[altotrees]

Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another.

I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had been interviewing for months, but we'll keep you in mind for the future." Unprofessional disconnects and other encounters like this have taken place several times, in my experience. It turns out I knew the person who did get the job I was all but promised. After talking to them, the company had contacted them three days after its last interview with me, and the successful candidate had been asking for $10,000 dollars less and had less experience than myself. A month later, that candidate emailed me and told me they were let go for "being unable to meet the requirements of the position."

Anecdotal experience like this really makes me skeptical when I hear employers bemoaning that they cannot find employees. Can they really not find employees or good talent, or do they just not want to pay the wages that people are asking for?

[cynicalkane]

I feel like there's two tiers of the software industry: those employable at AmaFaceGoogFlix or a competitor, and everyone else; but the "everyone else" is completely unaware that the first tier exists. It's like if minor league baseball had no idea about major league baseball.

You even see it on HN. Someone will come along and talk about how a senior dev at Google can expect $250k a year. You'll get two categories of replies: "I don't believe this at all, Glassdoor proves you are wrong, nobody I know makes that, blah blah" and "bro that is totally normal". $250k is honestly on the average-lowish end for a senior eng at a major SV company in 2017. Much of the industry is not only unaware of reality but refuses to believe in it. This includes real engineers who do real work at real companies and comment actively on Hacker News. $250k for a senior engineer is just completely outside their reality.

On my last job search, my best job offer was about 2x as high as the worst one. The guy who made the worst one--which was about 30-40% below my minimum stated range, depending on how you valued the equity, so he had been stringing me along, but anyway--he started arguing with me about my unrealistic expectations, and wouldn't stop talking until I told him I was going to hang up if he kept trying to talk me down.

I know it's considered bad negotiation, but if I can't figure out the salary range of a job opening, I'll name my requirements up front. Over 50% of the time the conversation ends there. I know at least twice people assumed I was over-highballing as part of some misguided negotiating tactic when I actually was a little conservative.

[bit_logic]

The main reason for this is RSU. The base salary at those companies is not much more than rest of industry. But at senior levels the RSU matches or exceeds the entire base salary.

Other companies have a hard time matching this. Startups try but the common wisdom now is to value those at zero. It seems only public traded companies stock is now considered as having value. And only public SV tech companies give these massive RSU to engineers. Other public companies don't do this. And they are not willing to match the RSU amounts with cash. It's possible this situation will only exist as long as this bull market. When the stock market bear comes, will these tech companies continue the massive RSU? And if not will they replace it with cash?

[cynicalkane]

There's a point to this if you get a good startup job offer, but probably 95% or more of startup job offers are terrible. "You'll earn 50% below market, but if we make billions, your options will be worth a few hundred K per year once we have a liquidity event." No thanks.

For big companies that pay market rates, stock can be valued, and GAAP actually requires it. So they're not saving any money on paper paying you in stock. Your total comp is their total comp.

Usually, when you get a good offer including stock, it's from a company with worthwhile stock. Most startup offers aren't worth it even in wildly good scenarios.

[yahna]

But they are totally taking on all the risk and hard work. YOu just have to work insane hours for half of your worth with the risk of getting fired. That's no risk at all compared to being a founder, you should be grateful they gave you that (pre-dilution) 0.015% as employee number 1. After all you get ot build something great!

[megous]

Which is funny, given that much of their risk is probably just to reputation, if they are funded from angels and operate as a LLC, or whatever.

[gozur88]

I always assumed founders put at least some of their own money into the venture. Isn't that the norm?

Were I a VC I wouldn't back someone without skin in the game.

[gpvos]

RSU = Restricted Stock Unit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_Stock_Unit

[yahna]

When you are north of 150k in base that's already considered pretty high for a lot of these other companies.

Then you add in stock, bonus, etc... Adds up to a huge package.

[0xBABAD00C]

I'm in the first camp, and there are people who think we are ridiculously underpaid. "If you're so good, how come you haven't hit seven figures?" is something I've heard a couple of times already. So there is a tier above us too. Go figure...

[wheelerwj]

I've heard of several engineers at the bigger companies who make 7 figures, but basically they are not only engineers working on active projects but are also putting their names on patents.

