Live data from Hacker News

Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

drive.google.com

171–180 of 614 posts

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#171
As a FAANG engineer going on 9 years now, let me address the usual rebuttals:

- There is a selection bias. Nope, this is pretty much accurate.

- These aren't real. Yes, yes they are.

- Self-reporters are lying. Maybe some do but these numbers are pretty accurate. If anything, I question Lyft and Airbnb as such outliers. I wonder if this factored in Lyft's post-IPO stock performance and makes unrealistic valuations of Airbnb's RSUs/options. But for any listed company, these numbers are accurate.

- You have to work incredibly hard for this compensation. no, you don't. In fact you'll typically find significantly better work-life balance at a FAANG than a startup.

- These numbers are inflated by years of stock growth that is unlikely to continue in the future. This there is some truth to but not as much as people claim. Amazon, of all these companies, builds in expected stock growth into their initial grant valuation (which I think is total BS; if any Amazon recruiters are reading this, please stop). But I know what offers new hires can get pretty accurately so at current stock prices as a new hire these numbers pare pretty accurate.

- Newer offers are likely to be less. False. If anything, initial offers continue just climbing such that anyone who is interested in maximizing their compensation should probably move companies every 3-4 years, especially 4 if you don't get an additional grant after your initial grant has fully vested.

There are some things to be aware of though and these can make it nontrivial to compare competing offers. Some examples:

- Most FAANGs have a 25/25/25/25 vesting schedule. Amazon does not. It's vesting schedule is 5/15/40/40 with a vesting signing bonus in the first 2 years to (partially) compensate for this.

- Amazon, as noted earlier, assumes stock price growth in their offer.

- Amazon (noticing a trend?) has vesting on 401k matches that can take 2-3 years. Most FAANGs do not.

- Anything less than a 50% 401k match is below market.

- Some FAANGs have caps on 401k matches. Some don't.

- I think the most generous 401k match I've seen is Google's at 50% of your contribution with no cap or vesting period or 100% of the first $3,000 at year's end, whichever is higher. The really nice thing is because there's no cap you get it immediately. It's fairly common to get your bonus in January, put it all in your 401k, get your 50% match and you're done for the year.

- Some offer the ability to make contributions into after tax 401k (Google "mega backdoor Roth" if you're interested in this). This is potentially huge beneficial. You can use it to invest money you can withdraw at any time at no penalty but the investment returns are tax free. If you withdraw the returns (not the initial investment) prior to being aged 59.5 you pay taxes plus a 10% penalty, however.

- Vacation days vary but 4 weeks (20 days) should be considered the norm for the US (30 for Europe/Australia).

- Some companies (eg Google) start you on less vacation days but you get more with length of service.

- Unlimited time off is bullshit. Think of this as no time off.

- Health insurance can differ but I imagine pretty much all FAANGs at this point have good health insurance. The gold standard is probably Kaiser for CA residents.

- Some FAANGs have a 1 year cliff. Some do not (eg Google, FB).

- Vesting schedules can vary. Some are monthly, some every 3 months, some annually. Try to avoid anything less frequent than once every 3 months. It can create bad incentives for the company to get rid of you before a big vest date.

- FAANGs will give you performance-based RSU grants annually. The time of year can vary. The eligibility can vary. For example, Google gives you a refresh grant at, after Q2-Q3 calibration (based on your previous two halves). And I believe in recent years it changed that if you joined that calendar year you aren't eligible.

- Because of refresh grants and your initial grant running in tandem, years 2-4 can often be your most lucrative. If you don't get promoted or an additional grant you can get significantly less compensation in year 5. Why these companies let people leave because they won't give them additional equity rather than competing for a new hire is beyond me. But they do.

- Because of the inflation in initial offers, a new hire can often have a significantly better offer than someone who joined 3 years prior. The veteran may only have higher total compensation because of refresh grants and/or stock growth.

- FAANGs tightly control salary within bands for a given level. Going beyond this is unlikely to happen however there is FAR more movement on RSUs in an initial offer and/or signing bonus.

So this is all another reason of why from a financial POV working for a startup is--how should I put this?--suboptimal. Your equity is probably worth nothing (even if you get acquihired, liquidation preferences probably mean all non-founder stock is worth $0). The hours are worse. The benefits are worse. There may be reasons to do this that aren't financial (as a non-founder) but personally I'd suggest people use their most productive years to ensure their financial independence and then chase whatever moonshot tickles your fancy without the pressure of having to pay for food.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#172
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay is partly based on cost of living, and cost of living helps to set the market rates. You'd have to pay me 10 times more than I get now, with a huge hiring bonus, to make me move to San Francisco. I'm not alone in this thinking. This is why the market rate is high. Part of that is sort of circular, due to the bidding war for housing. Part is that some people just hate the political insanity. Part is that people ha…

Let’s say you’re the median American SWE getting paid $80k a year. You’re saying you wouldn’t move to SFBA for less than $800k/yr in total compensation? I find that hard to imagine.

I can see what it costs. Getting $800k/yr means a house of about $1,600,000 should be affordable, but that gets you trash. Getting a "house" that PHYSICALLY TOUCHES the neighbor's house will go for more than that in a semi-tolerable San Francisco neighborhood. That is substandard living conditions.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#173

For everyone who doesn’t know, you’re getting shafted at that medium size startup/company. Most of these FAANG engineers are not geniuses, they just studied for the interviews

You're definitely getting shafted if you're working for a privately held start-up and they don't give you a 10 year exercise window. Many start-ups pay "median" salary or below, which make their numbers look bad versus levels.fyi. But in many cases if a start-up has an exit, then early employees will easily eclipse what they'd earn at FAANG. (Later employees, maybe not ..). The 10 year exercise window should be stand…

If I have learned one thing is that's much better to get paid very well for 20 years at a big tech company than it is to be paid median at some smaller outfit hoping to hit the jackpot.

