591–600 of 614 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also we don't get free heathcare, we pay for it through taxation. I believe this is morally right, but that's beside the point: These well-paid American employees are also probably getting a great healthcare package as part of their contract, so they don't even have to pay for it.
The Swiss offices have much lower tax rates than their bay area counterparts, a tax rate which includes health insurance (correct me if its a separate tax)
Health care is absolutely not free, in fact it's probably second most expensive country in the world for healthcare after the US. A doctor visit is going to cost you 100-200 franks at least. Insurance system works much better than in the US, but prices are (almost) as crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work remotely for Bay-area tech(not literal FAANG, but similar orbitals), and my pay is in no way arbitrarily multiplied for my location. >Bet on it. Where do I collect my winnings? :)
Did you start remote? I wonder if there is a difference in experience between people who start off working onsite but then decide they want to live somewhere else and negotiate remote work after proving themselves.
Not right away. My progression in tech was as follows:
* Company 1: Explicitly onsite, no existing remote paradigm
* Company 2: Explicitly onsite, no existing remote paradigm
* Company 3: Explicitly onsite, existing but ad-hoc/unofficial remote paradigm
* Company 4: Explicitly remote, with other onsite employees
* Company 5: Explicitly remote, with other onsite employees
Companies 1 & 2 had no existing remote paradigm, and there was no opportunity to negotiate for it.
Company 3 had an existing remote paradigm, but it was somewhat ad-hoc/unofficial, and dependent on varying levels of political/organizational capital(how influential/liked was your manager, and their manager etc...). I was able to prove myself and negotiate for full remote after a couple of months. Unfortunately, said political situation deteriorated and with the prospect of my contract not being renewed(or renewed exclusively onsite) I sought a different role.
Company 4 had an onsite/physical office space, but my team/role was explicitly remote, and this was an established aspect of the role throughout the interview process.
Company 5 had an onsite/physical office space, but my team/role was explicitly remote, and this was an established aspect of the role throughout the interview process.
Hopefully this is helpful. My anecdotal experience says that you might need to seize an opportunity to negotiate for remote work where it might not be a first-class paradigm, and later pivot this experience to get a 100% remote role with the established infrastructure and organizational frameworks to properly support it.
Now imagine having one of these incomes but having a spouse who is hellbent on moving back to the southeastern U.S. in a year. It’s driving me nuts; I can’t find any company in the south that pays anywhere near my current compensation, and a rough calculation indicates that leaving FANG will bump my retirement age from 38 to 65 (never mind the amazing health insurance I’ll be giving up too). It’s like throwing a winn…
I would divorce before considering working an extra 27 years. If your spouse thinks this is justified then he/she needs to be replaced anyways.
What I find completely demotivating is working for a FAANG in Europe, and seeing the massive disparity between US colleagues. You can argue cost of living is different, healthcare is public blablabla, but recruiters have told me straight out: we dont adjust for cost of living, we adjust for market rate. Therefore they dont give a rats ass about how much it costs to live in a specific country, they just pay based on t…
I don't think that universally true. I work for G in Munich, and salaries post cost of living are competitive with the Bay Area (maybe 10%-20% off, but OTOH consider quality of life). From what I can tell, Zurich beats the Bay Area.
Not really. Out of all FAANGs there's just Google in Zurich with a significant presence. They pay well above almost all other swiss and european companies, but are not really the top paying employer in the Bay anymore.
Not being able to job hop among FAANGs is a big risk to your compensation here in the long term and will make you eventually lose out to Bay Area, even despite lower taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kaiser is awful. Sutter and Palo Alto Medical Foundation IME are far superior. I've used these 3 systems.
Thought PAMF was a part of Sutter Health? Anyway, I agree with you. Kaiser is convenient, but the standard of care of HMO-nominal (i.e. poor). I've used PPOs with PAMF for lots of years now, and it's been far better than Kaiser no matter who my actual insurance provider was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically everything you wrote is incorrect. - It's not just the cantonal tax; you've ignored the federal and municipal taxes. - The location of the office isn't what matters, but where you live. - Healthcare definitely isn't free. Everyone is legally obligated to buy private health insurance.
Thanks for the summary, makes me wonder if I would live in Zug and work in Zurich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost nobody walks to work at the Silicon Valley tech company campuses - they are mostly suburban office parks surrounded by parking, so you'd have to walk pretty far. Lots of people bike though. There are plenty of people that walk to work in SF itself, and walking to work in San Jose will probably become more popular as the various new office buildings around Diridon start to open. If you highly value walking to w…
Here's a 2 bedroom less than 10 mins away from Google for $1.2M: https://streeteasy.com/building/marais-coop/10b
It's an apartment condo. Worse yet, the land itself is leased from a different owner.
Start with the idea that you own the land and the building, and that you can walk around the building while staying on land that you own. Ideally you would also have mineral rights, the right to drill a well, and similar. You should have the right to bulldoze the building, paint it any color, add brick facing, add gargoyles, or install a triangular front door.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is worse in Europe, but try getting a FANG job in Europe and they still pay extremely well. My base pay is 150K pounds and not in London! Definitely I have a very niche skill in demand and I had to work really hard and be luck at the same time, to land at this role, but I will any day pick Europe with all the other benefits that a European country gives me.
What do you do and what is your skillset, if I may ask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of post is a pet peeve of mine because you use terms like “data” and “anecdotal” but it’s actually a poorly supported argument. This happens too often on HN. It’s certainly true that primary care visits improve health outcomes, but you offer no evidence that people get more primary care at Kaiser. Meanwhile the most significant rankings are not only patient opinions but rather systematic reviews of outcomes…
OP and myself were discussing Kaiser as a health care plan. The ranking you showed was about hospitals not health care plans; a health care plan and a hospital are two completely different things. I also never said Kaiser was the absolute best in every area (I even mentioned their mental heath is very weak), just that their model is solid. Here's an actual comparison of health care plans: [1] https://www.fiercehealth…
You moved the goalpost from “healthcare outcomes for tech workers” to “economic ROI given their costs”. This is what I mean by poor reasoning.
Sure, Kaiser is a good bargain. Lowering costs means more people get care vs don’t get care. It is not the “gold standard” when premiums and deductibles are not an object, like a tech workers company sponsored plan.
> OP and myself were discussing Kaiser as a health care plan. The ranking you showed was about hospitals not health care plans;
This is a bizarre retort as Kaiser generally locks you into their hospitals. Clearly we’re arguing different things.