[Balgair]

It really reminds me of a power law distribution : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

Some are very well paid/employable/competent, but the vast majority are not. Many people think the job search should be like a normal/Gaussian distribution, most people rambling about the mean. But it's not that for the searcher nor the employer; the employees you want are to be paid on a power law, and the jobs you want are as a common as a power law.

Curiously, this works for populations of cities, star luminosity, start-up success, and many other things.

[flachsechs]

> I know it's considered bad negotiation

it's not. the more assertive you are with your compensation requirements, the more likely you are to get paid what you want.

i don't know where this crazy idea of "don't tell anyone what you want to be paid" came from, it sounds like some real amateur hour nonsense that will get you passed up in favor of someone who is more straight forward with the entire process.

imagine trying to buy a product or service, but nobody will tell you how much it costs, but instead tries to subtly hint that you should name your price.

[ianmcgowan]

It's not crazy if you don't have a good idea of your market value. It's not "don't tell anyone what you want to be paid", it's "make the other side go first, just in case I'm wildly undervalued and the range is higher than I can imagine".

And I've been part of many enterprise software purchases where getting to a cost depends a lot on budget and perceived depth of pockets. Final prices are usually 50% of the first price you can drag out of the vendor, but I've seen up to 90% discounts.

You're right on both counts, as long as the market values are relatively well known to all parties. When it's murky, you're better off letting the other side go first. Sounds like you're very in touch with your own personal market value, so it's not an issue for you.

[humanrebar]

> imagine trying to buy a product or service, but nobody will tell you how much it costs, but instead tries to subtly hint that you should name your price

There are tons of products that don't have a listed prices, just a "call our sales representatives". Heck, the job listings don't list salary expectations, even when they're cold calling you.

[flachsechs]

"call our sales representatives" means they'll tell you if you call. i'm guessing you never call, because you don't actually want to talk to anyone, which is exactly what they're trying to do: filter you out.

[drewmol]

It can mean: "you want to know the price? Well, that depends... How much is it worth to you?"

Among plenty of other things

[r00fus]

Value-based pricing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-based_pricing

Best way to increase margins when the perceived "worth" is variable and it's a seller's market. Not so optimal in a market where you as a seller are in a buyers market.

[howlgram]

They'll make you offers going from most expensive to cheaper, also it's a filter in order to lure in people who believe the product has value. You could say is a subtle way of asking people if they value the product highly, basically asking people to name the price even though not directly.

[humanrebar]

> they'll tell you if you call

...or they expect you to haggle. Or the price depends on who you are. Or the price depends on how close they are to getting their sales bonus.

[throwaway911233]

Slightly related. I openly share my salary information with all of my friends in tech, 90% share their history back with me. I refuse to let social mores depress my wages or those of my friends. I recommend all engineers do the same.

[sjg007]

Ok, how much?

[throwaway911233]

I make ~$200k in an affordable city not on the coast. I could make $300k - $400k in NYC. I write and maintain programs for finance.

[AnimalMuppet]

How do you get a job in finance while not on the coast? Remote work? Work in a branch? Work for a regional outfit?

[vibrato]

Yes, I think that "rule" came about to have people avoid price anchoring against their own best interest. However, why not use the price anchor in your favor? It does take some confidence and ability to walk away, so in a compromised position I see the merit. But generally engineers are in a great position in the marketplace.

[ryandrake]

> Someone will come along and talk about how a senior dev at Google can expect $250k a year. You'll get two categories of replies: "I don't believe this at all, Glassdoor proves you are wrong, nobody I know makes that, blah blah" and "bro that is totally normal".

That's the thing. On one side, you have people who at least have a bit of publicly available data to point to (although sure, one could point out flaws in salary.com and glassdoor.com). On the other side, you have random people saying "Bro, you're totally wrong, lots of people make $400k." Even if I didn't have a dog in this race, I know which side I'd believe.

[gozur88]

I know people who are making mid six figures working for Google-tier companies. But I don't think there are very many of those kinds of people - hundreds, maybe. And these are people with highly specialized skillsets in addition to their software development skills - pattern recognition, for instance. You're not going to get a job like that because you know Python really well.

