Interview with the creators of levels.fyi(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Interview with the creators of levels.fyi
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/how-much-google-facebook-other-tech-giants-pay-software-engineers.html
178 comments
I've actually had the opposite experience with Google. I'm currently negotiating a job offer at Google; my initial offer was significantly lower than my four other ones. It's TBD whether they'll end up matching, but my recruiter has been trying to systematically deconstruct the argument for working at a local competitor to make the case that 0.67 * other offer = Google offer. I'm not sure if they'll end up matching - we'll see!
TLDR: in my current experience at non-staff levels, Google comp lags behind "Big-N" comp as well as "near-IPO company" comp. Maybe they just lowball everyone though.
TLDR: in my current experience at non-staff levels, Google comp lags behind "Big-N" comp as well as "near-IPO company" comp. Maybe they just lowball everyone though.
I know it's just anecdata but Google also lowballed me very hard. They even offered me less than I was currently making at Microsoft, and when I told them that, they basically said, "well, that's how it is." I walked away, and now get an email every year asking me if I'd reconsider. Maybe it was the wrong decision, but it really left a bad taste in my mouth. As a woman in engineering, I now totally believe in the Google pay gap, especially if they are lowballing people coming in.
Same with me. Total comp offer at Google was the lowest of the bunch.
Google lowballed the heck out of me to start, but they were willing to match absolutely any offer from any other company. Their recruiting process is rough but everyone I’ve spoken to has ended up with a competitive offer at the end. You might just have had an exceptionally incompetent recruiter
Google in particular often starts will lower compensation but will match other offers (from Big-N companies) quickly. I'd recommend getting another Big-N offer and using that to negotiate. Some great resources for negotiation:
- https://teamcandor.com/salary/guide/
- https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation
Thanks Zaheer! While I have your ear: my recruiter at "other company" pushed back on increasing RSU comp by saying packages were larger in the past but have decreased in size recently. If levels.fyi displayed offer date it might help validate or dispel arguments like that.
Ah interesting. One thing that might help: we collect # of Years at Company. There isn't a way to filter on the compensation page for it but you can click a row to see this info. Additionally, on the main page if you click on a level at a company > click View a few data points > chart contains a feature to filter by years at company. We're working on standardizing this display functionality across the site with better filtration / search.
> but will match other offers (from Big-N companies) quickly
Don't current Googlers find that depressing?
I've also heard that pay raises within a team at Google are often designed to "level out" the spread. So if you started low, then you eventually catch up. All anecdotes and internet readings though, would love it if someone with actual knowledge commented on these things.
Don't current Googlers find that depressing?
I've also heard that pay raises within a team at Google are often designed to "level out" the spread. So if you started low, then you eventually catch up. All anecdotes and internet readings though, would love it if someone with actual knowledge commented on these things.
I've found my raises to be really good (base >10% annually, total comp closer to 25% annually). So the impact of my initial offer would have been not super impactful. Certainly it mattered (10s of thousands of dollars at the start of one's career is valuable), but it hasn't affected my raises positively or negatively, so the overall impact is limited.
As for raises, that's almost right. Given two people performing equally, one who makes more than the other, the lower paid one will get larger raises, until the salaries are approximately the same. If one performs better, they'll get larger merit increases.
This is all subject to the assumptions that the system is fair at rating performance, which I try to ignore when explaining the mechanics to people.
As for raises, that's almost right. Given two people performing equally, one who makes more than the other, the lower paid one will get larger raises, until the salaries are approximately the same. If one performs better, they'll get larger merit increases.
This is all subject to the assumptions that the system is fair at rating performance, which I try to ignore when explaining the mechanics to people.
Google doesn't generally care about near-IPO companies unless they're decacorns (and still apply a discount to the competing offer's equity). Google comp only lags behind Netflix for:
a) Non-staff levels
b) Candidates that don't have competing offers.
It's not unusual to see a huge pay discrepancy based on your ability to negotiate. It also depends on what ladder you're applying to (i.e. you can't compare a Solutions engineer comp at Google to a SWE at some other company).
It's not unusual to see a huge pay discrepancy based on your ability to negotiate. It also depends on what ladder you're applying to (i.e. you can't compare a Solutions engineer comp at Google to a SWE at some other company).
Starting salary at Google within a given level actually doesn't matter that much, because the comp process is designed to "rubber band" your salary within the salary band for that level. In other words, you'll get larger raises if you start with a lower salary, so the difference doesn't persist very long.
In fact, when you're negotiating comp, I'd argue that an additional $1 of signing bonus or starting equity grant might be worth more to you than $1 of additional salary, because a bigger signing bonus or equity grant doesn't come at the expense of future salary raises.
However, the level you start at matters a lot. If you're an experienced industry hire who should really be an L4 and somehow get slotted as an L3, you'll spend 1-2.5 years waiting for the promo to L4. During that whole time, your peers who were hired at the correct level will be progressing towards L5. This doesn't happen frequently, but it's unfortunate when it happens. In that situation, it can actually make more sense to decline the offer and re-interview to get an L4 job offer later, since that might take less time than getting promoted internally.
In fact, when you're negotiating comp, I'd argue that an additional $1 of signing bonus or starting equity grant might be worth more to you than $1 of additional salary, because a bigger signing bonus or equity grant doesn't come at the expense of future salary raises.
However, the level you start at matters a lot. If you're an experienced industry hire who should really be an L4 and somehow get slotted as an L3, you'll spend 1-2.5 years waiting for the promo to L4. During that whole time, your peers who were hired at the correct level will be progressing towards L5. This doesn't happen frequently, but it's unfortunate when it happens. In that situation, it can actually make more sense to decline the offer and re-interview to get an L4 job offer later, since that might take less time than getting promoted internally.
Google is actually far from the most competitive when it comes to matching. There used to be a time when they used to atleast match Facebook but now given the set of scandals from FB, they are openly refusing to match an FB offer and I have known candidates who have gone to Google despite this (possibly for "ethical" brand and saner work life balance).
Can anyone comment on the difference in work-life balance between Google and Facebook? Maybe $/hour (or some non-linear equivalent) would be a better metric than just total compensation.
This is pretty hard and is usually anecdotal as both companies claim a standard 40 hour week and great WLB (FB does boast about its break fast fix fast culture). I usually use the "interviewer age" as a proxy (not a great one but something). My interviewers at Google have usually been "older" people with families etc where as at FB they are usually the "energetic" ones. Interview questions reflect this too. I found Google ones are usually more testing of experience and are generally well rounded than FB ones (ok let us do leetcode problem # 35, 46 and 82 in an hour).
Depends entirely on the team. There are teams at google with heavy on call or crunch times. There are teams where everybody works ordinary hours.
OK, I have an update. Google came within an iota of matching my "local competitor" offer. The original numbers went up just under 50% in a single round of negotiation. So I guess I've added one more supporting data point to the "get competing offers" heuristic for Google jobs.
How long did you prepare for the interview?
This was my third time doing big-N style interviews in the last few years, so I didn't have to study as much as the first time. YMMV, but my process is to solve the classic expository problems in CLRS - like lecture hall scheduling, max subarray, and rod cutting - without consulting the textbook. Of course, I fail horribly at some of the problems and end up consulting the textbook :-)
After I reread the things I forgot about - implementing things I was hazy on, like Dijkstra, on the way - I solved a handful of leetcode questions, read a few system design analyses, attended an onsite at a "practice company," and finally scheduled my big-N onsites. All told, I studied about 4 hrs per day for five days. But I think it's really important to be honest with yourself; this process seems to work well for me, but your ideal process might be different.
