[akavi]

That's true. A lot of people aren't getting thrown six figure entry level salaries and perhaps won't be able to find one, modulo geography, skill, personal preferences, etc. And it looks like we're seeing the market soften, so perhaps soon they won't be that easy to find.

But as it stands right now, if you:

a) Are in SF or NYC

b) Have a CS degree from a well-reputed university.

c) Are working as a programmer.

100 k$/yr is not only achievable but practically the minimum.

That said, the linked offer isn't for an engineer, it's for a financial analyst, so perhaps 65 k$/yr is in fact market rate or better.

[pluma]

What gives you the idea that those qualities make anyone actually worth 100+ k$/yr?

The only factor in that short list actually providing any indication of worth to the company is "has a CS degree from a well-reputed university" and that still doesn't indicate being able to perform in a job (rather than study).

I wish our economy could move beyond grading employees by degrees. They're proxies for the things that are hard to measure. Sadly I don't think they can easily be replaced (if at all).

[jonesb6]

Point c is interesting and very insightful (whether it was intentional or not). In order to qualify for a $100k/yr position you must already have a job. This by definition would exclude true entry level candidates, though entry level candidates today seem to be required to have significant work experience as a form of validation.

[infinite8s]

Point A also adjusts the offer rate upward given the high cost of living (independent of all the other factors)