Asking a software developer "Why aren't you making $400k?" is a lot like asking a random mid-level manager why he isn't the CEO of a Fortune 100 company.

[lj3]

> I know people who are making mid six figures working for Google-tier companies. But I don't think there are very many of those kinds of people - hundreds, maybe.

This is the thing that annoys me the most about these conversations. Some people take a few outliers and use them as proof that the rest of the bell curve is [ bad at negotiating | incompetent | lazy ]. Drives me nuts. I can name several multimillionaire business owners. Nobody's going around saying your bootstrapped one man startup should be raking in multiple millions of dollars a year or there's something wrong with you.

[ryandrake]

These "HN salary" threads would be a lot less annoying if those guys would just admit "Yea, $300K or $400K is super rare, for outlier folks out outlier companies who have outlier skills," rather than the usual "Lots of people make that! Just negotiate better, bro!!" bluster.

[anonacct37]

I make $400k as a software engineer, and I can tell you it's pretty rare. We're probably talking top few percent of engineers (in terms of compensation) living in a select number of areas.

I think it's possible only a few dozen companies can do this.

These are median numbers for Amazon/Google/Facebook/Microsoft https://blog.step.com/2016/04/08/an-open-source-project-for-...

[jcadam]

I still don't believe the $250k figure :)

I make exactly half of that here in Florida (a fairly low cost area) as a senior dev and my salary has definitely plateaued (and I haven't had a raise in a few years).

I know I make more than most of my peers and local recruiters scoff when I tell them my current pay (I had to talk my current employer up about $30k just to match my salary at my previous employer to get me to switch -- and they only did so because they were quite obviously desperate).

[jedberg]

H1B data is public. You can see exactly how much they are offering H1Bs, which most people assume to be lowballing. The median for Google is $127K, but that includes junior engineers. Sort by salary to see the senior roles.

And then remember that this is just base salary. Usually, the RSUs are almost equal to the salary when granted, and sometimes double in value over the four years they vest.

http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=GOOGLE&job=SOFTWARE+ENGINEE...

[sjg007]

This is a good data set to calibrate in larger orgs or an industry. You should be within a std deviation I would say for your role. Software engineers are lucky in that we can work across industries.

[dsr_]

"here in Florida (a fairly low cost area)"

Let's say you work in downtown Tampa and live 30-40 minutes away. You can get a 4 bedroom 2500 sq ft house for $350K. That's about 3 years salary for you.

Now let's say you get a job at Facebook and want to find a similar house, about 30-40 minutes away. I think it will cost you upwards of $2M. You need to be making $670K or more to make housing the same fraction of your living expenses.

Your quality of living and long term economic prospects are probably significantly better where you are.

[vacri]

> to make housing the same fraction of your living expenses

And when housing is the same fraction, the disposable income after that fraction is removed is far, far higher. As Bill Gates says, once you can afford the $30 burger, there's nowhere to get an even more expensive burger.

[etblg]

Bill Gates needs to update his quote, I don't think $30 is where burger-technology has topped out these days

[gozur88]

More than that. If you make that kind of money you're going to pay a higher percentage of it in taxes.

[wwalser]

Do you mean that you actually don't believe it? As in, "I think that's a false statement"? Or do you mean that you're jokingly in "a state of disbelief", as in… surprised or taken aback?

I have friends in low cost areas that make around what you're describing. They don't continue doing that because of willful disbelief, they understand that they could move and make 2.5x their current income. They just like the lifestyle. Which, totally makes sense to me. It's an amazing lifestyle.

[jcadam]

Perhaps somewhere in between. While $250k sounds high for a pure code-slinger, I'm willing to believe a few companies (Google, Microsoft, et. al.) choose to pay a small number of their top devs that kind of money.

On the other hand, competition for dev jobs in general is so fierce (as in the supply of great devs outstrips the demand by a large margin) that I can't imagine it would be difficult to fill those same positions at a significantly lower salary (or total comp, whatever -- I've never held a job that pays equity or bonuses in any non-trivial amount).