After I reread the things I forgot about - implementing things I was hazy on, like Dijkstra, on the way - I solved a handful of leetcode questions, read a few system design analyses, attended an onsite at a "practice company," and finally scheduled my big-N onsites. All told, I studied about 4 hrs per day for five days. But I think it's really important to be honest with yourself; this process seems to work well for me, but your ideal process might be different.
Yeah, I get recruiting emails from startups all the time but I don't even want to talk to them because somehow it feels rude to bring up the elephant in the room - I'd have to win the lottery at your startup to make up for the loss in joining it. I'm not sure if this is saying big techs have too much money or VC investors are not willing to compete for talent.
If you are a top talent there really is no upside of joining a startup anymore - even as a founder. It's terribly depressing.
FAANG pays orders of magnitudes better, has better benefits, has flexible work locations and schedules, is working on the most leading edge stuff (autonomous everything, AR, VR, GreenTech etc...) contributes to FOSS, gives leadership opportunities etc...
I'm not sure when this shift happened, but I do remember the tipping point in 2016 when Apple recruited the best PhD away from my company after 6 tries and gave him a 3x pay raise (400k/yr - what startup can afford that for one person?), with the ability to work on self-driving cars.
I'm not sure how it would be possible to compete with that, and don't blame him for leaving.
FAANG pays orders of magnitudes better, has better benefits, has flexible work locations and schedules, is working on the most leading edge stuff (autonomous everything, AR, VR, GreenTech etc...) contributes to FOSS, gives leadership opportunities etc...
I'm not sure when this shift happened, but I do remember the tipping point in 2016 when Apple recruited the best PhD away from my company after 6 tries and gave him a 3x pay raise (400k/yr - what startup can afford that for one person?), with the ability to work on self-driving cars.
I'm not sure how it would be possible to compete with that, and don't blame him for leaving.
> FAANG pays orders of magnitude better
That would be two more zeros. You sure they’re paying two more zeros for a dev job?
PhD or no, if your skills are good enough for FAANG, I would love to offer you competitive comp in New York, LA, or three lower cost of living university + fintech towns in SE, S, and SW.
The FAANGS are sure not paying an extra zero over what we can offer.
That would be two more zeros. You sure they’re paying two more zeros for a dev job?
PhD or no, if your skills are good enough for FAANG, I would love to offer you competitive comp in New York, LA, or three lower cost of living university + fintech towns in SE, S, and SW.
The FAANGS are sure not paying an extra zero over what we can offer.
I declined multiple 6 figure salary + RSU offered positions with FAANGs due to on-site requirements in CA/SF. What can you competitively offer? Remotely?
I’m assuming “multiple six figures” means more than 1 or 2, and yeah, certainly.
"orders of magnitude" is obviously an exaggeration, but I do agree with everything else. Plus Google or equivalent is going to be a relatively stable low-stress 9-5 job, whereas a smaller company is going to expect you to work longer and wear multiple hats.
>They're not offering enough stock to make up for it either
It's even worse than that, since the NPV of options is zero.
It's even worse than that, since the NPV of options is zero.
Okay though, if you joined Big Co now and made $400k/yr, you'd be taking home $260k post-tax. Anyone can live even in the bay area on half of that, extremely comfortably.
In 2-3 years you'd have your $300-400k for a down payment - thats 30% of a $1.2mm house. 2-3 years to buy a median priced place. Thats not bad. Also, prices in say, Santa Clara CA have gone -5.5% YoY, and are forecasted by zillow to go another -8% in the next year.
It sucks for anyone who doesn't work at BigCo right now who isn't already wealthy from the previous work.
In 2-3 years you'd have your $300-400k for a down payment - thats 30% of a $1.2mm house. 2-3 years to buy a median priced place. Thats not bad. Also, prices in say, Santa Clara CA have gone -5.5% YoY, and are forecasted by zillow to go another -8% in the next year.
It sucks for anyone who doesn't work at BigCo right now who isn't already wealthy from the previous work.
I honestly never understood all my peers constantly complaining about not being able to afford $2M house, as if that's what happiness is all about. You can still rent a very fancy apartment, max out your 401k, have a top car and live a great life, but just because they don't own a house they are always unhappy.
I guess it's true that money != happiness. There's always more you could have.
I guess it's true that money != happiness. There's always more you could have.
It might be hard to understand if you've not grown up in America, but homeownership is considered a part of adult life, of demonstrating you're seriousness and a gateway to adult life. This is sort of changing recently, but only because many millennials are straddled with student debt and jobs that won't pay enough to afford the down payment.
But every single American friend I have either has a home, or dreams of home ownership in the suburbs. And it makes sense, if I grew up in a home with a yard, I would probably want something similar for my children too. That kind of emotional connection is hard to overcome.
But every single American friend I have either has a home, or dreams of home ownership in the suburbs. And it makes sense, if I grew up in a home with a yard, I would probably want something similar for my children too. That kind of emotional connection is hard to overcome.
[deleted]
Yes, Home ownership is seen as the pinnacle of social status. This is stupid and people should rethink this preconceived notion.
In the bay area for example it doesn't make ANY sense to buy right now (Price to rent ratio, google it) but still people are flocking on every shitty apartment on sale. That's because they want to feel that little ego boost when they say they are "homeowners".
In the bay area for example it doesn't make ANY sense to buy right now (Price to rent ratio, google it) but still people are flocking on every shitty apartment on sale. That's because they want to feel that little ego boost when they say they are "homeowners".
People will flock until they can’t and that’s when the bubble starts popping.
All the sfba homeowners who bought for cheap but are now sitting on millions of dollars of property could easily make a tidy sum if they were willing to sell for less but they will feel like they left money on the table. Ultimately when the bubble pops, everyone will sell for less but they will all think it’s perfectly rational because the “market is down”. I don’t get that perspective at all. Buy low and sell high, within reason.
All the sfba homeowners who bought for cheap but are now sitting on millions of dollars of property could easily make a tidy sum if they were willing to sell for less but they will feel like they left money on the table. Ultimately when the bubble pops, everyone will sell for less but they will all think it’s perfectly rational because the “market is down”. I don’t get that perspective at all. Buy low and sell high, within reason.
So the Tax advantages and building equity are worthless and play no part in peoples desire to buy instead of rent. Ok
you should search what "opportunity cost" means.
The market is highly inflated compared to other investments because people are blindly buying without thinking at almost any stupid price. Your comment is a perfect example of that.
You can leverage your money much better with a mortgage though. You just need a small down payment, but you get the upside (and downside) on the entire value of the home.
I'd also argue that most other assets are also highly inflated. The P/E on most tech stocks for instance looks a lot scarier than the overall real estate market. I'll add that people have been saying the Bay Area housing bubble will pop for over 30 years. It hasn't yet.
I'd also argue that most other assets are also highly inflated. The P/E on most tech stocks for instance looks a lot scarier than the overall real estate market. I'll add that people have been saying the Bay Area housing bubble will pop for over 30 years. It hasn't yet.
This is a bet on the future price of the home. And a lot of simulations have shown that you will come ahead in stocks unless you are in an exceptional growing market and not moving for at least 5 years.
There is a huge lobby in society to convince you that owning a home is the way to go (banks, real estate agent, other homeowners and people repeating this nonsense all the time). Don't let this fool you and make the calculations before buying anything.
There is a huge lobby in society to convince you that owning a home is the way to go (banks, real estate agent, other homeowners and people repeating this nonsense all the time). Don't let this fool you and make the calculations before buying anything.
I didn't say you could leverage it to guaranteed success, just that you can leverage a far larger amount of capital. That of course means larger risk along with the larger reward. No one is going to loan you 300k to invest in the stock market but they will to buy a house.
