Live data from Hacker News

Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

geekwire.com

451–460 of 462 posts

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#451
post #342
post #145

Judging from what an insider in the HR org told me, we're going to be hearing a lot of stories like this going forward. Apparently, Amazon scale is so large and their attrition rates are so bad that in some markets, every potentially qualified candidate has already applied and failed an interview, or previously worked at Amazon and quit. As the adage goes, necessity is the mother of invention and Amazon seems to be a…

If that's the case, why do they continue to reject candidates based on their automated algorithm test as the first step in the interview? If they had too many candidates and not enough positions, it makes sense, but in the opposite scenario you just lose our on candidates that hate those tests.

Yeah, I'm definitely not into those tests. It's so played out. This means that the only way I'm going to do one is if I want to work for the company just that bad. And Amazon is not it. If my passion was crushing competition in unfair ways, I'd just take steroids and be a professional athlete.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been flat for about a year and a half

If you move that slider even just a few months to March 2020 you capture a doubling of the stock price, 1.5 years seems incredibly arbitrary as a cutoff point

It’s when I joined and started watching them. Completely and utterly arbitrary

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because US tech companies are making a lot of money, and could make even more if they hire more engineers.

My friend seems to think you can get the same value in a Brazilian engineer for $120k/yr (or less) compared to a US engineer for $200k-$300k/yr+

Sure you can, it's easy at a small scale[1], but at a certain scale, but you have to expend effort in learning Brazilian labor law, how to run background checks in Brazil and the rest of it and a bunch of factors that add friction. This is the whole silicon valley salaries vs rest of country, writ global.

1. i.e. skirt the laws while relying on mutually-benefiting aspects of the arrangement, assuming a 1-in-a-100 dispute won't happen and/or the tax authorities don't turn their gaze on your operation.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems like learning how to code would be easier than overthrowing the govt (at least it did to me back before I had any skills)

Not everyone can learn to code at a high level for one reason or another. They should still be able to feed and house their family if gainfully employed full time.

Are the Amazon factory workers running around naked in the streets?

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you move that slider even just a few months to March 2020 you capture a doubling of the stock price, 1.5 years seems incredibly arbitrary as a cutoff point

It’s when I joined and started watching them. Completely and utterly arbitrary

Ha. Fair enough

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#456
post #342
post #145

Judging from what an insider in the HR org told me, we're going to be hearing a lot of stories like this going forward. Apparently, Amazon scale is so large and their attrition rates are so bad that in some markets, every potentially qualified candidate has already applied and failed an interview, or previously worked at Amazon and quit. As the adage goes, necessity is the mother of invention and Amazon seems to be a…

If that's the case, why do they continue to reject candidates based on their automated algorithm test as the first step in the interview? If they had too many candidates and not enough positions, it makes sense, but in the opposite scenario you just lose our on candidates that hate those tests.

I will guess that it's because there are a lot of candidates that will do fine in the more "human" parts of the interview, but cannot solve FizzBuzz. It's just more efficient to screen those out quickly, and save the human interviews for those who have already established a baseline technical capability.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European labor laws are a major factor. It's much harder to fire people and a company like Amazon loves to fire people. Not sure why I keep reading this over and over. Yes, it can take up to 6 months to fire somebody here in Europe (usually 1-3 months though). The 6 months is usually for >15 years of uninterrupted work with the same company. Justifying that "the company cannot easily fire because of labor laws" is…

"Not sure why I keep reading this over and over." Because it is true.

Citation needed.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#458
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, why do they continue to reject candidates based on their automated algorithm test as the first step in the interview? If they had too many candidates and not enough positions, it makes sense, but in the opposite scenario you just lose our on candidates that hate those tests.

I will guess that it's because there are a lot of candidates that will do fine in the more "human" parts of the interview, but cannot solve FizzBuzz. It's just more efficient to screen those out quickly, and save the human interviews for those who have already established a baseline technical capability.

The Amazon pre-screener questions are not FizzBuzz. They are more complicated algorithms with a 45 minute time limit.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European labor laws are a major factor. It's much harder to fire people and a company like Amazon loves to fire people. Not sure why I keep reading this over and over. Yes, it can take up to 6 months to fire somebody here in Europe (usually 1-3 months though). The 6 months is usually for >15 years of uninterrupted work with the same company. Justifying that "the company cannot easily fire because of labor laws" is…

I'm also pissed off when I see HN people seeing 200k or 300k salaries as "too low". Jesus, Americans are millionaires, what the hell?! I'll tell you the reason: they do this because they can. It's not talent, it's competition. Who in EU is going to give you even 80k as a junior? Nobody. So why bother offering 300k or even 150k when people will take the tole for 60 or 70k? Inb4 "but housing is more affordable!" Whatev…

Yes, most likely. Would that not imply the following?:

- most people will constantly change jobs in search of better pay.

- foreign (especially US) companies have incentives to hire more in Brazil/EU.

Re: Amazon more than doubles max base pay to $350k

#460
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure every other big tech company offers sign on bonuses with an evenly distributed vesting schedule.

What are your big tech companies? Does it include Google? If so, your statement is incorrect. More correct: Of the big tech companies, only Amazon structures its RSU so it's heavily backloaded.

Exactly this. Google sign-on equity is actually front loaded now: 33%, 33%, 22%, 12%. Refresh grants (nominally every year) vest equally at 25% per year. Vests are monthly or quarterly, depending on the size of your grant.

Since initial grants are larger (roughly 2x) than refresher grants, the equal vesting of the initial grant (old behavior) could cause a significant drop in compensation for new hires after 4 years at the company (the dreaded equity cliff). This would only happen for relatively "flat" performers, as if you're on an upwards trajectory the larger size of later grants would eventually catch up to your initial equity grant.

Let's say the sign on equity was 200 shares, and refreshers were 100. With equal vesting it would look like:

Year 1: 50 shares

Year 2: 50 + 1 x 25 = 75 shares total

Year 3: 50 + 2 x 25 = 100 shares total

Year 4: 50 + 3 x 25 = 125 shares total

Years 5+: 4 x 25 = 100 shares total (20% drop!)

The problem has actually been worse, because grants are actually in dollars and the stock has been growing consistently year over year. Which means earlier grants are worth more in dollars in later years than new grants, despite having the same dollar value at the time of issue. Let's say 20% yoy, which is not far off from average over the last 10 years. We'll work in dollars and say the initial grant was worth $200K at sign-on time and later grants worth $100K.

Year 1: $50K = $50K

Year 2: $50K * 1.2 + $25K = $85K

Year 3: $50K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $127K

Year 4: $50K * 1.2^3 + $25K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $177.4K

Years 5+: $25K * 1.2^3 + $25K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $134.2K (23% drop!)

With the frontloading this becomes:

Year 1: 66 shares

Year 2: 66 + 1 x 25 = 91 shares

Year 3: 44 + 2 x 25 = 94 shares

Year 4: 12 + 3 x 25 = 87 shares (7% drop)

Years 5+: 4 x 25 = 100 shares

With stock appreciation this becomes:

Year 1: $66K

Year 2: $66K * 1.2 + $25K = $104K

Year 3: $44K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $118.4K

Year 4: $24k * 1.2^3 + $25K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $132.5K

Years 5+: $25K * 1.2^3 + $25K * 1.2^2 + $25K * 1.2 + $25K = $134.2K

So the dip is entirely smoothed over. Add in natural increases do to career growth and you no longer notice it.

Post reply on HN