Compare career levels across companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#381

Post by arminiusreturns » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #379

arminiusreturns wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This drives me a bit nutty tbh. I dont feel like getting into it at the moment, because the entire subject deserves a proper gothrough.

Why? One "sysadmin" who can write software can manage far more machines than one who can't. Source: started my career as a Solaris Sysadmin with a CS degree.

Well, like I said, the entire subject deserves a good gothrough, but I'll try to be terse and summarize:

For one, because many sysadmins don't have the proper CS background to "program" well. We get shit done, mostly in bash/perl/python, (these days maybe in go, etc), but devs who read sysadmin code tend to gasp and sigh a lot.

Two, being a sysadmin is more than just admining the machines. A senior has to be just as comfortable in a suit in a meeting with the C-suite, writing reports, doing BCPs etc, as they are terminating cable.

Three, coding is useless if you don't know how to fix issues, or diagnose them in order to know what the issue is that needs fixing in the first place.

Four, this push to sysadmins must code seems to largely be a filter-bubble effect of companies that are software focused. Thousands of sysadmins across the world are supporting companies that don't even have a dev team, so the whole "sysadmin is dying, devops is the future" angle is naive imho.

Five, does writing config files in something like ansible yaml or hashicorp config language really count as coding? Because ok then I'm down with all sysadmins must code. But far too often I've seen some poor sysadmin tossed a mess of python and told to fix it... and then when they struggle they hear heaps of criticism. Don't even get me started on all the huge perl messes from "sysadmins who coded" I've had to clean up...

Do you see the general gist of where I am going on this? Did you evolve into a software engineer, or did you move up to more managerial position of senior or CTO/CIO? One thing to keep in mind is that many companies don't have a CTO or CIO, and sometimes don't even have IT department heads other than a senior sysadmin. Much of the pain points we are talking about are probably different in different company cultures, and are more situation specific. What I've found is that managers tend to think that if their sysadmin can code that means their sysadmin is a dev, and they can save money by having them fill both roles, and that almost never turns out well for anyone.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#382

Post by unionemployee » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #377

unionemployee wrote: post #338

As an average potential software engineer in the Midwest, it's at first exciting to see these salaries, but I also feel the need to check myself and realize that, in some ways, this is another universe to which I probably don't have access.

I disagree, if you had the work ethic, you could study for a year on leetcode.com, and have a hell of a good chance at landing a FAANG job. Just practice those types of problems, apply to a bunch of different companies, do the phone screens, get rejected, practice some more, get through the phone screens to the onsite, get rejected, repeat until you get an offer.

Well, I'm also 35 and have never worked as an engineer. But yes, at 25, I'd agree that this is certainly possible.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#383

Post by JimboOmega » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

filmgirlcw wrote: post #303

JimboOmega wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two problems with these: 1) If you aren't at one of these companies, it's not a fair comparison. It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on. 2) It's kind of depressing. It's very easy to find people at similar experience levels as you making FAR more money (p…

I wholly disagree. Even if the results are depressing (and they can be depressing for people at those companies who see the ranges that others at their same level make -- maybe even more depressing), it's so important to have information when negotiating for a raise or for a new position. Information is power and it is in companies of all sizes best-interest for workers not to discuss wages. That's fine -- I understa…

I absolutely agree that it's useful to have this information in general, especially so if you work at one of those companies.

However, I wanted to point out that having a big set of apples to compare to when you're looking through oranges isn't useful, and can be harmful, mentally speaking. I think it's a net positive, I just wanted to point out how it can be hard for some of us. Seeing numbers like those make me really wonder what I can do to get myself in that position, but most people (especially on somewhere like Blind) act like that is a trivial thing to accomplish.

I'd also love to see what performance is expected at what levels, and what gets you promoted to other levels. It is of course very possible to be performing the job several levels above where you are, and not get promoted there because you are in one of those underrepresented groups, or bureaucracy, or any number of any other causes.

When I last worked at companies large enough for that sort of thing to matter, the levels were actually the important part. Your boss would typically say he couldn't promote or give you a raise above a single digit percent, even though your work was amazing, because of levels and salary bands and slots he had open and so on. That was your queue to go work across the street for a couple years at the higher level, and then switch back to the original company at a much higher level. It was basically the only way to advance and increase your salary.