[trustfundbaby]

Believe it. I'm based in Austin, and a few years ago was making about $125k as a senior dev when Apple came calling. They wanted me to move out to California which I didn't want to do, so to blow them off, I did a small calculation (cost of living, california taxes, etc) to arrive at the conclusion that at the very minimum I'd need $180k for that move to even start to make sense for me.

The recruiter explained how they could easily pay me a $140-160K base and give me about $40k in RSUs to get me up to $200k if I was the right candidate. I'd never heard of RSUs before that and he had to explain what they were to me.

The easy with which it was offered definitely helped me understand why $250k in total comp was definitely something that could be done at the bigger tech companies

[cynicalkane]

Nope, most senior devs at such companies are pure code slingers or small team leads. The "select few", which I interpret to mean people who can architect or lead large projects, start at 400k or so and top out at undisclosed millions.

[MrLeap]

The competition is fierce? Must only be a SF phenomena. My side of the country doesn't feel that way at all. Seems like there's way more jobs than qualified applicants over here.

Still the same problem of most being unwilling to pay for talent, but those who are still aren't having THAT easy of a time.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

as in the supply of great devs outstrips the demand by a large margin

No, no, no. Not even close. At my last gig, we would interview for months to find a decent candidate. We were no AmaFaceGoog, but our pay was decent and the work was interesting. The supply (here in the Upper Midwest), definitely does not outstrip the demand!

[eikenberry]

> On the other hand, competition for dev jobs in general is so fierce (as in the supply of great devs outstrips the demand by a large margin)

This is so much the exact opposite of everything I've experienced that I have a hard time believing it. Finding good developers is near impossible, we regularly interview people for months before finding someone halfway decent. And the last time I looked for work I had several offers for remote positions at east coast companies, which makes it hard to believe this is a regional thing.

What sort of work are these great devs doing that is not in demand?

[skookum]

I agree fully. It may look like there's fierce competition to someone who has failed repeatedly, but here's what it looks like from the inside: In my experience at three of the big tech companies, we extend offers to everyone who meets the bar. It's never a case of "we have 3 strong candidates, so which one do we choose?". If we have 3 strong candidates at the same time, we attempt to hire all 3 - attempt meaning in competition with other potential employers. If we have 3 weak candidates, we don't settle for the best of the current options - we hire 0 and we wait for more candidates. If you're not getting hired at AmaMicroGoogBook it's not because there's a surplus of great SDEs and some other candidates edged you out for a limited number of seats - it's because you simply didn't make the hiring bar.

[mrep]

Is your company one of the hot ones right now where developers are lining up?

Assuming not, what's the compensation for the job? Have you tried posting the compensation for the job publicly?

The reason I ask is because as someone who works for one of the big 5, I don't even consider companies outside of the big 5 or top startups. As "cynicalkane" said: "Much of the industry is not only unaware of reality but refuses to believe in it. This includes real engineers who do real work at real companies and comment actively on Hacker News. $250k for a senior engineer is just completely outside their reality."

Are you offering 250+ for senior engineers? If so, broadcast it and people will interested. Else, I'll assume you are going to just offer non-market rates and waste my time.

[xyzzyz]

I don't know a single person at Google who makes less than $180k in total comp, and that includes new grads. If you are more senior in any way (e.g. graduated college 2 years ago instead of just now), you're looking at >$200-220k, and if you're actually Senior Software Engineer, you're looking at $250-300+k total comp in a year.

Really, don't let the base salary numbers fool you. RSUs is where it's at.

[rifung]

> I don't know a single person at Google who makes less than $180k in total comp, and that includes new grads.

I assume this is MTV/SVL/SFO/NYC? I'm sure you can find new grads who make less than that in other offices. At least I make less than that as an L3 in SEA

[xyzzyz]

SEA is in pretty much the same bracket when it comes to compensation. I've heard some rumors that recent new hires have been getting less stock than people in the past. Are you also including bonus (15-20% of salary)?

[rifung]

Sadly, yes =[ Comes out to be ~150k total. Honestly I don't mind I feel I am lucky to work at Google =]

[jghn]

FWIW I'm roughly at the mid-point between those two figures and not at a Big 4 or similar. I have no RSUs, stock, bonuses, or other such things, it's all base salary. My base salary is higher than any of my developer friends who have full time jobs, but my total compensation is roughly upper quartile due to their add ons.