Ummm I dont think anybody cares about the house being $2M (or 5). If they could pay a quarter of that for a Single Family Home with N bedrooms (N being what they need for their family) and in an area they would like to be in (say closer to work/good school district etc) they would happily do so. Now if you are judging somebody because they wanted to live in house with a backyard instead of a apartment that is just passing your moral judgement onto somebody. True money may not be happiness but not having to worry about money for real estate definitely removes a lot of stress.
This is basically it for me. I don't care about how much it costs as long as I can get it. It could worth $1, I'd be fine with that. Personally, I have no interest in the financial aspect of real estate.
I want a home that I can modify to my desires and use as I please. I want a woodshop at my home or to do some small machining in my garage - can easily do it if I own the home. As it stands, my landlord gets on my case about even the smallest of changes or for even using my god damn backyard patio. (He says my furniture ruins the "cutesy aesthetic" of the exterior; the oh so visible area that no one but us can see)
It's pretty annoying and home ownership doesn't remove all the burdens/restrictions but it is better than the overbearing landlords that seem overly abundant in the bay area.
I want a home that I can modify to my desires and use as I please. I want a woodshop at my home or to do some small machining in my garage - can easily do it if I own the home. As it stands, my landlord gets on my case about even the smallest of changes or for even using my god damn backyard patio. (He says my furniture ruins the "cutesy aesthetic" of the exterior; the oh so visible area that no one but us can see)
It's pretty annoying and home ownership doesn't remove all the burdens/restrictions but it is better than the overbearing landlords that seem overly abundant in the bay area.
Oh man tell me about it! That but about waking one morning and changing a wall as I see fit is important for me. I don't care if I had to pay only a dollar for the place (as long as it doesn't go down in value). A house is a convinience thing for me more than a status symbol based on worth.
[deleted]
It's $230k after tax.
> Anyone can live even in the bay area on half of that, extremely comfortably.
You really might want to expand on "extremely comfortably". We all have very different definitions. I'd like a home with AC, good transportation, close enough to SF to actually make it up on weeknights (30-40 min drive), a retirement plan that works with the assumption I live in this area indefinitely, and a <=20 minute commute. I will not have that for $115-130k/yr net income. Just isn't available in the rental market we have. I'm not even getting into the part where I'd like to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools.
> Anyone can live even in the bay area on half of that, extremely comfortably.
You really might want to expand on "extremely comfortably". We all have very different definitions. I'd like a home with AC, good transportation, close enough to SF to actually make it up on weeknights (30-40 min drive), a retirement plan that works with the assumption I live in this area indefinitely, and a <=20 minute commute. I will not have that for $115-130k/yr net income. Just isn't available in the rental market we have. I'm not even getting into the part where I'd like to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools.
$115k/yr is $9600/mo.
You can spend $5k/mo on a rental with all of those properties, and have $4600/mo for food, utilities, bi-annual trips to europe, the payment for your porsche, and a housekeeper, all whilst saving half of your income to buy a house in the most expensive region of the US in 2-3 years.
You can literally have all of those things.
You can spend $5k/mo on a rental with all of those properties, and have $4600/mo for food, utilities, bi-annual trips to europe, the payment for your porsche, and a housekeeper, all whilst saving half of your income to buy a house in the most expensive region of the US in 2-3 years.
You can literally have all of those things.
Eh, twice that ($230K) after 401K, insurance, and taxes is barely over $10K a month. Not sure how you got $115K being $9600.
We were talking net, after taxes, and after saving half of the net on a $400k salary.
$115000 / 12 months === $9583.33
$115000 / 12 months === $9583.33
They're talking about net, not gross.
Do people really bitching about ~barely~ over 10k USD a MONTH? There's a lot of people living on that or barely double that, for a year. Yes, even in/near SF. Quit with the damn entitlement.
Wasn't bitching, just not understanding how one could get $9600 from $115K.
You need $8-10k/mo for mortgage and property tax payments on a median home, so yes, the "barely" part is your entire discretionary budget.
Where is this $5k/month house with AC within 40 minutes drive of SF and 20 minutes drive of work? (Menlo Park to Mountain View generally being work area) It basically limits you to San Mateo to Mountain View. I haven't seen anything for $5k/month with AC there. If you find it, let me know. I'm in the market - lol.
I have seen one show up here and there but it's almost unequivocally in a terrible neighborhood and/or near the train tracks. Both are dealbreakers. I ain't listening to trains go by at midnight or blast horns at every intersection. Lived that life - done with it.
I have seen one show up here and there but it's almost unequivocally in a terrible neighborhood and/or near the train tracks. Both are dealbreakers. I ain't listening to trains go by at midnight or blast horns at every intersection. Lived that life - done with it.
I spent 3 minutes searching:
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/36746960/3-bedroom-2-ba...
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/13951431/3-bedroom-2-ba...
Point is: the trope of “nobody can live in the Bay Area on 125k net” is total bullshit, tired, and flat-out untrue. Is it harder than living on 125k elsewhere? Absolutely. Are you “poor” and unable to afford a great house? No, not at all.
There are plenty of great places.
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/36746960/3-bedroom-2-ba...
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/13951431/3-bedroom-2-ba...
Point is: the trope of “nobody can live in the Bay Area on 125k net” is total bullshit, tired, and flat-out untrue. Is it harder than living on 125k elsewhere? Absolutely. Are you “poor” and unable to afford a great house? No, not at all.
There are plenty of great places.
> https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/36746960/3-bedroom-2-ba....
> https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/13951431/3-bedroom-2-ba....
These are apartments - not single family homes.
> https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/13951431/3-bedroom-2-ba....
These are apartments - not single family homes.
I mean, I’m not actually a realtor, but here’s a home for you:
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/35506914/3-bedroom-2-ba...
My search space was Mountain View, so expand and you’ll find more. Point is there are plenty of options, you just have to look for them.
And, to be fair, I only searched PadMapper, which is an apartment rental website, so my results weren’t even focused on SFH.
https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/35506914/3-bedroom-2-ba...
My search space was Mountain View, so expand and you’ll find more. Point is there are plenty of options, you just have to look for them.
And, to be fair, I only searched PadMapper, which is an apartment rental website, so my results weren’t even focused on SFH.
> https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/35506914/3-bedroom-2-ba....
Doesn't have AC. Looks like a pretty depressing home - tbh. HDR'd to hell but a brick yard and a BYO washer/dryer that's literally underneath the sun and skies isn't exactly where I'd like to put my expensive appliances.
You can check Craigslist and you won't have much better results. Adding AC | Air Conditioning to your search criteria makes it narrow. Go figure - homes with it are in high demand. God forbid they say, "Air conditioning" but really mean just central air and there's no actual air conditioning. Went to more than one showing that advertised that falsity. :(
Either way, this is beyond the point. Spending over 50% of your net income on rent alone isn't a great move. Which is what you'd be doing at $115k net income.
Doesn't have AC. Looks like a pretty depressing home - tbh. HDR'd to hell but a brick yard and a BYO washer/dryer that's literally underneath the sun and skies isn't exactly where I'd like to put my expensive appliances.
You can check Craigslist and you won't have much better results. Adding AC | Air Conditioning to your search criteria makes it narrow. Go figure - homes with it are in high demand. God forbid they say, "Air conditioning" but really mean just central air and there's no actual air conditioning. Went to more than one showing that advertised that falsity. :(
Either way, this is beyond the point. Spending over 50% of your net income on rent alone isn't a great move. Which is what you'd be doing at $115k net income.
