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

Compare career levels across companies

levels.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 428 posts

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#211

Post by morgante »

closeparen wrote: post #171
vonmoltke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 16 years of engineering experience and Google has made me two offers (original and revised) for a T4 position in NY that are well below the numbers reported on Levels (in fact, below the average on the site). So, either I am getting low balled like hell or there is skew in the numbers. Edit: there is skew in the numbers, not some in the numbers.

My company is allegedly aligned with Google’s levels here, and people routinely make Senior within 4 years. Spending more than 2 years at Eng I or Eng II is considered a cause for serious concern. So T4 after 16 years is very surprising. Something is off.

It is not especially unusual for industry hires (even those with plenty of experience) to come in at T4 for Google. Being productive and effective within Google is an additional skill which is not identical to the outside, so it's a risk avoidance measure on both sides.

Assuming your experience translates well, people frequently go for promo within a year or two.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#212

Post by bronxbomber92 »

Zaheer wrote: post #3

Hi, I'm one the makers of Levels.fyi. Happy to answer any questions and would love to hear feedback! We have a lot of features in the coming months that we think folks will love!

Thanks for putting this site together! Two pieces of feedback:

1. It would be valuable to ask for years at company and years in industry along with the reported compensation.

2. When reporting my compensation, how should I account for additional bonuses/RSUs due to being promoted? (E.g. climbing a level). I historically receive an additional 100k grant when I’ve been promoted, but I don’t anticipate that 100k on non-promotion years.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#213

Post by joshuamorton »

closeparen wrote: post #171
vonmoltke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 16 years of engineering experience and Google has made me two offers (original and revised) for a T4 position in NY that are well below the numbers reported on Levels (in fact, below the average on the site). So, either I am getting low balled like hell or there is skew in the numbers. Edit: there is skew in the numbers, not some in the numbers.

My company is allegedly aligned with Google’s levels here, and people routinely make Senior within 4 years. Spending more than 2 years at Eng I or Eng II is considered a cause for serious concern. So T4 after 16 years is very surprising. Something is off.

If you don't work at one of a small list of companies (I've said elsewhere that "Facebook" would be a decent approximation, but Amazon or MS could count in some cases), you'll be downleveled when joining Google.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#214

Post by usaar333 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #103
usaar333 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your L4+ levels seem pushed up by one to two. Levels should align to manager equivilent scopes. Based on my own experience at peer company and https://www.quora.com/What-are-all-the-job-levels-in-Googles... L4: Capable of independent work on a project and coordinating with a small group (1-2 others). (note this is PhD starting level) L5: Capable of leading your team (e.g. as a tech lead). Maps to entry-level manager…

Your comparison to a 100eng company seems off. There are L8s that lead orgs of more than 100 people they'd map to cto or ceo. Indeed given my own experiences, many L6s have L5 TL/M reports. I'd say L7 is the better mapper to vp of eng at a 100 eng company. That allows you to have 2-3 VPs under the CTO.

We're thinking the same scope, just different titles. I'm more familiar with companies that level set as follows:

VP Engineering -> runs the 100 person org

Director -> manages managers (30 person org)

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#215

Post by Zaheer »

bronxbomber92 wrote: post #212
Zaheer wrote: post #3

Hi, I'm one the makers of Levels.fyi. Happy to answer any questions and would love to hear feedback! We have a lot of features in the coming months that we think folks will love!

Thanks for putting this site together! Two pieces of feedback: 1. It would be valuable to ask for years at company and years in industry along with the reported compensation. 2. When reporting my compensation, how should I account for additional bonuses/RSUs due to being promoted? (E.g. climbing a level). I historically receive an additional 100k grant when I’ve been promoted, but I don’t anticipate that 100k on non-…

1. We actually do ask for this - it's toward the end of the form. :) Click the '+' on the left side of the row to show it.

