Really? $125k doesn't seem low to me based on experience. Also, just looked on Payscale and it says Senior Data Analyst (with 6 years experience) salary range was $63-113k.
I run a SaaS analytics product company in NYC. I help refer data analysts and data scientists to my customers. Sharp analysts can command $140k base with about 3 years of experience right now.
Just because they can, doesn't mean it's average or to be expected.
I think a lot of people on here (and Blind) constantly say everyone is underpaid. It might be trying to help educate people they can be paid more. But it's usually framed in a way most people find insulting.
Only 5% of laborers in cities like LA and NYC make over $200k a year. That number is a bit higher in The Bay. Only about 12-15% of people make over $125k.
Again, it's nice to know that you can do better. But it's also nice to give yourself a pat on the back sometimes. $125k is decidedly NOT bad by any standards.
Technologists systemically undervalue themselves. Partly because the barrier to entry to software/analysts is so low, and most people are pretty bad. It's also because interviewing is such a time-consuming task that most people only look at 1-3 offers when getting a new job.
If you look in comment history you'll see a few references to me paying engineers/data scientists/data analysts $400 to spend an afternoon with me solving a real world problem. If I felt like you were someone I would work with, I personally introduce you to the head of a team at a companies that I know pays great money and has a great team, and you're fast tracked to the final interview (mostly culture and talking tech. No bullshit).
I always knew what the position paid, and the candidates would always sell themselves 10-20% of what they could get (I obviously helped them get the most they could).
Just because the market is skewed with a lot of bad candidates and poor negotiators doesn't mean the market price is accurate. We can all do better.
Thank you so, so much for pointing this out. I am so tired of basically everybody believing they are under-paid by making $120k+
It puts out the wrong expectations.
Most people under-estimate, what kind of life they can live with $60-80k anyways.
It’s a very common HN trope: go to any thread where tech salaries are mentioned and you’ll find someone whose sister’s boyfriend’s roommate makes $400k at Facebook, so therefore that’s a normal, expected salary for all tech workers. Point out actual publicly available data like Glassdoor or Salary.com and you’ll get a whole bunch of nit picks about their methodology or the fact that they report base salary only, etc.
Yes, there are likely outlier employees at outlier companies making huge comp but those have to be at least 2 to 3 standard deviations right of the average.
> Point out actual publicly available data like Glassdoor or Salary.com and you’ll get a whole bunch of nit picks about their methodology or the fact that they report base salary only, etc.
So you don't have a counter argument is what you're saying? The truth is those site are insanely flawed and if that's what you're using to form your basis for negotiation then you're at a disadvantage period.
Compensation is often base + bonus + equity. For sufficiently senior positions, the equity component can be almost as much as the base salary. If the equity is liquid, then why is that not relevant?
FYI new grads at any of the big tech companies are bringing in close to ~$200k in total compensation their first year. It's not just someone's sister's cousin. It's a majority of engineering new grads who work at any of the BigCos which employ A LOT of people and are constantly hiring.
Those salaries are prevalent pretty much only at "big" tech companies (FAANG) in the Bay Area.
Even in the Bay Area the 50th percentile base salary for a relatively junior hire is closer to $100k than $150k. Add in bonus and equity and some might top out around $140k-$150k total compensation. That's in the Bay Area specifically. Most other places TC is going to top out just above $100k--high salaries are uncommon outside of tech hubs and the Bay Area itself is on the high end even in that group.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of public data, these discussions always devolve into anecdote battles. I would love to see actual data that shows these huge salaries as average. It would really help my next salary negotiation! I’ve been in tech for over 20 years and so far, “Hacker News says we should make $400K” hasn’t really worked with recruiters yet.
Some people underestimate the options and freedom (including being ready for the effects of recession/ageism in the industry) that living on $60k with a $200k salary can provide.
How do you pay for $200k level taxes on a $60k salary? I make low six figures and pay an effective tax rate of about 35%. You’d only have about $5k left over for living expenses for the year...
- their living expenses match those of a person living with a $60k salary and presumably spending everything they earn after tax (in response to “what kind of life they can live with $60-80k”)
I think you’re reading into it a bit too much. The comment you’re responding to is just a simple statement that with xyz skill your market rate is n dollars. There’s nothing there about how you should feel about it
Market rate seems to vary widely for programming jobs (less familiar with data science, but it's probably similar), as sone companies can afford to pay a lot more than others, and some developers are willing to accept a lot less than others. And this is often independent of skill levels.
When I see Data Science in industry, it means an analyst. When I see Data Science in academia, I see Michael Jordan and Alex Smola. I think this is the core disconnect.
Not even close. But ugh, it is sort of getting there as far as what inflated titles are being offered/used. Going to be as watered down as today's "DBA" vs 20 years ago "DBA" at this rate.