Many people ignore more meta aspects than numbers:
Seriously, I went to a top-3-in-the-world engineering school...seriously dont I deserve something better than a shack?
Secondly, half the 40+ workers in tech I know are washed out and cant get hired, likely due to age discrimination. Tech is a lighter version of Football -- you better make the money in your 20s and 30s, because you need to live on that cash for the rest of your life. So I cant just blow ALL my post-tax income on rent, I need to save it for the post-40 slump.
Thirdly, you are constantly on the treadmill learning the new new technology. Its an uphill battle constantly for those high paying jobs.
Seriously, I went to a top-3-in-the-world engineering school...seriously dont I deserve something better than a shack?
Secondly, half the 40+ workers in tech I know are washed out and cant get hired, likely due to age discrimination. Tech is a lighter version of Football -- you better make the money in your 20s and 30s, because you need to live on that cash for the rest of your life. So I cant just blow ALL my post-tax income on rent, I need to save it for the post-40 slump.
Thirdly, you are constantly on the treadmill learning the new new technology. Its an uphill battle constantly for those high paying jobs.
I think your standards may be too high. That looks like a gorgeous home to me.
To be fair, I will agree with you that most places in the Bay Area don't seem to have A/C, but that's also because it's not generally needed here except for a couple weeks a year. You could do what we did in NYC all the time: window A/C's.
To be fair, I will agree with you that most places in the Bay Area don't seem to have A/C, but that's also because it's not generally needed here except for a couple weeks a year. You could do what we did in NYC all the time: window A/C's.
That is kind of depressing. My wife would swear I was joking if I told her that we could rent a house for $3,000 more than our mortgage that was less than half size and looks like something built in the 70s.
And people on HN wonder why software engineers living in other major cities in the US have no interest in going to the west coast.
And people on HN wonder why software engineers living in other major cities in the US have no interest in going to the west coast.
Nobody wonders why. The Bay Area is clearly more expensive than anywhere else other than NYC. Nobody has ever argued that that isn't true. The salaries are also significantly higher, to compensate.
What is being argued here is whether you can live comfortably on a six figure net salary (after taxes).
That housing is expensive in the bay area does suck, no doubt, and is super annoying. But it's far worse for non-engineers. Engineers are fine, and frankly, are the ones who are driving the prices up, by virtue of being capable of and willing to pay more, as companies continue to increase compensation.
What is being argued here is whether you can live comfortably on a six figure net salary (after taxes).
That housing is expensive in the bay area does suck, no doubt, and is super annoying. But it's far worse for non-engineers. Engineers are fine, and frankly, are the ones who are driving the prices up, by virtue of being capable of and willing to pay more, as companies continue to increase compensation.
They look like they were built in the 70s because they were. That generation decided there were enough houses and promptly banned building any new ones - so we've still got the same ones.
For some reason most of them have the original gross beige carpet too.
For some reason most of them have the original gross beige carpet too.
OTOH, they do - frequently. If you can bank half your take home which is totally doable you get to move out and buy whatever home you like nearly wherever you like and retire.
It’s 90 degrees plus 4 months of the year in many parts of the Bay Area, such as San Jose. So yes, you need air conditioning.
I grew up in San Jose. It's more like 2-3 weeks out of the year where air conditioning 'would be nice'
If you really want AC, couldn't you buy an air conditioner? You're eliminating most places in the Bay Area with an unusual requirement like that.
Ah, so you want a single family home now.
And it has to be in San Mateo->Mtv. And it must have /CENTRAL/ AC, one would assume. I'm not going to look for houses for you, except to note there are over 100 houses available right now under $5k in that region, all of which you could install central AC into for a couple grand if you wanted. If you MUST live in the San Mateo->Mtv corridor, with all those amenities, why would you imply you're looking to move? It seems like you know what you want, and are not willing to compromise on anything. Go forth and find that perfect rental, or if you don't make enough money to get it, work harder, or re-evaluate whats actually important to you.
And it has to be in San Mateo->Mtv. And it must have /CENTRAL/ AC, one would assume. I'm not going to look for houses for you, except to note there are over 100 houses available right now under $5k in that region, all of which you could install central AC into for a couple grand if you wanted. If you MUST live in the San Mateo->Mtv corridor, with all those amenities, why would you imply you're looking to move? It seems like you know what you want, and are not willing to compromise on anything. Go forth and find that perfect rental, or if you don't make enough money to get it, work harder, or re-evaluate whats actually important to you.
You can’t install central ac for $2000 and certainly not in a rental.
In 40 minutes you can get so far north that there are no cellphone towers, no lights and no pavement.
In 40 minutes driving north from Mountain View I think you'll be in SF at best.
You might make it to North Bay/Marin - which is true that it's rural, but it's not because it's a secret or far from humanity or anything. It just has the fiercest NIMBYs on the planet who are fine with all their services being provided by day laborers with 2 hour commutes.
You might make it to North Bay/Marin - which is true that it's rural, but it's not because it's a secret or far from humanity or anything. It just has the fiercest NIMBYs on the planet who are fine with all their services being provided by day laborers with 2 hour commutes.
Are we talking about SF or mountain view? 40 minutes north of SF is beyond Marin. Remember that this is about living comfortably on $5,000 per month for rent. That should get a pretty incredible place anywhere north of the golden gate bridge.
>You can spend $5k/mo on a rental
This is the key to happiness in the Bay Area, honestly. The rentals are just fine if you're willing to shell out. Sure you're not building wealth but you have plenty left over to invest, even in a kickass high-rise apartment. It's specifically a desire to own that will screw you over, no matter your compensation.
This is the key to happiness in the Bay Area, honestly. The rentals are just fine if you're willing to shell out. Sure you're not building wealth but you have plenty left over to invest, even in a kickass high-rise apartment. It's specifically a desire to own that will screw you over, no matter your compensation.
[deleted]
Unless you want a 5BR SFH you can definitely have that on much less than 130k/year.
Don’t forget that not everyone at these big companies are making these outsized compensations. If the data is self-reported then I’d bet dollars to donuts that this skews the averages super high. Few people feel the urge to log their below-average salary for the world to see. I’d take self reported salary data and anecdotes with a huge grain of salt.
I'd bet the inverse, folks pulling in the huge compensation packets have no reason to want to advertise this via a self reported site.
Apart from founders and very early employees, people used to take a chance in small startups due to the prospect of their RSU/options being worth a ton down the line. Nowadays, though, VC ownership in these companies is getting so large that very little is left for founders themselves, let alone employee number 50. Makes zero sense not to take a guaranteed $500K at Google or Facebook over a tiny chance at $500K at a startup.
One thing I've seen smaller companies do some times to attract the same type of talent from FAANG is to bump up the level of candidates. So L5 (or whatever equivalent) at FAANG would go in at L6 or L7 and get a pay bump that way that's somewhat close to FAANG comp levels.
This would be a ridiculous trap, but some people do find titles to be important, so I guess its fine if they're attracted to jobs that can't pay enough but make up for it with inflated levels.
I get the impulse behind trying to level employees but it always seemed ridiculous to me. Either you care about it enough to game it (which is pretty easy to do) or you don't an you just do what you think is important to you and your team and it works out... so you level up by accident.
This is actually a huge reason I don't like bigger companies. There is so much emphasis on Seniority, Levels etc. Its complete bullshit. You see people game the system, rise to the top, get all kinds of bullshit honors for doing bullshit things. Meanwhile the grunts doing all the actual work and innovating like crazy are just happy to make the higher ups look good in front of _their_ peers and don't really give a shit about the product or the market.... its a vicious, self-sustaining and self-dealing beast.
