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

Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#161

Post by ryandrake »

pm90 wrote: post #112
yibg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've seen smaller companies do some times to attract the same type of talent from FAANG is to bump up the level of candidates. So L5 (or whatever equivalent) at FAANG would go in at L6 or L7 and get a pay bump that way that's somewhat close to FAANG comp levels.

This would be a ridiculous trap, but some people do find titles to be important, so I guess its fine if they're attracted to jobs that can't pay enough but make up for it with inflated levels. I get the impulse behind trying to level employees but it always seemed ridiculous to me. Either you care about it enough to game it (which is pretty easy to do) or you don't an you just do what you think is important to you an…

At these big tech companies, your level is not just a puffy title. Within whatever your current level is, there is not much opportunity for compensation growth. L+1 usually represents a large leap in compensation, which explains the emphasis on it.

Nobody leaves FAANG1 for FAANG2 to simply get a title bump. They leave to get the level bump which sometimes means +20%, +50% or even +100% in terms of total comp.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#162

Post by derivagral »

person_of_color wrote: post #136
hnaccy wrote: post #73

These numbers make my head implode. Back to the leetcode grind.

Missing something. What is "leetcode grind"?

In this case, its heavily using Leetcode[0] as interview prep for the kinds of questions that are asked in the interviews.

[0]https://leetcode.com/

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#163

Post by pm90 »

warp_factor wrote: post #133
pm90 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be hard to understand if you've not grown up in America, but homeownership is considered a part of adult life, of demonstrating you're seriousness and a gateway to adult life. This is sort of changing recently, but only because many millennials are straddled with student debt and jobs that won't pay enough to afford the down payment. But every single American friend I have either has a home, or dreams of hom…

Yes, Home ownership is seen as the pinnacle of social status. This is stupid and people should rethink this preconceived notion. In the bay area for example it doesn't make ANY sense to buy right now (Price to rent ratio, google it) but still people are flocking on every shitty apartment on sale. That's because they want to feel that little ego boost when they say they are "homeowners".

People will flock until they can’t and that’s when the bubble starts popping.

All the sfba homeowners who bought for cheap but are now sitting on millions of dollars of property could easily make a tidy sum if they were willing to sell for less but they will feel like they left money on the table. Ultimately when the bubble pops, everyone will sell for less but they will all think it’s perfectly rational because the “market is down”. I don’t get that perspective at all. Buy low and sell high, within reason.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#164

Post by pm90 »

ryandrake wrote: post #161
pm90 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be a ridiculous trap, but some people do find titles to be important, so I guess its fine if they're attracted to jobs that can't pay enough but make up for it with inflated levels. I get the impulse behind trying to level employees but it always seemed ridiculous to me. Either you care about it enough to game it (which is pretty easy to do) or you don't an you just do what you think is important to you an…

At these big tech companies, your level is not just a puffy title. Within whatever your current level is, there is not much opportunity for compensation growth. L+1 usually represents a large leap in compensation, which explains the emphasis on it. Nobody leaves FAANG1 for FAANG2 to simply get a title bump. They leave to get the level bump which sometimes means +20%, +50% or even +100% in terms of total comp.

I think you’ve illustrated perfectly the phenomenon I describe.

Levels are fictional rat races designed to keep the rats working hard in hopes of “making it” without necessarily having achieved anything of substance.

Your counter argument is that they’re not just titles but have associated compensation components .... great. Doesn’t mean that you’ve accomplished anything significant at all. And now that these levels are normalized across companies, the only thing employees care for is leveling up, who gives a shit about whether you’re really learning or making a difference.

Unless you’re assumption is that levels are more than just a financial totem pole but an accurate representation of skills and accomplishments. I think that’s what they aspire to be but are not so in practice.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#165

Post by throwaway546789 »

a1pulley wrote: post #39
bradlys wrote: post #29

Facebook and Google are only setting the pay standard among other well paying public companies. The rest of the valley isn't keeping up. Startups in particular feel like slowly ramped up in pay but capped out. They're not offering enough stock to make up for it either. Usually only enough to make it such that your TC at startup would be equal to that of a big company IF the company IPO's/sells. (A big IF!) I don't se…

I've actually had the opposite experience with Google. I'm currently negotiating a job offer at Google; my initial offer was significantly lower than my four other ones. It's TBD whether they'll end up matching, but my recruiter has been trying to systematically deconstruct the argument for working at a local competitor to make the case that 0.67 * other offer = Google offer. I'm not sure if they'll end up matching -…

Starting salary at Google within a given level actually doesn't matter that much, because the comp process is designed to "rubber band" your salary within the salary band for that level. In other words, you'll get larger raises if you start with a lower salary, so the difference doesn't persist very long.

