Compare career levels across companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#121

Post by int_19h » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

radicaldreamer wrote: post #54

robynsmith wrote: post #51

This makes salaries and compensation in Toronto seem outrageously low. Wow. Maybe I should be moving? Crazy. (Sadly, family is here, so moving is unlikely)

This is the usual reaction for those outside the Bay Area. Cost of living is very high in SF though, as are home prices.

It doesn't only show Bay Area numbers, though, but also e.g. Seattle, where the prices (while still high) are far lower - especially in more remote places that still have a decent commute to tech campuses in Redmond, Kirkland and Bellevue.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#122

Post by malvosenior » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

JimboOmega wrote: post #109

seattleeng wrote: post #10

Huge fan of this site, for two reasons: - It lets “outsiders” to the tech scene understand salary and levels at big companies. If you went to MIT you probably already have frat brothers/sorority sisters or an alumni network that consists of senior engineers at these big companies that know the promotion and compensation schemes well. But if you were an equally smart student who went to a non target school, many of th…

There are two problems with these: 1) If you aren't at one of these companies, it's not a fair comparison. It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on. 2) It's kind of depressing. It's very easy to find people at similar experience levels as you making FAR more money (p…

There are a lot of companies that will pay like this, even outside of California. Be aggressive with your negotiating. Companies that make millions/billions off of software will pay high salaries, but you have to negotiate well.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#123

Post by acchow » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

slivym wrote: post #40

kmonsen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for Google in London and SF, the was a significant salary difference but also some personal growth. Still it could be at least 2-3x

Right, I get the salary is 2-3x, but does that translate to a much bigger house? Better schools for your kids? Holidays to St Moritz? Or is it more like, 2-3x most of which goes into rent, health insurance and local taxes?

All the top tech companies will cover the health insurance bill. This does not come out of your compensation. You do not get taxed on this benefit.

Taxes in California are high, though not higher than in the UK.

Bigger house? Better schools for kids? Not really. Maybe if you're in the top 5% of engineers.

Holidays? You can do pretty much anything you want anywhere you want for holiday. Almost everywhere in the world is cheap compared to living costs in the Bay Area.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#124

Post by akhilcacharya » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:36 AM UTC

amazon_tossaway wrote: post #119

Amazonian here. Can anyone else from Amazon speak to whether you think these numbers look accurate? I'm sitting here in almost disbelief at how little I apparently make at AMZN. I don't think I have anyone to ask that would know and would be willing to give any kind of answer. I've been fairly content at Amazon. I've done good work, and have been a resource to others on my team. But if these numbers are right, I don'…

I work at Amazon too. The numbers seem accurate and represent mid-range of the band from everyone I've talked to.

Of course, this is only from what I've seen.

The numbers seem to be a pretty tight grouping overall so I'm curious what your TC is like if you're in disbelief.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#125

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #99

vonmoltke wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be reporting the dollar values they were awarded, not what the shares are worth when they added their comp.

But refreshes and new offers are matching the current stock value not the original

$60k worth of stock is $60k worth of stock. Initial and refresh awards are converted to shares from a dollar amount. If new grants were $200k six years ago and are still $200k now, what the stock price has done in the interim is irrelevant.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#126

Post by acchow » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

Zaheer wrote: post #31

imbusy111 wrote: post #17

Either I was: 1) seriously underpaid at Google, 2) things have changed a lot in the past half year or 3) the stats do not reflect real averages.

Keep in mind that new hire salaries at the same level are typically higher than folks internally who have been at that level for some time. The market rate has actually gone up significantly in last 1-2 years.

Agreed that market rates have gone up significantly in the past 2 years

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#127

Post by syndacks » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

amazon_tossaway wrote: post #119

Amazonian here. Can anyone else from Amazon speak to whether you think these numbers look accurate? I'm sitting here in almost disbelief at how little I apparently make at AMZN. I don't think I have anyone to ask that would know and would be willing to give any kind of answer. I've been fairly content at Amazon. I've done good work, and have been a resource to others on my team. But if these numbers are right, I don'…

You poor thing

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#128

Post by imbusy111 » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #81

imbusy111 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a little under 200k/yr total in Mountain View for T4.

There’s no T-ladder for a while now. That does sound kinda low. I was payed slightly more as L3 more than 5 years ago.

I was L4. I was just sticking to the nomenclature of the website.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#129

Post by refurb » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:40 AM UTC

Zaheer wrote: post #76

tedsanders wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting, thanks for putting this together. One thing that I'd like to see - on compensation, can you clarify whether the stock grants are valued at time of grant or at time of vesting? If they are valued at time of vesting then the numbers will be much harder to (a) compare against one another, and (b) extrapolate into the future. Right now the submission form is ambiguous, which I worry is muddying your dat…

The submission form [1] asks explicitly for what would appear on your W2 (ex. vested value). Part of the reason why comp packages have been so high in last 1-2 years is that stock grants that were given to employees 2-4 years ago have shot up in value via a bull run stock market. To attract these employees, companies have to outbid their current expected take-home pay. Thus the vested value is actually most relevant…

This is really true. A lot of people ask “what kind of a developer makes $300-400k per year?”.

The answer is one working for a company with equity that is increasing in value rapidly.

Take that away and it’s more typical to get $150-200k base plus another $50k in equity.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#130

Post by Cyph0n » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 1:43 AM UTC

__float wrote: post #111

josh2600 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, there are different levels for managers and engineers. An L7 engineer is a seriously dope engineer (like the kind of person you'd want to found a hard technical company with; think low-level problems like DMA). An L7 manager maps to a senior engineering manager. I have talked to a couple L9 engineers and they're monstrous. L9 managers are directors or VPs.

Why is "hard tech" == "low-level"? There are plenty of interesting and challenging technical problems that are "higher level" but more difficult due to scale/latency/etc demands.

Besides, DMA isn’t really a “hard” problem as far as I am aware...