[corporateslave3]

Yeah I see this as well. Some recruiters will name a number less than my current comp, and be completely astounded that I am already making that much.

[ep103]

Who are the competitors to AmaFaceGoogFlix? I'm based out of nyc, and the common logic here is that dev salaries start maxing out in the 150-170 range. If you go to a hedge fund, you can get more, maybe pop 200. But for more than that? You have to go to AmaFaceGoogFlix.

[lordCarbonFiber]

If you're working for finance total comp (if not base salary) is definitely going to rival the biggest tech players. From what I've seen 150-170 base is the minimum for senior devs then you talking bonuses or stock for at least another 25-50%. If you're working for a hedgefund you're talking bonuses of X00% so it almost doesn't make sense to compare base salaries.

The startup story, at least in nyc, is pretty different. Best I can tell few of those players are willing to even try to compete on a base salary (or total comp) with any of the larger players.

This is a relatively small sample size, ymmv etc.

[jensvdh]

$250k base or $250k INCLUDING stock??

[cynicalkane]

The second one, but if you're not thinking about salary in terms of total comp, you're doing it wrong.

[danjoc]

Ahhh, that explains it. When the market crashes, you become plebs like the rest of us. Except you'll be living in the most expensive place in the country.

[evgen]

Not really. At worst you lose a couple of years of growth in prior equity grants but your yearly refresher will be bulked up significantly to account for the diminished value of the stock and voila, pleb no more...

[QuercusMax]

Yup, if the stock goes down, and you get a bigger (# of shares, not $$) refresh, if it goes back up to where it was before, bam, you've got it made. If you're lucky, you'll have enough for a down payment on a house....

[umanwizard]

Only for people who didn't sell on vest... stocks are a liquid asset just like cash; nothing forces to keep the shares you're paid with.

[trustfundbaby]

right, because RSUs go to 0 in a stock crash.

[5trokerac3]

Sure, but $1 of stock isn't worth $1 of liquid assets. It may be worth more than $1 in the long run, but when you're first handed it, you have to undervalue it, compared to hard cash.

I'm a theoretical millionaire several times over, from stock options in startups that suffered the fate of the 99%. You can obviously put more value in the stock of a SV megalith, but even then, you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket.

[umanwizard]

> $1 of stock isn't worth $1 of liquid assets

Er, why not? Only difference is I have to pay a $5 trading fee on Schwab to turn stock into cash. So I guess $10,000 in stock is worth $9,995 in liquid assets.

> even then, you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket.

Only if you hold the stock. Which nothing forces you to do. I can (and do) sell all of my tech company stock on the day it vests and buy other assets instead.

I think you must have the wrong mental model of how RSUs work. Nothing forces you to hold the stock once it vests. It's yours, you can sell it and do whatever you want with the money.

Usually when people at a public company say "I make X", X is the sum of base salary, cash bonus, and the value of RSUs that vest in a year.

[sjg007]

You can hold it to reduce taxes right?

[cynicalkane]

Stock from a public SV firm is almost as good as cash, and comes with a large amount of lifestyle intangibles.

[5trokerac3]

If you sell it as soon as you get it then it's good as cash. As for the lifestyle intangibles, does having to live in Los Gatos or Gilroy if you want to raise a family count as a perk?

[yahna]

THat's not as true when we are talking about stock from Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, etc... The risk is dramatically lower.

[nogbit]

And then there is a third that those in AmaFaceGoogFlix are completely unaware that the tier above them pwned them long ago, governments.

[ppeetteerr]

Perhaps it's the major league baseball that doesn't believe in the minor league baseball ;)

[orthoganol]

That tier distinction is way too fluid in my experience to claim it as a real thing; a large (not small) number of people I know who've worked at or work at Google easily belong in the 'minor leagues', but it's just an over the top confidence even arrogance, often combined with a lot of years of sticking with tech, that got them their job. Seriously, a lot of mediocre developers if you add a bunch of years (or a post grad degree), maybe a month of leetcode if they haven't already, and double their ego can a get a job there. (New hires get assigned to the uncompetitive, boring projects at Google, so there's that negative compensation too).

