231–240 of 414 posts
- Typical FAANG compensation: X base pay + Y RSUs + Z signing bonus
- Spotify: X base pay + Y stock options (public, so equivalent to you purchasing stocks really) + no signing bonus
Please take note that Spotify pays sub-market salaries for these cities. The reason being that they do not offer RSUs but instead public stock options without any discount. - Typical FAANG compensation: X base pay + Y RSUs + Z signing bonus - Spotify: X base pay + Y stock options (public, so equivalent to you purchasing stocks really) + no signing bonus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m talking about global dev salaries. Those London based devs can now easily get SV remote jobs and the matching salaries. It’s not that SV salaries are unusually high, it’s that most places artificially depress dev salaries. I think we’ll see the elimination of layers of over paid management with all that money being captured by developers.
In my opinion the artificial bubble is more the SV-type salaries. Compare developers salaries with similarly educated/skilled engineers in other disciplines (mechanical, electrical, aerospace, civil…), you'll see that SV developers are the outlier. The reality is that on the global market you can get a good mid-level dev from a first-world country for half that price. And it's not artificial, it's just the market at…
Software is fundamentally different and the revenue impact can be multiples or even orders of magnitude higher, in really any industry or company type.
Software engineers, even in Silicon valley, are underpaid relative to revenue or profit contributions.
Paternalistic and entitled employers in other areas have milked the opportunity for rent seeking by suppressing wages due to disingenuous cost of living policies for a long time. Finally workers have options that let them say, “no, I just won’t take your poor pay job. I don’t care that you think someone in Kansas City or Wyoming should earn X% less for doing the exact same job, and I won’t accept that anti-worker paternalism. Improve your offer or get lost.”
Please take note that Spotify pays sub-market salaries for these cities. The reason being that they do not offer RSUs but instead public stock options without any discount. - Typical FAANG compensation: X base pay + Y RSUs + Z signing bonus - Spotify: X base pay + Y stock options (public, so equivalent to you purchasing stocks really) + no signing bonus
What's the difference, for the laymen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference, for the laymen
You only earn money if the stock price appreciate
Exactly right.
RSU means they gave you the stock at price X. Options mean, they gave you the right to buy the stock at price X sometime in the future.
Make hay while the sun shines. A true shift to remote work, should it happen, spells the eventual end of insanely high SF FANMAG salaries. Market forces will soon close these opportunities. My limited experience tells me people aren't prepared for homogenization of salaries across geographies: South East England, outside London: 1x London: 2x New York: 3x San Francisco: 6x On making hay: A friend of mine is currently…
Make hay while the sun shines. A true shift to remote work, should it happen, spells the eventual end of insanely high SF FANMAG salaries. Market forces will soon close these opportunities. My limited experience tells me people aren't prepared for homogenization of salaries across geographies: South East England, outside London: 1x London: 2x New York: 3x San Francisco: 6x On making hay: A friend of mine is currently…
That works both ways though. The 6x places might move to, say, 4x over time, but the 1x and 2x places will salary upwards to compete. As someone who works in the Midwest USA, I don't see anything but upside for people like myself.
This is making finding people for our (large but non tech) company (not in a high tech area) very difficult; we never paid those kind of salaries (cost of living here is much lower) but now you no longer need to be local to work for us, so we have to compete with these high paying companies which our company cannot afford to. It takes the location requirements out of the picture entirely. This is going to kill SF and…
It's simple: Pay more.
Maybe it's time for a new funding round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but until remote work is the norm it's a quality of life trade-off. Living in low COL area around London for instance is complicated by the fact that the entire commuter zone, for certain classes of housing, is basically priced at central prices less cost of commuting. If you want a comfortable family life, with a bunch of kids, then you're looking at a long commute. Housing in the UK is severely messed up thoug…
I think GP means “rent an address” somewhere expensive, claim you live there, and actually live someplace cheap, working remotely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about taxes, but environmental cost. San Francisco provides a bunch of (human) services walnut creek does not. As one example, muni costs money and sf pays more for BART than WC does. These are still cheaper and more environmentally efficient than everyone owning cars.
If Walnut Creek paid an extra $9000/year for each resident then they could easily offset whatever extra environmental cost. Carbon offsets etc are not all that expensive.
2. Bart and muni are not the majority of the $9000 difference. The majority of the cost is various social services. The actual cost of muni per sf resident is something like $500, which is still significant (muni is not a great rapid transit system), but that's far less than the cost of carbon offsets for every resident.