Compare career levels across companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#261

Post by dublidu » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

hagope wrote: post #223

Is this an accurate representation of comp? For the equity portion, for example if the value is calculated at 2018 peak stock market levels (RSU are granted in # of shares, not value of shares) then shouldn't all the equity values be discounted by the 10-20% drop in FANG stock values?

Yes. Senior engineers at these companies are heavily compensated via equity. Total comp can fluctuate by tens of thousands each month. Its crazy hoe much picking a job has become an exercise in stock picking, and it’s crazy how little our individual performance correlates with comp.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#262

Post by wingerlang » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:28 AM UTC

thundergolfer wrote: post #259

wingerlang wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Thailand and mine looks -extremely- low.

Unfortunately for Sydneysiders their cost of living is just as high as Bay Area. At least Thailand is much cheaper.

That is true, my standard of living is great and I think I am able so save quite a lot per month as well.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#263

Post by ajdlinux » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:31 AM UTC

eeks wrote: post #146

The IBM ranks are inaccurate. Fellows are not above DEs. Both are the highest ranks indeed, but of two different tracks. DE is the highest rank of the engineering track, while Fellow is the highest rank of the research track. Fellowship have also be granted to non-research people over the past 20 years, diluting the merit of the title IMHO. Examples of fellows are: John Backus, Gene Amdahl, Ken Iverson, Benoit Mandel…

While this might be technically true, my impression has always been that Fellows are still viewed as above DEs, and paid more, and there are absolutely Fellows working on the engineering side of the business.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#264

Post by mav3rick » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:35 AM UTC

mrep wrote: post #260

mav3rick wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. There are many many interesting projects at Google. And mobility is very easy compared to other big companies. Please do your own research before falling for the HN dogma of "FAANG" jobs == boring.

Lol, have you ever worked for Google? When I was there, joking about how our jobs was all about moving protos around was a classic memegen topic.

It still is. But it's also posted as a serious rebuttal of "why not to work at Google" many many times on HN. Missed the /s :)

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#265

Post by walamaking » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #189

agoldis wrote: post #172

I left Amazon just 5 months after being employed there as an SDE, it was terrible. It's not all about the money. The levels have nothing to do with tech or experience. It's the ability of person to navigate his career through corporate bureaucracy and politics.

no offense but when i hear leaving after 5 months it just sounds like serious underperformance.

5 months sound about just right to get past the honeymoon phase with a new company and see what's swept under the rug, and seems fine given he/she wasn't fired.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#266

Post by mav3rick » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:47 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #187

these are obviously new hire figures (includes signing etc). does anyone know if one can expect similiar compensation if hired as l3 and move up to l4 versus if hired as l4 directly. wondering if it’s better to switch jobs for promotions in that case.

It's always better if you come in new.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#267

Post by ccdev » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:48 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #171

vonmoltke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 16 years of engineering experience and Google has made me two offers (original and revised) for a T4 position in NY that are well below the numbers reported on Levels (in fact, below the average on the site). So, either I am getting low balled like hell or there is skew in the numbers. Edit: there is skew in the numbers, not some in the numbers.

My company is allegedly aligned with Google’s levels here, and people routinely make Senior within 4 years. Spending more than 2 years at Eng I or Eng II is considered a cause for serious concern. So T4 after 16 years is very surprising. Something is off.

>Spending more than 2 years at Eng I or Eng II is considered a cause for serious concern.

Is this just for within Google or also from Google's perspective of hires from elsewhere? Because I have to admit I have not been past mid-level (which I guess is the Eng II equivalent) for over five years.

I have 10 years experience in my career and never held a senior position, officially. Do I miss out a lot in seniority by just being a permatemp and contractor for small shops?

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#268

Post by jeffwilcox » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

electrograv wrote: post #245

nemo44x wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a hiring manager (not at Google) I would say yes, and significantly so. EU employees make far less than equivalent USA colleagues when factoring in job title and location. It costs a lot to employ someone in the EU and the workers are well protected. I can not easily terminate an employee in the EU like I can in the USA. Taxes paid to employ someone in the EU are significantly higher than in the USA. This cuts bot…

> However, you get health care out of that and can retire early with a lowered risk in terms of health issues. I’m not aware of any major tech company in the US that doesn’t offer excellent health insurance and retirement plans. And the quality and availability of healthcare in the US is arguably the best in the world, if you are insured (that’s the ‘catch’ I suppose).

Modern American tech firms only offer insurance while you work for them, it is not a lifetime benefit. As a result, you stop working, you need to go hunting and paying for your own healthcare.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#269

Post by jekdoce » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

electrograv wrote: post #245

nemo44x wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a hiring manager (not at Google) I would say yes, and significantly so. EU employees make far less than equivalent USA colleagues when factoring in job title and location. It costs a lot to employ someone in the EU and the workers are well protected. I can not easily terminate an employee in the EU like I can in the USA. Taxes paid to employ someone in the EU are significantly higher than in the USA. This cuts bot…

> However, you get health care out of that and can retire early with a lowered risk in terms of health issues. I’m not aware of any major tech company in the US that doesn’t offer excellent health insurance and retirement plans. And the quality and availability of healthcare in the US is arguably the best in the world, if you are insured (that’s the ‘catch’ I suppose).

If you decide to retire early (say 50), before medicare kicks in (at 65), then you are on the hook to buy insurance yourself. That's maybe the difference between US and Europe that the above commenter refers to.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#270

Post by shanghaiaway » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:55 AM UTC

freyir wrote: post #243

Zaheer wrote: post #3

Hi, I'm one the makers of Levels.fyi. Happy to answer any questions and would love to hear feedback! We have a lot of features in the coming months that we think folks will love!

Why don’t the numbers always add up? A Tesla P3 engineer lists his or her base as $130k, stock grant as $150k and TC is listed as as $168,000? Does it not check whether the numbers make sense?

Stock grant over 4 years, TC is per year.