Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

hired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#271

Post by acchow »

bluGill wrote: post #269
acchow wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, a company can't take away granted RSU's that are still vesting. That's a signed agreement. They can, however, reduce your salary at will.

True, but there is no reason to believe that those stocks will be worth anything when they vest.

Sure, but they can also reduce your salary at any time. So it's a bit unfair to consider salary any "more real" than vesting RSUs.

I just mean your claim "stocks and bonus are nice, but you dare not count on them until after you get them" is false because you can't "count on" salary coming either.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#272

Post by acchow »

elastic_church wrote: post #267
acchow wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think Google is this naive? They are fully aware there's a stupid dance around negotiations and they don't really care which routine you choose to take.

Naive? This is exactly what they do. If you come over from Facebook and Google offers you the standard RSU package, but you let them know what kind of vesting RSU packing you already have, they'll up the ante. Sounds like you are more uncomfortable with the idea that some people don't have to work for the same outcome.

I was disagreeing with your sentiment "I actually like private company RSUs and the lack of data around them." as if the ambiguity of pre-IPO RSU value somehow empowers you in negotiations.

Google is not naive - they won't fall for any neat trick about "a huge secondary market and lots of liquidity". You aren't getting a higher offer after a low-ball because you used your black-box RSUs to negotiate.

You could simply decline their offer and tell them it's not enough. Negotiate hard by declining repeatedly - it will take weeks, but stay strong. Eventually you'll end up at the same much-higher result.

That's what I meant by the "dance". Initial offers will always be a low-ball. They just want the non-negotiators to accept the low-ball. But they'll negotiate with the negotiators and your technique won't get you a different result - whether it's repeatedly declining, or using pre-IPO RSUs, or even lying about your other offers (which they can't verify anyway) - it's just a dance. You'll end up at the same place.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#273

Post by logfromblammo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #270
logfromblammo wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume from your tone that you are childless. "Cozy" gets really old, really quick when you have kids. And when they get larger, you really don't want them living right on top of you. As someone living outside of California, I value 40 hour work weeks and my kids sleeping in a different room. Thriving culture is nice, but a decent public school district is better. SV companies may not be losing employees now (othe…

> I presume from your tone that you are childless. "Cozy" gets really old, really quick when you have kids. And when they get larger, you really don't want them living right on top of you. I have a child and big houses still disgust me. They really aren't necessary, and, at least for me, is not where I want to allocate more of my money to. Instead, I value living two blocks from where I work. To each their own. > SV…

It almost sounds like you're saying that people who don't like living urban aren't worth hiring. Everyone I know has been contacted by a recruiter for one of the major employers of software professionals, and for all but one of them, the requirement to relocate to the west coast has been an instant deal-breaker. We like living where home is, or at least the places that vaguely resemble home.

I'm suggesting that the people they can hire don't need to move to those places. They are already living there. As it is, people are moving away from there--wherever it may be, exactly--often to their own disadvantage, just because the local companies are not expanding their workforces, and the companies that are expanding are not moving in.

That's exactly why I have also had to move around between multiple metropolitan areas. If you can catch me before I leave a city, you can hire me much more cheaply than if I'm pulling up every last root to go to the employer that can offer me the best net savings rate in the state, or the region, or the country, or the world. I have already had to move several times to find adequately remunerative work, and it bounced me right out of the Rust Belt. I'd still move back for the right job.

Network effects are a bitch when you're out in the periphery. I'm not certain that the industry needs to have a nucleus at all. I am certainly bitter and salty that the nucleus that exists isn't anywhere near me.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#274

Post by nothrabannosir »

ghaff wrote: post #118
nothrabannosir wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax deductibility of mortgage interest is essentially renters subsidising homeowners. Some countries in Europe do it, and the EU is not happy with it. I'm personally grateful they're shoving the repeal of this tax deductibility down the member nations' throats (very very controversial measure). Homeowners have a stranglehold on politics because renters don't vote enough :(

That may be true (although there are tax deductions for renting in some places). However, people own property in cities and rent outside of cities so I'm not sure how relevant it is to the subsidy comment. (Which presumably is some variant of the oil/cars/roads claim because cities can apparently somehow exist in isolation of everything surrounding them.)

This is a good point. In retrospect, I think you are right, and I didn't understand what op meant.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#275

Post by IshKebab »

arjie wrote: post #258
IshKebab wrote: post #175

It's crazy how much more you get paid in America than elsewhere. On the other hand, I can cycle to work, get actual holidays and actually work leave work at 5pm.