I get the impulse behind trying to level employees but it always seemed ridiculous to me. Either you care about it enough to game it (which is pretty easy to do) or you don't an you just do what you think is important to you and your team and it works out... so you level up by accident.
This is actually a huge reason I don't like bigger companies. There is so much emphasis on Seniority, Levels etc. Its complete bullshit. You see people game the system, rise to the top, get all kinds of bullshit honors for doing bullshit things. Meanwhile the grunts doing all the actual work and innovating like crazy are just happy to make the higher ups look good in front of _their_ peers and don't really give a shit about the product or the market.... its a vicious, self-sustaining and self-dealing beast.
At these big tech companies, your level is not just a puffy title. Within whatever your current level is, there is not much opportunity for compensation growth. L+1 usually represents a large leap in compensation, which explains the emphasis on it.
Nobody leaves FAANG1 for FAANG2 to simply get a title bump. They leave to get the level bump which sometimes means +20%, +50% or even +100% in terms of total comp.
Nobody leaves FAANG1 for FAANG2 to simply get a title bump. They leave to get the level bump which sometimes means +20%, +50% or even +100% in terms of total comp.
I think you’ve illustrated perfectly the phenomenon I describe.
Levels are fictional rat races designed to keep the rats working hard in hopes of “making it” without necessarily having achieved anything of substance.
Your counter argument is that they’re not just titles but have associated compensation components .... great. Doesn’t mean that you’ve accomplished anything significant at all. And now that these levels are normalized across companies, the only thing employees care for is leveling up, who gives a shit about whether you’re really learning or making a difference.
Unless you’re assumption is that levels are more than just a financial totem pole but an accurate representation of skills and accomplishments. I think that’s what they aspire to be but are not so in practice.
Levels are fictional rat races designed to keep the rats working hard in hopes of “making it” without necessarily having achieved anything of substance.
Your counter argument is that they’re not just titles but have associated compensation components .... great. Doesn’t mean that you’ve accomplished anything significant at all. And now that these levels are normalized across companies, the only thing employees care for is leveling up, who gives a shit about whether you’re really learning or making a difference.
Unless you’re assumption is that levels are more than just a financial totem pole but an accurate representation of skills and accomplishments. I think that’s what they aspire to be but are not so in practice.
What's the bottom line with the super high compensation numbers? I've been a senior software engineer for a few years now and I make about half of what is reported at levels.fyi (I've been making about $120k-$140k/yr salary and receive little to no bonus/stocks, which seems to be the norm at two publicly traded companies for hundreds if not thousands of employees I've worked for so far), yet levels.fyi pretty much advertises everybody that at a senior level makes $300k/yr+
I'm $40k/yr shy of the average reported salary for the average senior SDE, and I'm missing $140k+ in stock/bonus... am I wasting my time at my current job making 50% of what I should be making or am I missing something about these massive public companies (like, not everybody gets hired at these companies... or... they suck to work for?)
Where are these $200-300-400-500k/yr rates coming from? Do you have to sell your soul to reach that? Am I grossly underpaid? I usually am at the higher level in my organization/division, and yet I'm impoverished (comparatively) according to levels.fyi?
I'm $40k/yr shy of the average reported salary for the average senior SDE, and I'm missing $140k+ in stock/bonus... am I wasting my time at my current job making 50% of what I should be making or am I missing something about these massive public companies (like, not everybody gets hired at these companies... or... they suck to work for?)
Where are these $200-300-400-500k/yr rates coming from? Do you have to sell your soul to reach that? Am I grossly underpaid? I usually am at the higher level in my organization/division, and yet I'm impoverished (comparatively) according to levels.fyi?
I'm in management at a FAANG company.
Total comp for my college hires averages around $150k.
Total comp for my career level ICs averages a smidge over $200k.
My top 10% have total comp in the $350k neighborhood.
The very few folks who are at the staff/principal range (depending on which companies titles you're using) are taking home $500-800k (mostly in stock). If we consider attrition, it's probably only 1 in 150 of the engineers we hire who ever hit this tier or above.
The levels.fyi info seems pretty accurate to me. Their estimate for my personal role is within 2% of my actuals.
Total comp for my college hires averages around $150k.
Total comp for my career level ICs averages a smidge over $200k.
My top 10% have total comp in the $350k neighborhood.
The very few folks who are at the staff/principal range (depending on which companies titles you're using) are taking home $500-800k (mostly in stock). If we consider attrition, it's probably only 1 in 150 of the engineers we hire who ever hit this tier or above.
The levels.fyi info seems pretty accurate to me. Their estimate for my personal role is within 2% of my actuals.
So the question for me as an engineer becomes, do I grind it out at a FAANG company and try to be one of those level 7’s OR do I roll the dice on the startup? My intuition is that the former has a better outcome on average. Seems pretty rare to become staff/principal/whatever at a big co and based on the data from levels.fyi, you gotta be pretty far along in your career.
I worked at ~6 startups for about 10 years before google.
What do I have to show for it?
A slight beer belly and less motivation to build something from the ground up yet again only to see it burn down. Yeah, I had a ton of fun too.
Would I trade all those years at startups for going straight to google? eeh, maybe 4 of them. On the other hand though, I don't think I would have made it through the interview without knowing a lot of random shit I learned at startups.
Also being a dad and working at a startup does not mix well.
Would I trade all those years at startups for going straight to google? eeh, maybe 4 of them. On the other hand though, I don't think I would have made it through the interview without knowing a lot of random shit I learned at startups.
Also being a dad and working at a startup does not mix well.
Interesting. Maybe FAANG's do so well in SV because they have a nice pipeline of startup burnouts who learn all this weird shit that you only learn from working at startups for a decade, and then finally end up in FAANG's, use all their wisdom to build even better systems....
Or neither? Very few people will reach senior management and very few startups are successful. Any IT career is going to set you up for a comfortable life even if you're a mid-level non-management workhorse. Excelling is partially about skill, but vastly more about persistence and luck. Find something you enjoy and don't worry about where you'll be in 20 years.
> Total comp for my college hires averages around $150k.
What cities is that number for?
What cities is that number for?
Are you working at the companies that show that level of pay? Are you located geographically the same as those offers?
levels.fyi does not say everyone makes $300k+ - it says people at specific companies in a specific region make that much. It makes that quite obvious from how you have to select the companies, the level, and then you see where those offers are geographically and with how much experience/tenure.
levels.fyi does not say everyone makes $300k+ - it says people at specific companies in a specific region make that much. It makes that quite obvious from how you have to select the companies, the level, and then you see where those offers are geographically and with how much experience/tenure.
Is there a map that shows the data geographically? It's hard to tell given the list of salaries + cities to find data the compares to my city.
I expect to see the high wages are highly concentrated in SV. My employer has a clear policy that leaving the bay area comes with a pay cut. Some folks think it's worth it. Time will tell.
Why don't you try https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer
search for a city and see if it compares in any way to your salary?
search for a city and see if it compares in any way to your salary?
You can't search for cities to my knowledge.
Not yet - in the works! :)
A lot of people forget that. They see a few people at a FAANG company making $400k and conclude that everyone at that level makes about that much.
People also disregard the infamous “4 year cliff”: At most of these companies, your initial stock offer fully vests in 4 years, so your 5th year, your take-home comp nose-dives. Even if you get modest raises and “refresh” stock grants (which not all companies do), you’re likely taking a huge hit in year 5. I’d be interested in a levels.fyi filtering out people’s first four years.
