[wfhbata]

Have you been able to maintain a similar level of compensation?

I started my career in scientific computing, and was paid a pittance compared to what a PE is paid at a big tech company.

I’m wondering if moving to scientific computing is a luxury afforded by putting in time at AWS.

[baron_harkonnen]

It's still quite strange to me that we're at a point in tech where technical skill becomes a penalty.

This is not to say that non-technical skills are not important and often more important, but for both myself and friends "getting paid well" and "working on hard problems" have become conflicting goals.

There was a brief while, at the beginning of our current tech boom where strong technical skills were extremely valuable. What initially attracted me to software was hanging out with some absolutely brilliant software folks working on very hard problems, and getting paid better than anyone else I knew.

I'm perpetually disappointed that after many, many years of honing my technical skills I find that if I want to use them 9-5 I have to choose to be paid considerably less, and scour far and wide to find those jobs. I've now decided that it's best to treat my passion for technical problems the same way I would any other non-work related hobby. Similar to the way that being an avid reader and book lover is nice, but ultimately not that important if you want to work at Barnes and Noble selling books.

[bradleyjg]

This is generally the way things go. That it wasn’t true at some point is the anomaly.

The generalized version is that anything widely desirable about a job other than money acts to push down wages. For example, if a position is widely respected, well most people like to be respected so wages are going to be less than if it wasn’t widely respected. Similarly, if there’s a lot of people that enjoy spending time with children then jobs that involve spending a lot of time with children aren’t going to pay as well as they would have otherwise. See also, games programming.

[hallway_monitor]

After leading a team for about a year and a half, I see why managers get paid more. Simply, it's less fun, especially for someone who likes to solve hard technical problems.

I think I'm okay at leading a team but moving me to a staff engineer position would be better for me and the company and I think my leader knows this. The experience has been enlightening and I have a lot more respect for non-technical managers now.

[spenczar5]

The sibling comment pretty much nailed it. I saved well over 75% of my income as a PE and have more than enough money accumulated, so I'm not worried. My wife works as well, and even though we're in a pretty expensive area (Seattle) and have a child, we're very comfortable.

I get paid $110,000 per year, and have great benefits. It feels like plenty to me, even though I don't save nearly as much anymore.

I agree it's a luxury from putting in time at AWS. I don't think I'd be as comfortable (psychologically, anyway) if I had gone straight to academia.

[lumost]

Curious what a role in non-academic scientific computing looks like. How did you get into the field? what kind of companies have this kind of role?

[spenczar5]

Oh, I work at the University of Washington in the astronomy department - so, definitely academia. I am just classified as “professional research staff,” which distinguishes me from students and faculty.

As I mentioned below, I got into this field by emailing a professor out of the blue, essentially saying “Hi, I am a software engineer interested in working on astronomy software. What’s your world like?”

[yks]

That’s a dream of mine (astronomy and SWE) but alas earning money is a higher priority right now and unclear when that will change

[sgerenser]

If one started at Amazon before 2016 or so, and put in a full 4 years to get 100% of their new hire stock vesting, they’d easily have more than $1 million just in stock. That plus all your other savings from the time you put in can make relaxing in a lower paid role for the next N years until you’re ready to retire an attractive proposition.

[wfhbata]

Yes, that is exactly my point.

On the other hand, if you spend your early career as a researcher making five digits a year in the Midwest, then move to SV in middle age to increase your earnings, you probably won’t ever catch up and be able to live very comfortably given the cost of housing.

This is just a possible counterpoint, learned the hard way, to the common advice to “pursue your passion.” My advice to those who have the option: make some money first, then pursue your passion.

[r00fus]

Depending on where you live (and whether you own property) that may not be a lot if you are the only breadwinner with a family to raise.

[ska]

> epending on where you live (and whether you own property)

No, it's a lot for 4-5 years anywhere. This is on top of a pretty decent salary. For most working folk, putting this much aside in cash-equivalent over entire career is hard.

GP is talking about going from a high base salary to decent base salary, while using the extra comp (estimated here at approx 1mm) to smooth the impact of the drop in base. This is very manageable.

[sgerenser]

Edited my comment. The $1M is essentially on top of whatever you’d normally be able to save. If that is a lot more than $0 then most people would be in a pretty good position to take a lower paying job for as long as they want then retire comfortably.