[pjmlp]

> Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm

Yes, and we have plenty of nice stuff that goes along with it

Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ...

Like the OP, my expenses are more than covered, getting more isn't worth the hassle to change.

Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.

[mcv]

Despite all of that, I think engineers are underpaid in Europe (and presumably East Asia).

I just left a job at a major bank where all the non-engineer roles got paid, or at least could be paid more than I got. There were 5 pay scales for engineers, the top 2 of which weren't even being used. I got there from a freelance contract, and I had to take a serious pay cut to continue working on the project. It was a really cool project, which I wrote the initial prototype for, and guided a growing team in its development, and I accepted the pay cut because I loved the project so much, but a year later I left to go back to freelancing. I think that's the only way to get paid your worth here. Meanwhile the company is wondering why they can't retain senior engineers. If I wanted to be paid more, I'd have to take on more organisational duties outside my team, and I just wasn't interested in that, so I left. For an interesting freelance project that pays even more than that bank paid me when I freelanced for them.

It doesn't have to be 6 figures, but I think senior software engineers absolutely should be getting manager-level salaries, without having to dilute their technical focus by taking on other responsibilities.

[vkk8]

In banks the technical people are, in my experience, always second class citizens. They are expected to shut up and do what the business people tell them to do. They are not really responsible for anything or making decisions and are paid accordingly. The best paid technical people in banks are not people who are working on some cutting edge technology developing new stuff, but people who happen to be the only ones who know how to maintain some piece of god awful critical legacy infrastructure. This is also the reason why the banking technology develops so slowly and why the infrastructure in banks suck so much.

[mcv]

Technical people are responsible for building and maintaining all the systems that handle the stuff that the business want done. And I also told business people what they should be doing. Seeing banks as a non-tech industry is a mistake in my opinion, and many banks do seem to agree that they should be a tech company. Many are active in tech communities, organise tech related events, and really seem to care about tech. And yet, tech salaries seem to be lagging.

[ridethebike]

Worked in several banks. "We are not bank, we are tech company with bank department" - was mentioned occasionally in each of them. What was also common - red tape, outdated software (tools, libraries, frameworks), restricted access to workstation, processes focused around pushing approvals around (instead of automation). That's why my response to "we are not a bank" sentiment above is "it's a bank, alright".

[decafninja]

Saying that they are a tech company is popular amongst the big banks these days. Technically that's true - they (and most businesses these days) are driven by tech and would fall apart without it. But tech is most definitely a cost center entity at such firms and tech employees likewise treated as second class citizen. As my old engineering manager at a bank told us - "if a trader tells you to jump and dance like a monkey, you jump and dance like a monkey".

I've heard Goldman Sachs has attempted to make some strides in running their Marcus product more like a Silicon Valley tech company (within reason). But I've also heard that ultimately that it too fell prey to the burden of the old conservative bank culture. A friend who worked there until recently told me not to fall for the glitzy marketing, and that it was just all more of the same. Would be interested what someone who is actually working there now has to say, esp. someone that has worked in both SV tech companies and Goldman to compare.

[mcv]

Banks definitely should be tech companies, and understand and embrace the important of tech for their business. But you're absolutely right; the banks where I worked definitely tried to be technologically progressive (sometimes even a bit too much in my opinion[0]), but it was undeniable that much of the company was slow and bureaucratic, and despite all the "empowering developers", we often got stupid decisions handed down to deal with. Often they were aware of the stupidity, but changing something was still a very slow process.

At one bank, I was in a team that straddled the line between the international and domestic sections of the bank, which used to be more independent from each other, but we had to deal with both. Getting a simple firewall opened up between two systems on either side took 6 months.

[0] One bank that arguably took the tech company most seriously, wanted to be a bit too much on the cutting edge in my opinion. They were very active in the Angular community, which was absolutely great, but they also wanted to do CICD, which just didn't fit with all the security checks necessary at a bank. Parts were moving very fast, and parts were moving very slowly.

At that same bank, we also had a very clear mandate that we could say no to business. At some point, after we felt we put too much in production in rapid succession with insufficient testing, we had to block a next thing that a business guy really wanted to see in production. Really pissed him off, and he threw a tantrum I hadn't seen before or since at any workplace, but we insisted and our manager backed us up, so that was definitely good.