In fact, when you're negotiating comp, I'd argue that an additional $1 of signing bonus or starting equity grant might be worth more to you than $1 of additional salary, because a bigger signing bonus or equity grant doesn't come at the expense of future salary raises.

However, the level you start at matters a lot. If you're an experienced industry hire who should really be an L4 and somehow get slotted as an L3, you'll spend 1-2.5 years waiting for the promo to L4. During that whole time, your peers who were hired at the correct level will be progressing towards L5. This doesn't happen frequently, but it's unfortunate when it happens. In that situation, it can actually make more sense to decline the offer and re-interview to get an L4 job offer later, since that might take less time than getting promoted internally.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#166

Post by Bahamut »

throwaway7443 wrote: post #159
Bahamut wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Apple, they are very generous with refreshers - my initial grant was $105k, and my refresh grant was $125k and I expect at least similar, if not more, for my refresher in a couple of months. The only reason my refresh did not exceed my initial grant was because my initial grant climbed almost 40% in value in that time.

Counter-example from Apple: I spent 4 years there getting good performance reviews without a single refresh grant, and left on my 4 year anniversary. Most of my peers claim to have gotten one small refresh grant in that time, but certainly not one every year. Maybe it varies by team.

I have been told there is guidance that generally that either management gives a lot of stock or none.

It probably does also vary with your role/responsibilities - I am a software engineer in SWE on high visibility/impact work. Apple does definitely does make you earn refreshes - they don't give them for average performance oftentimes is my understanding, there seems to be a lot of stories out there that this is the case.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#167

Post by radres »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #37
bradlys wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you working at the companies that show that level of pay? Are you located geographically the same as those offers? levels.fyi does not say everyone makes $300k+ - it says people at specific companies in a specific region make that much. It makes that quite obvious from how you have to select the companies, the level, and then you see where those offers are geographically and with how much experience/tenure.

Is there a map that shows the data geographically? It's hard to tell given the list of salaries + cities to find data the compares to my city.

Why don't you try https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer

search for a city and see if it compares in any way to your salary?

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#168

Post by UncleMeat »

quicklime wrote: post #127
flashgordon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is actually far from the most competitive when it comes to matching. There used to be a time when they used to atleast match Facebook but now given the set of scandals from FB, they are openly refusing to match an FB offer and I have known candidates who have gone to Google despite this (possibly for "ethical" brand and saner work life balance).

Can anyone comment on the difference in work-life balance between Google and Facebook? Maybe $/hour (or some non-linear equivalent) would be a better metric than just total compensation.

Depends entirely on the team. There are teams at google with heavy on call or crunch times. There are teams where everybody works ordinary hours.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#169

Post by warp_factor »

fizzbuzz123 wrote: post #154
warp_factor wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Home ownership is seen as the pinnacle of social status. This is stupid and people should rethink this preconceived notion. In the bay area for example it doesn't make ANY sense to buy right now (Price to rent ratio, google it) but still people are flocking on every shitty apartment on sale. That's because they want to feel that little ego boost when they say they are "homeowners".

So the Tax advantages and building equity are worthless and play no part in peoples desire to buy instead of rent. Ok

you should search what "opportunity cost" means. The market is highly inflated compared to other investments because people are blindly buying without thinking at almost any stupid price. Your comment is a perfect example of that.

Re: Interview with the creators of levels.fyi

#170

Post by bradlys »

taurath wrote: post #143
briandear wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t install central ac for $2000 and certainly not in a rental.

$4k-$5k you can, and maybe even get a break on the rent. Add an extra month to getting your 30% down payment.

Where are these numbers coming from? Adding central air to an old home without it costs way more than that even outside of the bay area.
Post reply on HN