in OSS and more companies are pulling in OSS software to solve their problems. Is the system perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. Is it better than what it has been or could have been? Heck yes.
How does it overly benefit megacorps? Yes, they might have the resources to pursue implementations faster, but a ton of the innovation on those systems is happening at the small to medium sized corporate level where the engineers have the freedom to innovate. I'm missing the link between the web being centralized and small to medium sized businesses getting squeezed. Generally, if there's a "squeeze" it's the small to mid sized businesses getting bought out by megacorps to fill needs, which, is usually an encouraged outcome for some of them because they aren't going to "get big" otherwise and scale up to the point where they have more than minute impact. Being inside megacorp gives them the opportunity to tap resources they would lack otherwise and get their tech into way more people's hands. I'll raise the case of the Storm processor. It started as a side project at Backtype and become Nathan Martz's full time gig when Twitter bought them out. It's one of the "big" open source data processors on the market and they're still innovating on it.
Ideally there's a balanced ecosystem. Big corporations have resources and manpower, but are prone to inertia and lack responsiveness in the face of new technology. Smaller corps lack resources and manpower but try to get an edge through creating new technology or adopting it, proving it out, and extending it. Big corps finally come around and either adopt the new tech along with the rest of the people in the ecosystem or buy out small corp to get the people who built or are extremely experienced with the tech/platform/framework. These people then get the resources + manpower to work on their projects. Eventually some of them get bored or hampered by the inertia, drop out of megacorp, and start or return another small corp and repeat the process. That's the trend I see playing out over and over again.
Yes, there ARE exceptions to the rule. I.E. LinkedIn + Kafka etc.
>you're at a much lower figure for net expendable income than the numbers here.
I am from a country where most people earn less than $500/month. Most Americans earn much less than the numbers here. This argumentation always seemed a bit absurd to me.
>and pursue a "moonshot" relying on savings and hopeful future cashflow
While bootstrapping, a top engineer/s is/are always able to do consulting while simultaneously building a product in the same/associated domain. EmberJS/Tilde.io is a great example.
>They might rather solve problems than deal with GAAP vs non-GAAP compliance issues, HR policies, marketing, or revenue generation
Sure. The preferred strategy is to devise solutions for making all of that easier. One solution is to be a CTO/founder while delegating administrative and some business matters to the CEO/CFO/CMO cofounder.
>..similar to a non-profit and we're swimming in them.
The number of tech non-profits is miniscule.
Let's look at the organizations who build popular database software. This is a quasi-random choice without any specific reason.
PG(non-profit), MySQL(for-profit, Oracle), MSSQL(for-profit, Microsoft), OracleDB(for-profit), MariaDB (non-profit), MongoDB(for-profit), RethinkDB(for-profit), Neo4j(for-profit), Complexible(for-profit), Apache Jena(non-profit), Apache Cassandra(non-profit), Couchbase(for-profit), Apache CouchDB(non-profit), OrientDB(for-profit). Those are major SQL, NoSQL, graph and semantic database products.
There are 10 for-profits and 5 non-profits (3 of them are under the stewarship of one entity -- Apache Foundation). The list can be certainly expanded and weighted by userbase for accuracy.
Another interesting domain would be collaboration tools for developers. The list of popular products is much shorter here: Github(for-profit), Bitbucket(Pivotal, for-profit), Gitlab(for-profit).
3 for-profits, 0 non-profits.
My argument is opposite of yours: the number of non-profits is too damn small.
>Why would engineers do a better job at building organizations that maximize social impact...
Technology is a great enabler. Companies with [1-5]0 employees have valuations measured in billions. Obviously, most of them had VC backing (money & network effects) but same principles can be applied to social impact.
>Second, how are we defining "social impact"?
Depends on the domain. Number of people who are able to afford expensive high-tech medical procedures, for example. This is an easy part.
>Think of profit and revenue as an indicator of value provided.... I would argue that is a positive social impact.
Not at all. Think BP, early days Microsoft, Oracle, Linkedin, MongoDB, etc, etc.
>what is a "self-sustaining social enterprise"?
Social enterprises are distinct type of entities with specific incorporation laws, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation as one of the examples.
>..the charismatics and visionaries tend to not be engineers..
One doesn't have to be perceived as a charismatic leader by general population, respect and authority among engineers/programmers/IT professionals/geeks is quite enough. There are millions of these and they possess powerful technological skills to change the world for the better.
> How does it overly benefit megacorps?...
This discussion in the HN format would require too much citations, data and tangents to be efficient.
Income disparity, unemployment, lack of social mobility is increasing locally and globally. Technology, robotics and automation is one of the main reasons for these trends. Corporations are beneficiaries of these trends and won't do much to stop them. I would much prefer non-profits and social enterprises to constitute a bulk of tech businesses while for-profits would be a rare exception.
