Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by baybal2 1758 days ago
I've heard multiple times of the hiring practice of "throw to garbage bin every resume without past stint at GFA" from a few of my friends.

Most of them worked companies like banks, and other big name non-tech companies.

The number of people with past experience in big dotcoms now is big enough that any mid-sized company can expect to get a few resumes from such for each position.

It's very obvious a sign of risk averse, and lazy recruiters, but what you can do? No doubt, it works for them, professionally.

It makes me think whether chasing a big dotcom name onto the resume, at any cost, and regardless of the merit of position worth it from the job security standpoint.

A dotcom name on the resume really opens you a lot of doors, you will not get yourself in otherwise. A stone cold truth.

2 comments

One way to look at it from the FANG PoV: we don't know how good engineers they are but at least we know they can handle leetcode grind and they are most likely young (i.e. had a desperation and willingness to allocate time for leetcode preps) - so we throw them 500K total comps and hope to retrain/FANG-ify them. I don't think many small/mid-sized shops can afford this.
The article is about Europe. My total comp as an L5 at Amazon was about $75k, maybe up to $90k if you count the slowly vesting RSUs.
May I ask which country? This seems very low.
Not OP, but Amsterdam based faangs/unicorns don't pay as much. I'm willing to grind leetcode, but I can't really find any companies in the Netherlands that are worthwhile (that pay significantly better than mid-size companies).
Databricks in Amsterdam pay around 140k EUR.
That was in Spain, but it's pretty similar everywhere. It's tough to break $100k in any sort of non-staff engineer/management role.
Facebook in London pays GBP 300K-500K+ though.
I (London residing) find that quite hard to believe.

Unless you mean TC which includes share-options "valued at" £200K+ (but likely will barely get £50k when vested after 5 years of active tenure.)

A good salary for principal engineers in London is upto £120k, but can be from half that. There are exceptional cases of higher. Highest I have personal confirmation of is £150k (a friend.)

Across all of engineering, the mean average salary at Google is £66k according to glassdoor, and that's known to be embellished.

>share-options "valued at" £200K+ (but likely will barely get £50k when vested after 5 years of active tenure.)

This is a dangerous misconception to have. You may not want to work at FAANG which is fine. Otherwise don't shoot yourself in the foot by misunderstanding pay structure.

Public companies such as FB pay in liquid stock, that vests over some period of time. These are not options. You get 200K every year, immediately sellable. Or keep them and grow. Which given the performance over last two years would actually give you close to 400, not 50.

I appreciate the clarification. It's not an indication of my desire to work at a FAANG or not. My own experience is from publically trading companies, whom offered options with (typically) 3-5 year vesting periods.

However..

> Public companies such as FB pay in liquid stock, that *vests over some period of time*.

And

> immediately sellable

Are a contradiction, no?

Glassdoor says 86-110k GBP. Which is still pretty good for Europe.
Look at levels.fyi, the highest paid E7 is around 250k GBP TC (i.e. base + bonus + shares) and there is one IC6 with 350k GBP TC. But basic devs are in the Glassdoor range, while London is as expensive as SFBA with a much worse weather. Basically a dead-end, like the whole EU right now (technologically finished without a single competitive company after the fall of Nokia).
...to managers
I’m not sure if you realized this while typing it, but you may wish to reconsider that acronym.
Ok I got nothing.. I assume you are referring to GFA - what evil organisation could it be mistaken for? I could only get results for Global Furniture Alliance, Ghana Football Association, (The) Good Friday Agreement, and Gospel For Asia, and many other orgs that don't seem to be controversial enough to warrant a warning.

The tension is too much to bear, please enlighten me :)

The original acronym included Facebook, Apple (presumably), and Google, in that order.
That makes a lot more sense now :)
Do we really have to fell that low on HN to obsess over the slang of weird internet boards? Edited that.