71–75 of 75 posts
Anyone else find it interesting what companies _aren't_ on the list? I guess MSFT didn't seem relevant.
MSFT isn't really considered a Silicon Valley company, given their headquarters is in Redmond.
Is it just me or these numbers are not that impressive? Many of my friends make $100+/hr, it's not out of the ordinary. I'm sure there are really highly paid developers there as well, but it just feels good to know that you don't need to work for one of the huge companies to make good money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, why not? I don't get this whole secrecy around salaries. If it was up to me everyone in the company would know what everyone else was earning.
Well, I don't think it's a question of whether salaries should be kept secret or not, I think it's a question of whether one should access data he's not supposed to just because he can.
I think the ethics of IT is an interesting and important subject, and I was surprised to see someone unabashedly admitting to using his position to read confidential material.
I don't think our industry has a good enough set of accepted ethical guidelines, and I'd like to see that change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Median of which households? Although I believe the Bay Area's[1] "high cost of living" is frequently exaggerated, I also believe, however, that it can't be dismissed. If I had to put a number on it, it would be $10-$30k annually. [1] The location of all employees at each company may be applying a selection bias, since I don't believe Facebook has more than a tiny fraction of its employees outside of the Bay Area, whe…
All of those are substantive arguments. I was objecting to the use of the term "peanuts", which is derisive and dismissive -- as though this salary is not even worthy of consideration. Only 6.5% of US workers make 100K or more, according to this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24100K+income It's either just colourful language, or indicates that the writer is out of touch with reality.
I find the denominator of the entire US[1] to be somewhat misleading, as I said. More importantly, however, I found the emphasis to be on the working for someone else, not the magnitude of the salary.
Perhaps even more importantly, the high annual salary may translate to a low hourly rate, especially with a long commute and on-call duty. For some, this may be such a substantial reduction in quality of life, that the salary is low enough to resemble a legume.
[1]Do all US workers in the above denominator include self-employed contractors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. That's actually fairly common in the Silicon Valley. It's 10 to 20 people on the market, not 10 to 20 programmers selected at random: some are specialists in fields other than the ones you're looking for (or their resume is misread by the recruiter e.g., someone who has experience with enterprise search but is be…
If 10 or 20 people are getting to the technical interview stage and failing to qualify, that points to a problem. That adds up to a lot of non-productive time for the interviewers.
It's a balancing act. Reject too many in phone screens, and you miss out on talent. Reject them at the interview stage, and you waste interviewer time. Accept them and put them on teams, and you drag down the level of the team and cause morale problems. Google's been accused of all of them, but in my experience, hiring sucks wherever you are, and they do the best they can given the data available.