71–80 of 349 posts
It seems silly to ignore stock and bonuses. My base salary is only ~$150k, but with stock and bonuses I'll make over $260k this year (Google). Would this compare with a job that also gives a $150k salary but nothing else?
That seems like a high salary. What's your title?
These results are odd. The three startups (two YC alums) I interviewed with in the Bay offered me ~60K each time, and wouldn't go any higher.
That's why I recommended including how much money the company has raised. Companies with lots of money also have a lot of employees, hence skewing 'market rate' up to something significantly higher than you'll get from any < 10m raised company. It's like (obviously not as extreme, but I'm using hyperbole) comparing salaries for similar roles at non-profits vs. investment banks just because they're both in the same ci…
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that.
As always, voluntary response data are worthless. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5538059 Good luck to all of you looking for higher salaries. I hope you gain the salary you desire, and more knowledge of statistics along the way.
voluntary response data is flawed I agree, but I hesitate to call this worthless. I'd plaster warning signs all over the place alarming people to think through their reasoning and consider all the biases that would have taken place in the poll. (come to think of it, if the poll data incites that kind of skeptical thinking in some of its readers, that in itself might make the endeavor worthwhile)
Strictly speaking, "surveys" are only really used by the softer sciences, like sociology and psychology, and both fields agree it's the least rigorous (albeit easiest) method of accumulating data.
Corollary to this, a little bit of flawed data can sometimes give a good idea in the general direction, but more often than not it's worthless because it shows false correlations, leads to erroneous conclusions, stimulates debate in the wrong area, questions prior evidence, causes one to hypothesize irrelevant answers, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know there are probably a lot of factors, but why don't you move out to the bay area?
Before this thread I thought bay area might be 100k - 120k and cost of living / uprooting the family wasn't worth it. Also worried about the competitiveness of the market out there for software engineers.
If you buy into the idea that where (and with whom) your children go to school will heavily influence their success/happiness, you'll find yourself choosing between expensive-area public schools and expensive private schools.
Most of the public schools in California are pretty crappy (and the bay area is no exception), and to get into the ones that are good (by some measure), you have to swallow either huge rent or a huge mortgage so you can live in their area.
There are some good private schools, and you don't have to live in super-expensive areas to send your kids there, but aren't there excellent private schools outside the bay area / in lower cost-of-living areas ?
For your particular situation, you may find that the math works out to stay in the midwest. Additionally, that's just the raw numbers; there are lots of "intangible" factors that favor the midwest over the bay area, especially if you have any kind of roots there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you guys did notice that this account was created 1 hour ago, right?
Yes, because I want to be anonymous. Does it mean I'm lying? Even check glassdoor to verify: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engin... 146k base + 32k cash + 41k stock = $220k (everyone gets bonus and stock). And this averages data before the raise Google gave everyone.
Glassdoor also suffers from the same problem. It's voluntary, unverifiable data. Using it as a source does not help your credibility.
I selected a random option.
Based on my data, you selected one of 100k-109k, 120k-129k, 130k-139k, 200k-209k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
voluntary response data is flawed I agree, but I hesitate to call this worthless. I'd plaster warning signs all over the place alarming people to think through their reasoning and consider all the biases that would have taken place in the poll. (come to think of it, if the poll data incites that kind of skeptical thinking in some of its readers, that in itself might make the endeavor worthwhile)
voluntary response data is flawed I agree, but I hesitate to call this worthless. I really don't mean to be rude, but that might just be because you don't understand statistics.