People also disregard the infamous “4 year cliff”: At most of these companies, your initial stock offer fully vests in 4 years, so your 5th year, your take-home comp nose-dives. Even if you get modest raises and “refresh” stock grants (which not all companies do), you’re likely taking a huge hit in year 5. I’d be interested in a levels.fyi filtering out people’s first four years.
No company is stupid enough to make their employees take a >50% paycut in year 5, unless they are intentionally signaling that the employee is not desired and should leave. If they did everyone would quit on their 4th anniversary. Refreshers typically exceed or match the initial grant.
Even if they DID make you take a paycut you could jump ship every four years anyway, so why would you care about comp past year 4?
Even if they DID make you take a paycut you could jump ship every four years anyway, so why would you care about comp past year 4?
There are no companies where refreshers exceed or match the initial grant.
At Google, they're between 25 and 50%, depending on a lot of stuff. My initial grant was ~150k, my first refresher was ~40k, and it's a wash if my 4th year refresh will match my first year, that will likely come down to if I make L5 or not.
At Google, they're between 25 and 50%, depending on a lot of stuff. My initial grant was ~150k, my first refresher was ~40k, and it's a wash if my 4th year refresh will match my first year, that will likely come down to if I make L5 or not.
At Apple, they are very generous with refreshers - my initial grant was $105k, and my refresh grant was $125k and I expect at least similar, if not more, for my refresher in a couple of months. The only reason my refresh did not exceed my initial grant was because my initial grant climbed almost 40% in value in that time.
Counter-example from Apple: I spent 4 years there getting good performance reviews without a single refresh grant, and left on my 4 year anniversary. Most of my peers claim to have gotten one small refresh grant in that time, but certainly not one every year. Maybe it varies by team.
I have been told there is guidance that generally that either management gives a lot of stock or none.
It probably does also vary with your role/responsibilities - I am a software engineer in SWE on high visibility/impact work. Apple does definitely does make you earn refreshes - they don't give them for average performance oftentimes is my understanding, there seems to be a lot of stories out there that this is the case.
It probably does also vary with your role/responsibilities - I am a software engineer in SWE on high visibility/impact work. Apple does definitely does make you earn refreshes - they don't give them for average performance oftentimes is my understanding, there seems to be a lot of stories out there that this is the case.
I’ve received refreshes larger than my initial grant, so there is at least one company that does it.
Hi, you can view the full list of data points on the Comp page [1]. Only a few tech companies are able to pay top dollar. We released a report of the top paying tech companies of 2018 recently which highlights a few of these [2]. Also, keep in mind most of the data we have is for the Bay Area where cost of living is very high. We're working on more detailed location filters to surface this better. Let us know if you have feedback on how we might be able to make this more clear!
[1] https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html [2] https://www.levels.fyi/2018/
[1] https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html [2] https://www.levels.fyi/2018/
What company are you at? I’m at a company who people consider 2nd tier among the FANGs in a senior developer role and my salary + stocks are > $300K this year in Seattle.
Also be careful what you wish for. I’m not sure if the stress and personal impact are worth it. I have constant anxiety. Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.
It’s not for everyone. I’m just trying to get to $1MM in my after tax account before I leave this company for something more sustainable.
Also be careful what you wish for. I’m not sure if the stress and personal impact are worth it. I have constant anxiety. Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.
It’s not for everyone. I’m just trying to get to $1MM in my after tax account before I leave this company for something more sustainable.
> Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.
Amen to this. If anyone here believes that those who possess high intelligence are naturally more ethical or good-hearted than the average, try getting between any of them and their next bonus / promotion at a FAANG or in academia and you will rapidly learn otherwise.
Amen to this. If anyone here believes that those who possess high intelligence are naturally more ethical or good-hearted than the average, try getting between any of them and their next bonus / promotion at a FAANG or in academia and you will rapidly learn otherwise.
> Some of the people I work with are really smart but manipulative and generally not great human beings.
It was really shocking to me to learn how disgusting some very intelligent people can be. It rewrote some of my philosophies of life in the first half of my twenties. Turns out we don't all have cathedrals in our heads when we have the tools to build them.
It was really shocking to me to learn how disgusting some very intelligent people can be. It rewrote some of my philosophies of life in the first half of my twenties. Turns out we don't all have cathedrals in our heads when we have the tools to build them.
Location matters. $140K in a low cost of living area is not the same as $140 in the Bay Area.
I am in South Florida (somewhere in between Miami + Fort Lauderdale cost of living)
levels.fyi shows people making $300k in Austin, TX (which as far as I know, is not a high cost of living area)
What are some areas that are comparable to South Florida that are listed on levels.fyi?
levels.fyi shows people making $300k in Austin, TX (which as far as I know, is not a high cost of living area)
What are some areas that are comparable to South Florida that are listed on levels.fyi?
Google has an engineering office in Austin. Could be someone who took their Bay Area salary with them. Same with Pittsburg. Uber has a presence there and SFBA transplants take their SFBA salaries with them when they move.
How is that allowed?...
It's usually not, but there's a certain logic to it: they valued your work high enough to pay you in SV, why would the same work be less valuable just because you moved offices?
because the cost of living is different? lol
The cost of living has nothing to do with the value of the work. It impacts supply and demand of labor, though.
Totally agreed. I keep trying to explain this to companies as an interviewee, but it does not go well. Even in my current job, doing the same thing/title/exp/degree as others on the team, I am paid less; because I work remotely. Yet they do not expect less of me than my coworkers, but they pay me less due to geographical region.
Brb while I move to Vatican city, I look forward to my salary going up significantly.
Austin is not SV, but rents there have jumped in the last decade. Try pricing out a 2br apt, near one of the major tech offices. First place I clicked on was $2,300 a month! Average is closer to $1,500. This is unusual for Texas =)
300k is definitely highly unusual for Austin. With that salary you can literally live like a King. Buy a house in the city AND one on Lake Travis for the weekends.
Are you working in Silicon Valley for a large tech company? If so you may be negotiating poorly. Otherwise, you may be getting typical or even good pay for where you are.
You don't have to be in Silicon Valley. Some companies have a premium for working there, but not always, especially at the high end. The more important detail is working for a large company that has stock/RSUs, a bonus program, a robust technical job ladder, and a regular review process.
If your company doesn't do stock/RSUs, you're missing out on that aspect (though a small number of companies make up for that with large cash bonuses).
If your company doesn't do stock/RSUs, you're missing out on that aspect (though a small number of companies make up for that with large cash bonuses).
A regular review process is key. A lot of startups don't do regular, systematic performance reviews and people think that is a good thing, but it's actually a bad thing.
A good performance review gives you the opportunity to demonstrate how well you are doing and back that up with feedback from your peers. It gives your manager documentation that proves you deserve more compensation. And you get this opportunity on a regular basis.
Even if you don't get a big compensation increase every time, annual reviews are generally when the company, as a matter of policy, gives out cost-of-living raises and stock grant refreshers. At companies without review processes this doesn't always happen every year.
A good performance review gives you the opportunity to demonstrate how well you are doing and back that up with feedback from your peers. It gives your manager documentation that proves you deserve more compensation. And you get this opportunity on a regular basis.
Even if you don't get a big compensation increase every time, annual reviews are generally when the company, as a matter of policy, gives out cost-of-living raises and stock grant refreshers. At companies without review processes this doesn't always happen every year.
Exactly. Work somewhere where there's a default expectation of regular recognition, raises, and promotions.
I think this type of information is desperately needed for all geographies and way more (smaller) companies. The one challenge is that the pay grades themselves are usually dependent on a common definition of certain roles, which is definitely also missing. It would be great to be able to have _some_ kind of standardized career track for Individual Contributors and Managers within software engineering so we could continue a healthy conversation about compensation, roles and responsibilities.