[ridethebike]

I personally can't speak to SV tech company. However I worked in msft and difference is staggering, it's two completely different universes.

>> ([..] most businesses these days) are driven by tech and would fall apart without it

Yup. It's like, is Coca-cola a "tech company with soda department"? Pretty sure they have programmers and some non-trivial IT infra as well.

[jack_riminton]

Having worked in a fintech D2C app, the distinction I drew was that there were 2 'products' - the financial product i.e getting 4% return on your money - the digital product i.e the app

The 1st was the real product, the 2nd the nice-to-have

Obviously core tech in banking is infinitely more critical than an app but the point is the same; the tech in banks, unless its 'quant', HFT or ML is not the money maker and therefore won't be paid as such

[mcv]

The app that people use to access their money is absolutely core tech. If the payment infrastructure goes down (or worse: is buggy), that's a massive problem. Banks that don't consider this core aren't keeping up.

[PeterisP]

The thing is, while reliability of payment infrastructure matters, the UX and convenience of it does not as much - "everyday services" are not the core business of the banks (for ordinary individuals, mortgages and consumer loans is, for high net value, investments), they are pretty much a loss-leader that needs to exist but it's neither a major revenue maker nor a determining factor for customers - e.g. they will shop around for the mortagage, and if they get a good deal, they'll switch to another bank without even looking at how convenient their apps are.

Yes, there are some consumers for whom those everyday services are everything and they'll go to some 'app only' bank that does that well and without excessive fees. From the point of a traditional bank, that's not a problem, good riddance - if they don't use other products and aren't willing to pay excessive fees for everyday things, there's no money in having them as customers, and when they'll want to do something profitable (e.g. take a mortgage) they'll come back from that app-only bank as that product (the financial product, not the tech product) is actually competitive.

Note: this is from an EU viewpoint. USA may have a bit different perspective as the regulations there allow quite a lot revenue streams (e.g. bounced check fees) from people with no money and no other products, in EU much of exploitative payment practices have become restricted, so these customers simply become unprofitable and not really desired, the main value of "having them" is that this might help you sell profitable products to them later when they have more money and/or more plans for credit.

[jack_riminton]

Many of our customers didn’t even use the app. They could phone up and get someone to do every action for them. If your product can operate without the app then the app is secondary

[ngc248]

True, In a bank tech is a cost center, that is why they are treated as second class citizens even though tech is actually enabling the business

[fleddr]

Agree. They didn't get the memo yet that tech rules the world. These companies are very traditional. Top-heavy, where finance, purchasing and sales dominate the company. That's where all the hot shots are and the big salaries.

Meanwhile, IT is an internal "cost centre", a necessary evil, a bunch of resources preferably outsourced.

[codethief]

Slightly off-topic questions, because I've been thinking about freelancing lately:

- Where/how do you (as a freelancer) find your clients? (Do you focus on clients from the financial industry?)

- Where are those clients from (location-wise)?

- Do you work remotely? If yes, does your timezone need to match your client's timezone? Put differently: How flexible are you when it comes to working hours?

[pards]

In Toronto, Canada, freelancing or contracting is a way to pay senior engineers more than the company's standard fixed pay bands. The FTE pay brackets aren't great and we have a great public health care system so there's not much advantage to benefits packages.

Contractors are paid from the project budget (capex) and often don't have to go through the central HR department which allows projects to pay what they need to in order to attract the right people. We typically work alongside FTEs but we get "rolled off" projects as they ramp down at the end whereas the FTEs either stay on or get reassigned within the company.

For me, contracts typically last 1-3 years.

- I find my clients through my network of people I've worked with in the past

- My clients are usually based in Toronto like me

- I've been 100% remote since March 2020.

With respect to remote, my current client is trying to get people back to the office in a hybrid model. If they force it then I'll probably look elsewhere.

[mcv]

It's a bit embarrassing perhaps, but I don't actually look much for clients. Recruitment agencies find me on LinkedIn and contact me about projects they're trying to fill. Doing my own acquisition would be a lot of extra work, and I'm not convinced I could do it better than these recruiters, so I just sit here and let them contact me.

