11–20 of 224 posts
At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?
From the article: --- Level 70: Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500 On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000 Level 69: Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000 On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000 Level 68: Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000 On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million wi…
The publicly disclosed numbers on Levels.fyi are much closer to reality, IMO.
Would be interesting to see people rough idea of YOE to Level mapping for MSFT. Everything from Level 50 through 60 looks pretty junior, like grad hires and possibly outside HCOL areas. Surprised there is so much granularity. I do also find the base to stock ratios interesting. I guess base pay caps out in FAANG the same way it does in fintech / Wall Street tech. $360k base is a lot of money obviously, but its intere…
In West Coast circles (Blind.app, et al) Microsoft's reputation is that it's still "the country club" where you go if you want a stable career without too much excitement (or stress) - if you play your cards right (and dodge the occassional round of layoffs) you can still live the baby-boomer dream having a single-employer-for-life untill you retire.
At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?
From the article: --- Level 70: Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500 On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000 Level 69: Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000 On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000 Level 68: Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000 On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million wi…
Microsoft uses a system of levels to denote seniority. Higher levels come with higher offers, according to the guidelines. Levels also vary by field and location, but generally, "senior" starts at level 63, "principal" starts at level 65, and "partner" starts at level 68, according to insiders. Not all types of roles go up to level 70, but in engineering, an employee at this level would be considered a "distinguished engineer.'" There's also a level 80 for a "technical fellow," which is typically one of the highest-ranking executives at the company.
From the article: --- Level 70: Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500 On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000 Level 69: Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000 On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000 Level 68: Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000 On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million wi…
I started off at MSFT over a decade ago and though I haven't worked there in quite a while I'll say that these numbers look very old to me - there's no way Level 59's base salary range is 74-110k today (e.g. about 3 years ago, a new-hire Lvl 59 friend of mine said he was on $115k base and he said he felt he was in the middle) The publicly disclosed numbers on Levels.fyi are much closer to reality, IMO.
At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?
It would cause wage growth leading to a lower percent (but an increase) increase in other prices (housing, etc).
At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?
Wouldn’t all the companies then just conspire to pay everyone lower wages?
So, a change where the companies also posted their salary data publicly would only additionally inform employees not HR. But yes tech-HR has in the past gotten in trouble over salary fixing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started off at MSFT over a decade ago and though I haven't worked there in quite a while I'll say that these numbers look very old to me - there's no way Level 59's base salary range is 74-110k today (e.g. about 3 years ago, a new-hire Lvl 59 friend of mine said he was on $115k base and he said he felt he was in the middle) The publicly disclosed numbers on Levels.fyi are much closer to reality, IMO.
What is level 59 equivalent to in terms years of experience?
At this point is there any disadvantage to legislating that all companies should share a transparency report where they list their levels + avg, min, max, median salaries for each level?
Wouldn’t all the companies then just conspire to pay everyone lower wages?