And you'd never know if it you didn't realize you were outperforming your level. It's also the easiest way to take advantage of an underrepresented person (keeping them at a low level, versus underpaying them within a level)

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#384

Post by JimboOmega » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

YokoZar wrote: post #322

seattleeng wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are tiers of companies when it comes to compensation, and this site tends to skew towards recording datas for higher tiers (but many of the companies this site provides levels for do NOT pay as much as FAANG - as more salary data is added this will become clearer). And this can certainly be frustrating/depressing when comparing with individual compensation. It should be noted that the pay different…

> 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, S…

I'm curious, how often do post-IPO companies give options versus RSUs? I am used to thinking all public companies issue RSUs, but the last one I worked at didn't. My strike was at a relatively brief high point, and the value declined to about 2/3s of that before the company got acquired, but obviously those options were worthless - they wouldn't have been if they were RSUs.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#385

Post by seattleeng » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

YokoZar wrote: post #322

seattleeng wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are tiers of companies when it comes to compensation, and this site tends to skew towards recording datas for higher tiers (but many of the companies this site provides levels for do NOT pay as much as FAANG - as more salary data is added this will become clearer). And this can certainly be frustrating/depressing when comparing with individual compensation. It should be noted that the pay different…

> 2) Work for a company who you believe will have equity growth. There is a wide spectrum here between 5 person startup lottery tickets and established behemoth that have 0.5% YoY growth stocks. A good recent example of this is Square, which gave out equity grants that were something like 50% lower in cash value than the equivalent role's offer from a FAANG company (this is based off of personal anecdata). However, S…

I agree with what you've written, and the phrasing I used was unclear. I was mainly making a note about joining a mid to late stage pre-IPO startup (series B or later) vs joining a large, low growth public company. You can't easily invest in most pre-IPO companies today (though with secondary markets growing in popularity this might change in 5 years). In the case of choosing between two large public companies, sure, take the cash & liquidate your positions as soon as you vest so you can stick them in SPY or vanguard.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#386

Post by JimboOmega » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

stygiansonic wrote: post #154

JimboOmega wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two problems with these: 1) If you aren't at one of these companies, it's not a fair comparison. It's really difficult to find a pre-IPO company who is going to compensate you like these, if for no other reason than that options are just not something you can easily stick a dollar value on. 2) It's kind of depressing. It's very easy to find people at similar experience levels as you making FAR more money (p…

I wouldn't exactly call these problems. For (1), I agree that you might have trouble getting startups (if that's what you mean by pre-IPO) to equal the total comp that big tech offers, if for no other reason that startup equity just isn't as close to cash as big tech equity is. For (2), I'd say that depends on your mindset. For both of your points, the argument is basically how does this sort of transparency affect t…

As for 1) I literally meant pre-IPO. Companies that are not publicly traded. Even very very large ones(e.g. Uber) tend to issue options instead of RSUs. When you get hired, the value of those options is a big 0 - that's where they set the strike price. You can't really compare options to RSUs. You can't assume the stock will go up 50% in value or anything in particular. So they are hard to value as anything other than 0 (I'd love to hear other ways you think about it)

Transparency is good. I'm not exactly against this information. I mostly wish it were available in a way that applies to the rest of us.

Also, I wish it didn't make me feel bad. Call it mindset but salary discussions tend to.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#387

Post by puranjay » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

Game_Ender wrote: post #329

puranjay wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With compensation like that, I have to reconsider my drive to be an entrepreneur. If you can make a million bucks working for someone else, why work for yourself?

Statistically if you can get into a tier 1 company you’ll be better off. You get 10-20 years at $200-$400k by default, so $2-8 million. You have to weigh that against the exit success chance and size of a 5-10 year (as typical) startup run to an exit. It’s not all about money of course, and if you can run your own place you can probably get into into a tier 1 tech company.

I worry if I'm missing out on the opportunity to get into a Tier-1 company while I'm busy going on my own. The chance of a $5-10M exit is slimmer than the chance of getting into a Tier-1 company.

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#388

Post by twoquestions » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #377

unionemployee wrote: post #338

As an average potential software engineer in the Midwest, it's at first exciting to see these salaries, but I also feel the need to check myself and realize that, in some ways, this is another universe to which I probably don't have access.

I disagree, if you had the work ethic, you could study for a year on leetcode.com, and have a hell of a good chance at landing a FAANG job. Just practice those types of problems, apply to a bunch of different companies, do the phone screens, get rejected, practice some more, get through the phone screens to the onsite, get rejected, repeat until you get an offer.

Don't these companies need you to be early 20s, have similar hobbies/culture to the hiring company, and live nearby already? I find it hard to believe they'd look at an applicant who doesn't fit the standard criteria. Why bother with someone who doesn't fit the mold when there's 10,000 applicants per month who do?

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#389

Post by pascalxus » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 6:14 PM 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.

I thought it happens quite regularly. I mean, I have about 16 years of experience and am still a Level 3 (but not a FAANG)

Re: Compare career levels across companies

#390

Post by oculusthrift » Thu, Nov 01, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

twoquestions wrote: post #388

influx wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if you had the work ethic, you could study for a year on leetcode.com, and have a hell of a good chance at landing a FAANG job. Just practice those types of problems, apply to a bunch of different companies, do the phone screens, get rejected, practice some more, get through the phone screens to the onsite, get rejected, repeat until you get an offer.

Don't these companies need you to be early 20s, have similar hobbies/culture to the hiring company, and live nearby already? I find it hard to believe they'd look at an applicant who doesn't fit the standard criteria. Why bother with someone who doesn't fit the mold when there's 10,000 applicants per month who do?

because those 10k fail the interviews. and no they will relocate and they do it often.