> So one way to build great software is to start your own startup. There are two problems with this, though. One is that in a startup you have to do so much besides write software. At Viaweb I considered myself lucky if I got to hack a quarter of the time. And the things I had to do the other three quarters of the time ranged from tedious to terrifying. I have a benchmark for this, because I once had to leave a board meeting to have some cavities filled. I remember sitting back in the dentist's chair, waiting for the drill, and feeling like I was on vacation.
The engineers have the opportunity not to take outside investments and run their companies as they see fit. I believe that those bootstrapped companies would bring more social value than startups who are restricted by the boards, investment agreements, valuations and competition in high risk, high yield markets.
There are many upsides to running and owning a tech business and for some of the engineers those upsides can outweigh the negatives.
If you happen to be interested in solving those problems, a large company can be a wonderful place to work.
Also, I know plenty of people who are doing exactly what you are saying. The reality though is bootstrapping a startup is unlikely to make it more of a success anyways. The VC game picks winners in both senses - that they fund 'winners' and that they create winners by their own influence.
So a bootstrapped startup cannot ignore the VC realm regardless, especially once it is time to come to market.
The era of a silent genius sitting in a garage building durable software for the ages is a huge myth alas.
It's about 5% the first and 95% the second, sadly. The well-connected VCs pretty much know what the outcomes and the valuations are going to be in advance. The less connected ones get burned by adverse selection and lose money.
That I'm not as sure about. You just have to bootstrap into something that VCs aren't likely to be interested in, and get enough of an early lead and enough good will that they can't just make a competitor out of nothing should their interests change. It's quite possible, as far as I've seen. Bootstrapping is far harder than it should be (in part, because the American middle class is dying and no one has any fucking money) but I don't think that the VCs are the cause of that.
VCs dont just pick winners, they CREATE winners. How much of an effect this is debatable but it certainly is not a small effect.
I do agree and believe most VCs successes to be self-fulfilling prophecies.
I'm honestly not surprised some choose the good life at a big company - the world often doesn't treat such skilled people well.
Once you pay off your house, adjusting for cost of living doesn't make as much sense, especially for areas where rent or mortgage payments makes up a huge percentage of expenses.
Remember that Netflix does not typically offer bonuses, stock grants, etc, and just pays people a salary. While most other big tech companies (eg, Google) have salary as 1/2 to 3/4 of your total compensation, with the remainder being bonus and stock grants (or options). So in the Google table here, you will see far lower salaries than Netflix, just because at Netflix, your total comp is almost entirely salary. I suspect that the Google H1B's are getting stock grants and bonuses that will increase their compensation substantially.
I'm not an H1B, but I'm speaking from experience. I'm a senior software engineer at Google, and I'm starting at Netflix in a few weeks. My total comp will be in the same ballpark at Netflix as my current total comp at Google, but will move from salary + bonuses + stock at Google to being almost entirely salary. I'm excited that I might actually be able to do my own taxes in the future.
This seems to happen all the time in the comments here. Someone points out some insane top salary they found at some insane top company, and a bunch of people chime in with comments like "Oh, that seems pretty reasonable actually". It doesn't seem reasonable. It's not anywhere close to any median or mean. It's the far right of the distribution.
Find any company on Glassdoor where $350K is anywhere close to the center of the bar for "senior software engineer". I'll then eat my words.
Now, 250k isn't 350k, but 350k is the high end of Senior Software Engineer at Netflix, and that's what Staff Software Engineers at Google make.
Staff Software Engineers are "extra senior engineers" that are on the same HR level as engineering managers. I don't think Netflix makes this distinction.
Basically options and RSU = normal income
$30,000 a month is a fantastic salary. No ifs, ands or buts.
Monthly Gross Pay $29,166.67
Federal Withholding $8,195.61
Social Security $1,808.33
Net Monthly Pay $15,645.61
Even if you have kids you can probably save something like 5k/month, which is good.
So that $350K is equivalent to $284K in a "normal" place. Even being really conservative, and figuring extra costs (private school tuition, because even that $1.5M might not be enough to get you good schools, extra CA taxes, higher insurance rates, etc), we're still at an equivalent of about $250K. And that's a lot better than most people could get in any "normal" metro area as a Software Engineer.
H-1B Senior Software Engineer $7,278,870,000 Year $63,294 Philadelphia, PA Unknown 1 Withdrawn 15-1131
I'm not sure what to do now. Should I tell my boss about this and ask for a big raise this year? How would they react if I showed this data to them and demanded that my salary at least match these numbers?
That said, it might be that those colleagues making more than you do simply offer more value to the company, or were better negotiators when discussing their job offers.
The prevailing wage may not reflect the actual prevailing wage (which is why the H1-B visa is attractive to some employers) and if companies aren't paying much more than the inaccurately low prevailing wage then you may end up short changing yourself.
If a company declares they can't find talent here in the states and want to hire from outside this information helps:
- Makes sure the company doesn't just go hunting for cheaper labor overseas and bring people here for 40k
- Allows the international employee to view salaries to see if they're getting a fair offer
- Helps U.S. Citizens keep there job/pay because the company can't go higher other people for 40k.
