311–320 of 515 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the fact that your job would be less than meaningless
What kind of meaningful job produces enough value to justify making 7x what the median US worker makes?
You just need to apply for roles with public companies that offer liquid equity. Very few of us are getting 250k+ on base salary alone. Most of us have the salary bands you’re already in, but have additional equity pay on top. It doesn’t have to be a FAANG either. There are loads of public companies out there hiring engineers at 250k total comp .
Sadly, going for equity in these scenarios is a mine field and almost never as profitable as advertised by the employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree! At least in the US, this kind of total comp is possible at my employer (Datadog) and many other public companies, not just FAANG mega-corps. Typically you’d have to be “senior” or “staff” engineer, or get lucky and join during a period of stock growth. The pandemic really changed things to make remote work more viable. Previously many companies limited it to exceptional cases (long tenure in-person followed by…
How realistic is it to get hired fully remote at this kind of comp if you don't live in the US? I'm British and live in the UK and I'm pretty sure I have enough experience to be making these kinds of high salaries if I lived in the US. Relocating isn't an option for me, at least not in the next few years, but I wonder, am I a fool for taking a UK-based job? Should I find a remote position with a US-based company and…
My current company has interviewed 3 ppl in 6 months, lack of candidates. Someone good, but in the wrong timezone would be a compelling hire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting $100k sticker price worth of stocks per year is worth about $100k a year. If stocks go up they are worth more, otherwise less. On average they will be worth more than cash, and for a big company it is rare for them to go down a lot, so I'd say that getting the $100k worth of stocks a year is at least as good as just getting the cash. Edit: Not sure why people think otherwise. Maybe they are used to companies…
3 years receiving vested stocks. If price stayed the same, it would be worth 200k. Today it is worth 80k. So no, thanks. Stocks are not worth unless you're FAANG
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why in God’s name would you list them both? It’s a resume not a deposition. Your resume should make it easier for you to get your next job not harder . Be accurate when it comes to the truth but not necessarily the facts.
> Why in God’s name would you list them both? It’s a resume not a deposition. In the US resume fraud is a thing. Some companies like telecoms selectively check resumes for accuracy. Resume fraud can be a fireable offense.
Omitting isn't the same. If you ask for references, I probably won't list people who will give me a bad reference, either.
Well, it is a workers market right now. Professionally there is nothing special about me except that I really enjoy working, but for the last two remote jobs, the offer letter I received was more than what I verbally agreed on with HR. Since I am also 70 years old, I take this as good evidence of how pro-worker the job market is right now. I offer free mentoring (see my web site) and always talk about the importance…
Thank you for making the world a better place.
Personally I would just identify a technical niche that is highly valued by certain industries, and specialize in that. For example in high-frequency trading, there is a small niche developing ultra-low-latency FPGAs or ASICs for trading systems. The work in question is fairly straightforward compared to other industries, but most of the people with the right skillset tend to go to aerospace or other big user of soph…
Can you self teach yourself into these positions or do they filter for a degree?
[0]: I'm sure there are exceptions of people who self taught themselves and are great, but it is significantly harder to break into than software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public companies will sometimes tell you $X amount of stock and not tell you the number of shares, which is what actually matters. For the purposes of the offer, the dont generally use today’s market price as their price per share. In those cases, you can actually end up with less than is offered. And in pre-IPO companies that’s the norm, but that’s beside the point.
Every grant I received had exactly how the number of shares would be calculated. Typically a trailing 10 day average as of the closing on a specific date.
What makes you think you're worth anything anywhere near that?