Because even when the start-up has a successful exit, and even if you were an early employee, you'll still have a very small chance of out-earning your buddy who joined big tech.

This has been especially true in the past 10 years: look at the stock prices of Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. They've all gone up significantly, making those yearly RSU additions even more valuable. In a rising market, a 4 year vesting schedule works to the advantage of its owner.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many go to management. You realize as you get older that the whole “you can progress up the salary chart as an IC just as well as management” is a total crock. If you want to afford a nice house in a good neighborhood with good schools in the Bay Area, you’ve got to go into management.

I kinda disagree, Oracle/HP (personal experience) and Google/IBM (extremely good friends) both have career tracks for IC which go up to ‘Distinguished Engineer’ level, and where compensation can be equivalent to a VP on the management track. What you might be trying to say is there are more available positions at VP than DE, so your chances of making it are better? Or that being promoted to VP is easier than to DE? I…

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying -- the "just as well" part is key. Sure, there's an IC track that goes up to the SVP level at many companies, but it's statistically much harder to climb pretty much everywhere.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#175

It would be really nice to see more companies that aren't the top 5. What do 6-20 look like? I'd like to know when companies start getting to average pay levels. Is it only the top 5 companies that pay this? Or do the top 50 companies all pay really high? Is that data even available, or is it just that this represents some of the most attractive offer letters at top of bands for some of the most well funded startups…

We have plans to publish more information, but for now you can view salary information for a number of other companies on our main website: http://levels.fyi

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#176
post #11

I have never worked in the valley, so the answer to this question might be obvious to the people working there. What happens to all the experienced engineers? According to this, the Senior, Staff, or Principal titles are generally for people with 5+ year experience? Those roles make up 30%, 10%, and 3% of companies respectively. That leaves 57% of engineers in positions listed are usually for people with 0-5 years ex…

There are a lot more people working in software now than there were 20 years ago. Even if everyone over 40 who started in the industry was still there, they would be totally outnumbered by young people.

Ageism is real, but so is the growth of the engineering profession, and so is early retirement (which is definitely possible at the salaries senior people make, especially if you consider they bought houses in Silicon Valley for a lot less than they sell for now).

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#178

I do the job of a senior engineer and yet am paid a bit less than what's listed for an entry level engineer. And I live an incredibly comfy life. What's the catch? Are these for more than 40 hours a week? Is silicon valley really that expensive? Or are they literally giving college grads enough money to retire by 35?

I find it hard to believe that you're reading HN while still being surprised about the cost of living here?

By the time you're 35, you'll probably have a family with kids. You don't want a long commute to spend more time with said family so your 2000 sq.ft. house on a 7000 sq.ft lot will cost between $1.5M to $2.5M.

You won't get any needs-based financial compensation to send your kids to college, yet chances are that you don't want to deny them going to the best college that they'll accepted to. Add another $200K per kid if they're going to a UC school.

Everything is going to be a bit to a lot more expensive than elsewhere. Childcare, the electrician and plumber who charges $175 per hour (they need to live too), eating out etc.

$400K in yearly pre-tax compensation reduces to something like $250K after tax?

There's no way you're going to retire at 35, unless you're willing to give up on a lot of niceties of life before bailing. I don't know anyone who did.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#179

I do the job of a senior engineer and yet am paid a bit less than what's listed for an entry level engineer. And I live an incredibly comfy life. What's the catch? Are these for more than 40 hours a week? Is silicon valley really that expensive? Or are they literally giving college grads enough money to retire by 35?

Go on Zillow or Redfin and look at Bay Area housing prices near major tech companies (Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Francisco) and you'll see that 1 million dollars is entry level for a single-family home, and ~700k is entry-level for a condo that has HOA payments ~400-500 per month.

That's the bottom line -- cost of living is so high the salaries need to be high too, or people won't accept them.

Re: Top Paying Tech Companies by SWE Level

#180
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many (most) companies are grossly underpaying their engineers. No, that's simply unfair to the companies who don't have billions of dollars in free cash flow or effectively infinite amounts of VC money. The top firms have gotten themselves into an insane bidding war which has a side effect of creating an oligopoly on talent, as it's simply unrealistic to impossible for many firms to compete. Not to mention they app…

> The top firms have gotten themselves into an insane bidding war. That may be true, but there's more to it than that. The first wave of successful IPOs (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, etc.) caused a spike in housing prices as employees purchased houses. On top of that, companies have added tens of thousands of new jobs, without proportional growth in the housing supply. So housing prices are now absurd, and thes…

Yeah I think this part is a stretch.

Just look at Vancouver as a far more extreme example of how local property prices can be out of whack with wages.

House prices are a function of wages (or, more accurately, have a floor set by wages if land is constrained) not the other way around.

Also, the level of entitlement by a lot of such engineers I find to be borderline disgusting. Why do you think you're entitled to a $1.5m house at all let alone 3 years out of college? If you really want cheaper housing (as a function of income) just move to a lower income area. It's actually pretty simple.

But the most objectionable part for me is not just how much of a non-problem this is but it completely ignores people with real problems, like, oh I don't know, the people who drive the shiny white buses who need to live 2+ hours away. Or those not in tech who have to do the same.

Engineers are compensated well now because of the value they create for their employer, nothing more, nothing less.

Post reply on HN