My former employer used "Towers Watson grading" which is sort of a global grading system. Obviously the purpose was not to maximize the compensation of an employee, quite the opposite.
Exactly. All of these "pay banding" methods are used to enforce a culture of no one asking for more pay regardless of the value of their contributions, because "sorry, even though I think you deserve a raise, you're at the top of the pay band for your role/title, there's nothing I can do". If your manager has to convince their manager to fight with their own manager to get you an out-of-band pay increase, it's almost never going to happen.
It seems to me that now title inflation is countering this somewhat. I'm the newest hire in my organization and my title is "Analyst". I'm the only person at this level in the entire group, because I've been here less than a year. Everyone else, who have each been here 3 years or more, is "Manager" or higher (about 2/3rds are "Director" or higher) even if they are really just individual contributors with no direct reports or management duties, because they have to increase people's pay to keep from losing them, but they can't do it without bumping them up a pay band, which is only allowed with a "promotion". But while this is true in my group, there are groups where there are 200+ individual contributer-level people, and maybe 10 managers, and those people are never getting pay raises.
It reminds me of how "VP" is an inflated title in investment banking roles.
> In brokerage firms, investment banks and other financial companies, "vice president" is a seniority rank rather than denoting an actual managerial position within the company. It is a relatively junior position, usually does not denote managerial responsibilities and companies have a large number of vice presidents, perhaps as an inexpensive way for a company to recognize employees, or perhaps because of delayering when an employee can't be moved higher in the organization but still deserves recognition. In most cases, the title merely implies that someone is in a medium-seniority individual contributor role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_president#Use_in_financia...
It seems to me that now title inflation is countering this somewhat. I'm the newest hire in my organization and my title is "Analyst". I'm the only person at this level in the entire group, because I've been here less than a year. Everyone else, who have each been here 3 years or more, is "Manager" or higher (about 2/3rds are "Director" or higher) even if they are really just individual contributors with no direct reports or management duties, because they have to increase people's pay to keep from losing them, but they can't do it without bumping them up a pay band, which is only allowed with a "promotion". But while this is true in my group, there are groups where there are 200+ individual contributer-level people, and maybe 10 managers, and those people are never getting pay raises.
It reminds me of how "VP" is an inflated title in investment banking roles.
> In brokerage firms, investment banks and other financial companies, "vice president" is a seniority rank rather than denoting an actual managerial position within the company. It is a relatively junior position, usually does not denote managerial responsibilities and companies have a large number of vice presidents, perhaps as an inexpensive way for a company to recognize employees, or perhaps because of delayering when an employee can't be moved higher in the organization but still deserves recognition. In most cases, the title merely implies that someone is in a medium-seniority individual contributor role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_president#Use_in_financia...
It's a middling role that pays circa £300k in London. It seems pretty sensible to call someone a VP if they make that much.
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/ru-en/311356/salaries-and...
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/ru-en/311356/salaries-and...
I think that quote about VPs overstates things - a VP in IB will usually manage some analysts/associates.
VP is (apparently) also a title which legally denotes that the holder is an "officer" of the corporation, and can enter into deals on behalf of the corporation. Having a lot of those people around is typically a good thing for financial institutions (e.g. for quicker decision making).
Financial institutions also need such people at individual branches. Companies have far fewer sites than banks have branches.
Zaheer from Levels.fyi here. Our next feature is actually better regionalization. This is the top ask we've gotten so far. Additionally we're considering coming up with a standard leveling so that we can provide industry-wide granular information easily.
Ping us at hello (at) levels (dot) fyi if you have more feedback!
Ping us at hello (at) levels (dot) fyi if you have more feedback!
> we're considering coming up with a standard leveling so that we can provide industry-wide granular information easily.
Please do! Thanks :-)
Please do! Thanks :-)
request :)
I've never worked for a public company (such as Facebook, Netflix, Google), when it says $120,000 in stock is that essentially free shares at a given price? I.E. you are open to sell them whenever?
I worked at a small series B level startup, and when I left I had the option to buy my shares at the last valuation price, but at just over $20,000 total I declined. I decided I could use that capital better than waiting around hoping they explode and get acquired. I don't think stock options work the same with public companies though.
I worked at a small series B level startup, and when I left I had the option to buy my shares at the last valuation price, but at just over $20,000 total I declined. I decided I could use that capital better than waiting around hoping they explode and get acquired. I don't think stock options work the same with public companies though.
Yes but you do still need to think about vesting schedules. If you are at a company that doesn't do uniform vesting, then e.g. $400k stock/ 4 years might be more like $50k this year, $100k next two years, $150k the last year. Not sure how levels.fyi handles this but I would say that is not really the same as +$100k/year TC during your first year, given that people can change companies often, get promotions and refreshers, etc. To me it's more like an automatic raise.
Just as an FYI, my understanding is that Google, FB, and MS all offer 25% annual vesting with no cliff, the exact vesting schedule depends (for Google, for example, it depends on the exact grant, but a 400K grant would vest monthly). Amazon offers a 5/15/40/40 backloaded vesting schedule, but cash bonuses in years 1 and 2 to compensate (sort of).
Maybe I don't know exactly what cliff vesting is, but while Microsoft doesn't backload vesting, it does do vesting in chunks (like once a year iirc). And as another commenter pointed out it doesn't kick in until 6 months. But at places like google the vesting is monthly and starts after the first month.
Also one quirk of microsoft is since they have a half-title promotion system, as I understand it, it's normal to get refreshers on years 1-3 through a 4 year vest after a half-title/one-level promotion.
Also one quirk of microsoft is since they have a half-title promotion system, as I understand it, it's normal to get refreshers on years 1-3 through a 4 year vest after a half-title/one-level promotion.
Amazon comp drops significantly after the 4th year, unless you happen to get promoted twice before the end of your 4th year.
I know Google has no cliff, is that also true now for the others?
My understanding is that Google dropped their cliff after facebook. I think MS is still on 6 months, but that's just their vest schedule.
In addition to that, RSUs are taxed at around 50% before you receive them and another 20% of the value it gained from when you received it to when you sold it. So the numbers in your bank account look less impressive than the ones on paper.
Yes, but to be fair to RSUs, this is no worse than having some additional ordinary income.
The 50% on receipt number comes from your marginal federal tax bracket plus state -- same as if the dollar value were additional gross (pre-tax) income.
The 20% on growth number (potentially 25-30% including state) is what you'd pay on capital gains -- same as if you'd taken this extra income as cash and invested it in anything.
The 50% on receipt number comes from your marginal federal tax bracket plus state -- same as if the dollar value were additional gross (pre-tax) income.
The 20% on growth number (potentially 25-30% including state) is what you'd pay on capital gains -- same as if you'd taken this extra income as cash and invested it in anything.
RSUs are taxed the same as salary. If you don't like them gaining value, then sell them as soon as they vest, and that's 20% tax of $0.
Yes, they are stock and not options, so you own them outright without needing to buy. So once vested you can sell, and owe tax immediately since they have real value.
Usually you’re given a number of shares when you join, and the value of those shares change as they vest. This can lead to some really overinflated comp packages if a person joins before huge growth that a new person would not get.
There’s often restrictions around when you can sell while still employ by that company to avoid insider trading laws, like you can sell right before earnings reports.
Usually you’re given a number of shares when you join, and the value of those shares change as they vest. This can lead to some really overinflated comp packages if a person joins before huge growth that a new person would not get.
There’s often restrictions around when you can sell while still employ by that company to avoid insider trading laws, like you can sell right before earnings reports.
That's what I thought. Public company stock is so much better than options. It's guaranteed income/value, unlike options, and when you leave you don't have to pay for them.