My projects tend to be 1-2 years where I'm part of a team working on the same thing. A single client at a time.

My clients are mostly from Amsterdam, where I live. I want to be able to bike to work. Well, normally; these days I work from home, but we're in the same timezone and I work normal working hours.

[codethief]

Thanks so much for the insights!

[glitchalumni]

We are talking about 50-60k before taxes here though (e.g. healthcare isn't included yet) - there really is not that much left in the end, especially compared to the US where quite some companies will match our European amenities (talking about software engineering jobs).

Also all inclusive contracts are quite common or some legal workarounds with payed overtime after x amount of hours (where x amount would be working 2 times as much per week), never heard of unions for this sector in DACH either.

Frankly getting a 10k salary bump in Europe is still pretty solid - for 20k I would bet most engineers around here would make a switch. (note that you tax down ~50% above the 60k you earn from now on).

> Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.

True, but if someone switched jobs every year it feels like a red flag to me anywhere where the cost of hiring actually matters I would say.

[fnord123]

> specially compared to the US where quite some companies will match our European amenities (talking about software engineering jobs).

Debatable. In most European countries, if you lose your job you still have health cover. If you lose your job in the US you do not keep the company benefit health insurance (except as part of a severance package for a limited time). For H1-B visa holders, they must leave the country (this is relevant for anyone based in Europe who is trying to determine whether to stay in Europe or use a visa programme to relocate to the US).

[bluGill]

But it isn't hard to find a job, and there are other options for health care while you are looking.

I agree that it is stupid to tie health insurance to your job, but it isn't the big deal you make it out to be, so long as you have savings

[fnord123]

I'm not an expert in american insurance policies (not even a novice, tbh) but if you have an ongoing condition and then lose insurance, and then get new insurance with your easy-to-get new job then would the ongoing condition be considered a pre-existing condition and hence fall into question regarding cover?

[ryan93]

Not since 2009

[alistairSH]

so long as you have savings

That phrase is key. Most Americans don’t have savings. Even among the professional class, savings are often nowhere near high enough to pay OOP for insurance at market rate.

[_hcuq]

As a 55 yr old with 3 dependents, the insurance is $25,000 per year.

That’s quite a hill to climb before I see a penny of income into my pocket.

[wreath]

Depends where in Europe. In Germany, if you lose your job you still have to pay for health insurance, at least the first three months until your unemployment kicks in (assuming you're eligible for it, like in most cases) and I don't know if unemployment covers your health insurance.

If you are married and you and your spouse were on the same statutory health insurance, then you're covered by your spouse. Which can be the case in the US depending on your spouse's coverage.

[nicbou]

This is true, but not quite the full truth. You will fall on the minimum tariff, and both unemployment and social security cover your health insurance. IIRC, they will cover it retroactively for those 3 months, even if you quit. However that last line is from a conversation in a bar.

And yes, if you earn below 450€ a month, you're generally covered by your spouse or family's health insurance with many little rules and exceptions. None of those exceptions are deal breakers though.

This page (https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance) explains more, and has a very accurate calculator that takes those edge cases into account.

[jyounker]

Once you are unemployed you do have to pay for your health insurance, but it's heavily subsidized, costing (as a 50 year old) around 200 a month. Compare that to 1200 per month in the USA.

It's a huge difference.

[wreath]

It's a huge difference when you compare absolute numbers for sure. But also there is a huge difference in taxes. You could argue 1200 is not so bad when you pay 25% taxes instead of 40% for example.

[remram]

You don't pay income taxes when unemployed.

[_rtld_global_ro]

Get ACA, should be a lot lower than $1200/month if AGI isn't really high (assuming unemployed), now if you want CORBA that could be a different story.

[jandrewrogers]

Where did you get $1200/month in the US? At least where I live, it is $400/month.

[Tainnor]

it's impossible (i.e. illegal) in Germany to be uninsured. you may have to pay yourself depending on the situation (I had to do it once between jobs), but the amount you have to pay is not crazy, and there are no people who have no health insurance because they can't afford it. For example, if you are eligible for ALG II (aka Hartz IV, i.e. long-term unemployment benefits), your health insurance is automatically paid for.