2. The main Total Compensation field is per-year and the simplest way is to look at your W2. For RSUs / bonus we recommend taking the average amount you receive per year

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#216

Post by colmmacc »

amazon_tossaway wrote: post #178
colmmacc wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been an L5, L6, L7 and L8 at Amazon over the last 10 years. My experience is that once you've been here a while the total comp is a rollercoaster that follows the stock price. I haven't had a salary increase since I was L6 (and don't want one!) ... so for me it all comes down to when I got stock and how it performed over the next few years. Personally I've done very well that way, as it's nearly always outperfor…

Is the reason you haven't received a salary increase since L6 because you reached the max base pay? Why do you say you don't want a salary increase? Regarding your last point, my focus is actually not on what I make vs my colleagues, but rather what I make vs what I could potentially be making elsewhere. You're of course right about the risk of a job change, but I wouldn't leave unless I felt confident that I found a…

I'm not at the max base pay ... though I have gotten to the point where the majority of my comp is in stock anyway. It's always a gamble, but I have enough confidence in Amazon for the long term that given a certain total comp target, I'd prefer as much of the comp as possible be in RSUs. Then again, I have enough financial security that I can also afford to lose that bet.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#217

Post by esf »

joejohnson wrote: post #22
lordnacho wrote: post #14

Can you really make a million bucks with just 10 years experience as a T7 at Google? What does a "Senior Staff SWE" do? Are there a lot of them?

No, there are very few of them, maybe on the order of 10-100. The biggest factor in comp at many of these companies is tenure; large stock grant at Google or Facebook from 8 years ago has appreciated nicely as it vested.

No it is many more than that. From the percent I remember seeing and the number of engineers Google employs, more like 1500+? 7 is a high, difficult to get to level, average employees are not expected to pass 5, but Google is so large that's a lot of people.

Google stock grants vest over 4 years, so 8 years ago doesn't matter, but there is something to just tenure in that yearly refresh grants really add up, and used to be similar size to the first grant, so pay would really escalate over the first four years for many (most?) people.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#218

Post by barrkel »

shanghaiaway wrote: post #97
Tade0 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been struggling with a similar question lately (only Poland instead of the UK and... the UK instead of the US) and here's what I've come up with: It's not about being paid poorly/well - it's about serving a specific market segment. To give an example: I work for a company based in Poland so I get to do "Tier 3" stuff, namely churn out apps with a Java back-end and an Angular/React/Vue/whatever front-end. I make…

The work of a developer at Google is more valuable than at other companies, especially in Europe. Because they create more value with the same skillset and doing similar work, Google can pay more.

Of course, the company doesn't need to pay you for what value you're able to create - they pay you what the labour market clears at, and pocket the difference.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#219

Post by [deleted] »

jldugger wrote: post #175
symbolepro wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to the "outsiders" from outside US, it should be written that 40-45 percent is taken away as taxes. So, if someone is making a total comp of 200k, it is basically 120k. This should be written in bold on this website. Actually i would say, instead of having these charts which compare total comp, its better to have a survey on how much people save after rent, taxes, and basic living expenses (not including loans et…

> it should be written that 40-45 percent is taken away as taxes. So, if someone is making a total comp of 200k, it is basically 120k. Are you confident about this? My experience as a single guy in that total comp range is closer to 25 percent taxation. The marginal rate is that high, but only a small chunk of a 200k income is taxed at that rate. In fact, Social Security caps out before there. And if you're married,…

[deleted]

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#220

Post by Zaheer »

fma wrote: post #177
Zaheer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, you can add your own here: https://www.levels.fyi/addcomp.html

I work for a company that was marked as "New" but there was no compensation. The levels were correct (close enough). Was wondering where you get the levels data from? Job postings? Or someone submitted levels w/o submitting compensation.

Levels can be submitted here: https://www.levels.fyi/create.html

Compensation we get separately through this form: https://www.levels.fyi/addcomp.html

Post reply on HN