You can do these in San Francisco, though I prefer keeping the mornings and working the evenings. Wasting daytime sunshine is a terrible idea.

Really though? I thought you only something like get 10-15 holidays (including sick days?), are expected to work really long hours, and I can't imagine the rent within cycling distance of downtown San Francisco... Actually I don't need to - it's pretty insane - easily triple London prices which are already very high:

https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_Mon...

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#276

Post by arjie »

IshKebab wrote: post #275
arjie wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do these in San Francisco, though I prefer keeping the mornings and working the evenings. Wasting daytime sunshine is a terrible idea.

Really though? I thought you only something like get 10-15 holidays (including sick days?), are expected to work really long hours, and I can't imagine the rent within cycling distance of downtown San Francisco... Actually I don't need to - it's pretty insane - easily triple London prices which are already very high: https://www.zumper.com/blog/uploads/2016/03/SanFrancisco_Mon...

I actually live in London right now so I can tell you that San Francisco can be much cheaper. I had a one bedroom for $1400 there for the last three years.

Anywhere inside the city is cyclable. And because the weather is great you can go do things in the daytime.

The vacation time thing is a problem for the rest of America. I had unlimited vacation and took seven weeks off last year in San Francisco.

Everyone in SF wants to live at the NEMA. The NEMA costs like a NEMA would. Don't live at the NEMA if you're price sensitive.

EDIT: Ah ha, I see. I lived in the Excelsior. On your map, I was right by the border with Glen Park. 8 mins to BART, which is 12 mins to Montgomery St.. And BART doesn't get anywhere near as packed as the Jubilee line does. You have to see that SF is not very much larger than Zone 1 in London is.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#277

Post by loco5niner »

x1798DE wrote: post #202
40acres wrote: post #154

As a black software engineer this is disturbing. What could be the cause of the major discrepancies between black and white SWE salaries?

There could be a million things that would cause these discrepancies, like differences in education and/or family background of the relevant populations. It could even be something "positive" like if there's a perceived lack of black engineers relative to the number of high-skilled black engineers that are out there, companies may be more likely to hire marginal candidates or retrain promising candidates from other f…

This line supports your point.

> When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person.

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#278

Post by _m8fo »

afpx wrote: post #266
sokoloff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're skipping an important step in your model. The probability of being black given that you work at Google is low. That doesn't imply that the probability of being hired at Google given that you're a black software engineer is low. (There may be a relatively low number of black software engineers in the industry. In fact, I believe that there are.) (In the short term,) Google can't conjure up black softwar…

Interestingly enough, 12% of Computer and Information Science degrees in the US are awarded to Blacks [1][2]. That is in contrast to 9% that are awarded to Asians. But also, 13% of the population is Black, and 5% of the population is Asian [3]. So, it would be expected that more Asians than Blacks are employed at Tech companies. However, the high ratio of Asians (vs. Whites, Blacks, and Latinos) employed at Bay Area…

Sorry, but unfortunately your conclusions are wrong. More Asian people in absolute numbers and in percentage get "computer and information science" degrees. In fact, the trend has been negative for blacks.[1]

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.30.a...

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#279

Post by x1798DE »

loco5niner wrote: post #277
x1798DE wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be a million things that would cause these discrepancies, like differences in education and/or family background of the relevant populations. It could even be something "positive" like if there's a perceived lack of black engineers relative to the number of high-skilled black engineers that are out there, companies may be more likely to hire marginal candidates or retrain promising candidates from other f…

This line supports your point. > When we look at our two largest markets on Hired’s platform, San Francisco and New York, the average African-American candidate on the Hired platform is 49 percent more likely to get hired than the average white person.

To be fair, you'd also observe the exact same thing if black engineer salaries were artificially depressed relative to their skill level, since if you can get equivalent quality for less money, why not?

Re: 2017 State of Global Tech Salaries

#280

Post by obstacle1 »

_m8fo wrote: post #263
dukeluke wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring. Given the fact that women and minorities are underrepresented in tech, it should be obvious that they would have an incentive to join the industry because they would have very little trouble getting hired wherever they want. And given the fact that over 60 percent of graduates are women, it's clear that lack of opportunity isn't a…

So you basically have no evidence to back up meaningless, unsubstantiated claims. You don't even support your statement: "affirmative action means women and minorities get preferential treatment during hiring." Guess the discussion is over since you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.

It's really easy to plug your ears and scream that an opponent's argument is "ridiculous" (what you are doing). It's more difficult to actually make a counterargument yourself (what you are not doing). Try harder, maybe.
Post reply on HN