2) International employee does not normally know something like this exists, and I assure you the Government website is not made with such a goal in mind. Not to mention that even in that case the salaries provided here have all kinds of inexact data (because it doesnt show stock compensation)
3) Any country can make the immigration policy they desire. Having this information public denotes a second-class citizen measure. This would not be acceptable if, for example, employees from other states in the US had to do this to "protect the state's jobs and make sure everyone gets a fair salary".
Actually it denotes "not being a citizen at all"? It's got nothing to do with being second class. If you are here on an H1B, you're not a citizen.
A google search shows: "The H1B visa classification permits a foreign national to work in the United States for a temporary period".
You can debate whether the information on this site should be public or not, but it is not reasonable to think that a foreign national should have all the same rights as a citizen.
I would not expect to have all the rights of a citizen if I went to work in a foreign country either.
Your expectations are accurate.
Edit: Being there are so many Wal Marts, I mean this one. http://data.jobsintech.io/companies/wal-mart-associates-inc
Don't see 2002
Actually, there are quite a few Wal Marts.
Looks to be just due to errors in decimal place.
(this isn't a criticism of the site - just an interesting side effect of this kind of data transparency)
Although, at the moment, anyone who's interested enough to look at the H1B notice posted discretely on the wall of the kitchen at my office will see my salary, since it's my visa being transferred to our new parent company.
It was a strange feeling seeing the job details and the salary listed on the communal kitchen wall, and realising it was my job and my salary.
It's a bit strange when it's done piecemeal, though, and without your knowledge - I jokingly asked my boss "is that my job listed on the wall, or are you hiring someone to replace me?"
I wonder what those are about.
For example, I'd like to see everything in $city, and then be able to sort that by salary or job description.
We are interested in an API and would love to hear your plans about it. Will shoot you an email :)
Does anyone know if companies are allowed to include the bonus $ in the 'salary' figure in these LCAs?
What is your reasoning for having the upward-facing arrow /\ serve as the descending sort and downward-facing \/ as ascending? It feels backwards to me and a bit counter intuitive.
Thanks for the site though :)
1 linkedin, ltd.
2 linkedin, inc.
3 linkedin, corp.
4 linkedin ltd, inc.
5 linkedin corporation
Good job otherwise!
Cant believe there isnt a single comment about privacy issues regarding this here.
EDIT: after scrolling a bit I did find some. Kudos to that conversation, though this has to be off-putting. The OP is also playing with people's information. He hasnt put his next to it, for example. Not that it would have been enough.
But its not, because it does have an effect. And that effect is negative for a lot of people who are being treated different for their nationality.
Time required to create?
Other fun details?
(I ask because I have another dataset I want to work on recreating online in a searchable manner)
Associate and Analysts at Kleiner Perkins
Partners at Sequoia
It's also a little depressing to see salaries this high (I'm at a non-profit).
My only real problem with it is that I feel it puts the UC system at an unfair disadvantage. Imagine if you could look up salaries for your competitor's workers, but they couldn't look up yours? This is essentially the situation for UC relative to a lot of private universities, even though massive amounts of government funding flow into private universities (with a tax exemption on endowment growth, too).
I actually think that all companies that make use government subsidies program should be required to disclose employee salaries the same way that state government do. And I absolutely do think that the H1B program should count as a government subsidy (Milton Friedman recognized it as a subsidy, because it was changing the rules for only a certain segment of the economy).
Overall, I actually think it would be beneficial to publish all salaries, and I really don't think it would cause the kind of problems people worry about. It would also real even the playing field between employers and employees.
Think about it this way - all real estate transactions are made public. But imagine if you were bidding on a house, but only the real estate agents actually knew what every house in your neighborhood had sold for. You were forced to go by little bits of gossip here and there. You'd be at a terrible disadvantage!
Many of my coworkers were upset, but the only real practical result I saw was that some people that were underpaid relative to their peers had evidence of it, and those that were overpaid relative to their peers were held to more responsibilities by others.
On the whole my experience was positive with it. (That said, your point that we have varying levels of "justice" is completely valid).
You could literally search "EMPLOYEE NAME salary" on their site and find any employee's annual income.
The fact that this information is available to citizens is a purely exclusion measure, that makes clear that immigrant workers don't have the same rights as US citizens.
No it's not. The records in question aren't public because they involve foreign workers. They are public because the records involve a program run by the government.
The most recent example of this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/pentagon-was...
The situation is not remotely analogous.
There is another website http://dolstats.com/ that gathers data from PERM applications. I've found it useful for comparing salaries when looking for new job.
By the way, does anyone know a good blog post or something on the process of applying for H1B jobs? I don't have a clear picture on how the whole thing works at this pont.
1. They may be incomplete. My position (2010) does not show up at all here, though it does on one of the other similar salary trackers.
2. They do not reflect raises. My salary is ~14k more than my starting salary over 3 years.
At first indication the #s seem pretty accurate for where I've worked, though they only capture base salary. (No bonus, equity, etc)
Is this due to the massive wave of VC-fund companies now competing for talent?
(Not trying to challenge or insult--trying to learn.)