I took a “pay cut” moving to a public company, unless you discount the startup claims of value, as you should since a dollar of options is worth significantly less than a dollar of public stock, and financially much much better off
You're guaranteed to receive some stock. As for the value, that depends on the company performance. But yeah being public stock you know how.much is worth and you can actually sell it
With RSU (restricted stock units) the price is not given; the number of shares is. Basically, you are granted a number of shares to vest on a particular date (the vest date is the date the shares are yours).
For public companies, the vest date is also the release date, which is when the shares are recognized as income. You have to pay taxes when they are released, which is basically 25% federal tax plus whatever your state's tax rate is for this (10% in CA). To pay the taxes you can either deposit cash to cover the amount and keep the shares, or sell some fraction of the shares on the release date.
If you keep the shares, then any gain after the release date is taxed as capital gains. Basically, from a tax perspective it's equivalent to the company paying you cash on the release date equal to the stock price of your shares and you buying shares with it.
For public companies, the vest date is also the release date, which is when the shares are recognized as income. You have to pay taxes when they are released, which is basically 25% federal tax plus whatever your state's tax rate is for this (10% in CA). To pay the taxes you can either deposit cash to cover the amount and keep the shares, or sell some fraction of the shares on the release date.
If you keep the shares, then any gain after the release date is taxed as capital gains. Basically, from a tax perspective it's equivalent to the company paying you cash on the release date equal to the stock price of your shares and you buying shares with it.
On letting the options expire:
There are other options than purchasing the options yourself or just letting them expire.
From a pure finance perspective, you just need to find someone to take on the risk of the exercise. My company, ESO Fund, has a diversified portfolio of startups and as a result can take a $20k bet with much more ease than a single employee making a $20k bet.
There are other options than purchasing the options yourself or just letting them expire.
From a pure finance perspective, you just need to find someone to take on the risk of the exercise. My company, ESO Fund, has a diversified portfolio of startups and as a result can take a $20k bet with much more ease than a single employee making a $20k bet.
A key point is that a certain number of shares is set aside for you at the time of the grant, and after that their price will fluctuate along with all of the other company stock in the stock market. You can just look at the stock price and know what your shares are currently worth.
As pointed out by others, they vest slowly over 4-5 years, to get you to stay. If you leave you lose your stocks. Also, they are taxed quite heavily so realistically imagine half of that. At the end of all that, $120,000 stocks would look like an extra 1000$ per month, which is still pretty good.
But levels.fyi is reporting annual stock. Facebook E5 is listed at $146,000 in stock annually not 4-5 years total.
RSUs are taxed the same as salary.
These numbers make my head implode.
Back to the leetcode grind.
Pro-tip, work on personal projects, code something meaty. I learned far more from making websites and tools than I did with coding competitions.
To put this in context though, if you’re already getting recruiter interest and scheduling onsites it’s better to leetcode. If you aren’t getting resume callbacks then build stuff.
It’s been discussed before but the sad reality is that passing an interview loop at the big 5 and building stuff are not really correlated.
It’s been discussed before but the sad reality is that passing an interview loop at the big 5 and building stuff are not really correlated.
This is very true, the need for cleverness of algorithms tends to be... sadly low compared to discipline needs to execute on a schedule. Build stuff, and then get used to the grind to finish and ship something.
Missing something. What is "leetcode grind"?
In this case, its heavily using Leetcode[0] as interview prep for the kinds of questions that are asked in the interviews.
[0]https://leetcode.com/
[0]https://leetcode.com/
this whole leveling thing is very sad. It makes you realize you are simply a number: a small pawn that falls into a predefined category and that will do a predefined job without too much opportunities to go out of its way.
I'm missing the craziness of studying at university where I felt everything was possible. I had sometimes similar feelings in startups.
In big companies that created that level structure it's shocking how boring everything becomes. People define themselves based on their level. That becomes the only goal together with the TC (Total compensation). It really feels like a rat race sometimes.
I'm missing the craziness of studying at university where I felt everything was possible. I had sometimes similar feelings in startups.
In big companies that created that level structure it's shocking how boring everything becomes. People define themselves based on their level. That becomes the only goal together with the TC (Total compensation). It really feels like a rat race sometimes.
I feel the opposite way. When I was studying at university, I found it quite hard to motivate myself to do boring assignments, but after joining a BigCo and talking to customers who are direct beneficiaries of my work, it is much more rewarding and I feel more naturally motivated.
On the flipside, I went back to uni after a few years working - it felt like I was producing stuff that just gets marked and thrown in the trash - time invested felt like it didn't have much value other than producing a mark. It was demoralizing.
But that was an MSc, not PhD or something where your research is more likely to have output/outcome.
But that was an MSc, not PhD or something where your research is more likely to have output/outcome.
It gets worse if you level up because you realize that people are just numbers that need to be led and managed... It's also kind of amazing.
I recommend reading "Extreme Ownership" to get a sense of the importance of leadership because there are no bad teams, just bad leaders. We are the apex predators on the planet, and the key to our success is understanding the social element of it and how to take a group of people and have them achieve something amazing beyond themselves individually.
I recommend reading "Extreme Ownership" to get a sense of the importance of leadership because there are no bad teams, just bad leaders. We are the apex predators on the planet, and the key to our success is understanding the social element of it and how to take a group of people and have them achieve something amazing beyond themselves individually.
I tried this on mobile and it never fully loads. When I click on the chat button to report it, it asks me to enter my email address. Not sure what that's about, but I'm not doing that.
Maker here, what device & browser are you using? The email in chat is optional. You can ignore the input message for it if you would not like to share email address.
I had that once or twice (that it never fully loads), but for example now it loads perfectly fine. Android with latest Chrome.
PS. bro you're great for making this happen. levels.fyi is like "software eating the world" for labor unions. Clean, elegant solution avoiding all the nasty labor unions politics. Now if we could also bring awareness around work/life balance!
PS. bro you're great for making this happen. levels.fyi is like "software eating the world" for labor unions. Clean, elegant solution avoiding all the nasty labor unions politics. Now if we could also bring awareness around work/life balance!
If this ever happens please try to capture / send us any relevant details. We know there's some issues with Internet Explorer but not aware of any other issues.
Thanks for the kind words! Surfacing work / life balance and general workplace concerns is in our roadmap (3-6 months out). Look out for updates soon!
Thanks for the kind words! Surfacing work / life balance and general workplace concerns is in our roadmap (3-6 months out). Look out for updates soon!
[deleted]
The rest of the valley isn't keeping up. Startups in particular feel like slowly ramped up in pay but capped out. They're not offering enough stock to make up for it either. Usually only enough to make it such that your TC at startup would be equal to that of a big company IF the company IPO's/sells. (A big IF!) I don't see many salaries past $200k for IC software engineer (outside of 1 year to IPO startups) and most people still balk at the idea of it. Yet, 1-2 years out of school at Big CompanyTM and you'll be past $200k TC.
I feel bad for the people who aren't in tech or things that tech pays for (real estate) and have to deal with even more frozen pay. However, it still sucks for engineers not at Big Co who believed they could make the american dream possible here.
I'm on the verge of leaving this area. My current compensation makes me feel poor even though I could afford to buy a brand new Porsche. Even if I joined Big Co now and made $400k/yr... housing has grown too fast in price in the peninsula. By the time I've saved $300-400k for a down payment, I'm going to be priced out even more. If my SO had only become a software engineer or born into a rich family instead then maybe I would have been able to afford this region.
Such is life in the bay area - you can buy a brand new Porsche but you can't afford a garage to put it in.