Btw talking about total comp and not base salary is highly misleading. Yeah sure, by that standard with recent valuations I'm making >250k at a post Series A startup.

[xyzzyz]

It is only misleading when you are talking about startups that give non-liquid equity. The difference between you and me is that I can sell my stock literally the moment it vests at pretty predictable price, while you can only use valuation to price it, are probably affected by liquidation preferences, and don't have buyers lined up for your stock.

[yahna]

Yeah well, that's what happens when you base your interview around algorithm trivia.

[arca_vorago]

The latter, hands down. I quit college to startup an IT support company, and despite going back in spurts, never finished. I got quite a few jobs after I left the startup though, and in retrospect I think the primary factor that got me those jobs, despite my many years of expertise, was the fact that since I didn't have a degree they could pay me less vs most of the other candidates. The most recent one, that promised 6 month pay raise, turned into a year, then more, and finally, having spent at least a year working late nights and weekends salary exempt (no OT), getting the infrastructure out of enough technical debt that I no longer needed to work the excessive hours, the company tried to make me go hourly...

Companies simply don't want to pay what they should for the level of talent they want. They are trying to find the edge case that can still get the job done but that they can also underpay so they have more money for the company/execs.

For what it's worth, I quit the sysadmin game and am now pursuing my degree in data science using my GI Bill, which I think will compliment my many years of senior sysadmin knowledge quite well. I'm there to learn, and am very excited about my classes, but I have to admit, a large part of me just wants the degree so I don't suffer the same poor pay not having a degree set me up for, mainly through weakness in the negotiation process.

[coredog64]

I generally agree with your premise, but wages are sticky, economically speaking. There might be a few people here who'd be okay with fluctuations of 10 or 20 percent in their salary on an annual basis, but by and large, most people would expect that there's not a decrease in their salary over time.

[arca_vorago]

I feel like I'm missing something here, could you elaborate more? I didn't say anything about wages decreasing over time, unless you are referencing the part of my comment about an employer trying to make me go hourly.

[humanrebar]

> ...most people would expect that there's not a decrease in their salary over time.

So why don't companies give more aggressive bonuses then? It would help with retention if nothing else.

[Eridrus]

Unless you have a good track record of awarding bonuses people are skeptical that you will actually pay bonuses.

[sage76]

> They are trying to find the edge case that can still get the job done but that they can also underpay so they have more money for the company/execs

That would be people eternally stuck in the Green Card queue.

[fred_is_fred]

You should have started looking after they reneged on their 6 month promise (which for the record is BS usually anyway, as you've discovered).

[Frondo]

That's it in a nutshell.

There are people here who'll do the work, do any work, for the right money.

Employers don't want to pay, though. You've seen those charts about productivity graphed against worker pay, and how for the last 40 years, the productivity has gone up while the worker pay has stayed mostly flat?

That's the problem.

And why pay more, when you can sink a tiny fraction of what you would be spending on labor, to fund a congressional campaign and have the laws changed in your favor?

If there's an answer to this besides unionization and better pro-worker laws, I'd love to hear it.

[dhimes]

And the "everybody needs to learn how to code" meme taking hold in society will ensure that this doesn't change.

[ianai]

Labor costs being essentially 0 outside the developed world ran down wages for over a decade.

[tomjen3]

The latter. At the market clearing price the market clears - that is what market clearing means.

Of course most companies are filled with people who don't get micro economics.

[jordache]

how does that random candidate get a hold of you?

[jedmeyers]

"It turns out I knew the person who did get the job"

[altotrees]

They were in my Linkedin network, and a college friend coincidentally. I simply pinged them and asked them a few questions about the new job and interview process. I disclosed that I had also interviewed for it. They were a bit leery of their own skill level upfront, so even they were surprised when it was offered. An interesting situation.

[damnfine]

Sounds like they simply took the job for less.

[tambienben]

> It turns out I knew the person who did get the job I was all but promised.

You should have another cup of coffee.

[jordache]

i tend to skim-read manifestos

[tambienben]

I think it pays more to be observant than to be butthurt on the internet.

[aianus]

If OPEC embargoes the US, you would still be able to buy a gallon of gas for $10 or whatever but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a shortage.