[wreath]

If you're not eligible for ALG II (so I guess your first year of unemployment), do you have to pay for insurance from your unemployment benefits?

[literallycancer]

What's stopping you from choosing and paying for your own health insurance in the US?

[buran77]

A salary is like RAM, you only notice if it's too little. Once you reach this comfort level where you can cover your expenses and feed your lifestyle without having to think too much about it, getting some extra will make far less impact than the number might suggest. Not having enough money is like drowning and you'd do anything for a breath of air. Having just enough to live comfortably is like getting to the edge of the beach. Moving further up the beach a bit is nice but you certainly won't be willing to break your back to get there.

It's not only diminishing returns at work but simply crossing that comfort threshold severely drops the incentives from "survival mode" to "eh... yeah... maybe".

And sure, if you like living just above your means you'll always be in "survival mode". Always the better car, the better house, the better vacation, they need to be financed and every little bit will count. I think that's not where most people are.

[Joeri]

What you do get (speaking here from my experience in Belgium) is that the top of the wage scale is invisible because past a certain tier everyone works as a consultant to avoid the high taxes. It is not unusual in senior tech roles to charge 1K+ per day or 20K+ per month, and pay a lower effective tax rate on that income, while having long term engagements with the same companies so that little time is lost to churn.

[codethief]

> everyone works as a consultant to avoid the high taxes

You mean, to avoid the social security fees (health/pension/unemployment/…)? After all, as a consultant (whether incorporated or not) you still need to pay taxes and the rates are pretty similar to tax rates for employees.

[Joeri]

The people that I know that are self-employed and earning high incomes generally are incorporated and have an accountant to set up tax avoidance strategies to have a lower effective tax rate. Effective tax rates seem to follow a gauss curve, low at the bottom, low at the top, highest for the middle earners.

[distances]

That'll vary by country and won't be efficient everywhere in Europe. Certainly in Germany freelancers pay the same taxes as regular employees, and setting up a company means more taxes, not less.

[ido]

There is literally an IT workers union in Austria (when we lived there every job came with a minimum pay based on Kollektivvertrag for the role - you could get more than the minimum of course).

[gdcbe]

Dunno where you live but in Belgium:

- That salary certainly does seem realistic, even though I'm on the higher end and have a base salary above that;

- I also get the same amount of paid holidays, might be even a couple more;

- we have great hospitality insurance, mutuality (general health care) has to be paid by ourselves however, even though that's cheap;

- they do help me save for pension in the form of a contribution, but it certainly isn't enough to retire of, I see it more like a nice base, but will definitely need money on top of that to actually keep living a good live (at least if I want to stay in Belgium);

- they are flexible in timing for sure, that is something I'm grateful for, as long as I get the work done it's cool;

- they do not expect work in the weekends or after office hours (if you do flexible hours it's of course up to you to do the promised hours at some point or another of course);

However, never ever:

- have I get overtime paid, in any of the companies I worked for in Belgium or the UK;

- have I get the chance to be in some kind of union that's standardised within the companies I work for, haven't even heard ever of a union for software developers;

Further more I'm always been told that despite the fact that they earn their 200k salaries they on top of that get also nice bonuses, options on stocks, 4k pension saving and premium health insurance covered. Or is that too much rainbows and unicorns I heard of?

[danbmil99]

Not rainbows -- FAANG are out-bidding startups at every level.

If you have a modicum of talent and a flair for interviews, they will gladly buy your soul for $250k/year + bennies from heaven.

[weatherlite]

Hmm a modicum of talent? It's pretty hard to get in. Doesn't necessarily take talent but it sure helps. Either that or the willingness and ability to grind out so many interviews you actually become good at it. Whatever the case not everyone is capable or event want to go through with it. And its not as if FAANG are a good representation of the industry, maybe 5% of devs work there?

[gdcbe]

I see, so while not rainbows it does come with the fact that you're expected to be a slave on location for 24/7? So if I understand it correctly it is only rainbows if you wish to combine that with a family life and without having to move to us?

[Anderkent]

> while not rainbows it does come with the fact that you're expected to be a slave on location for 24/7?

Not at all. You're expected to be productive to a certain standard (and even that is sometimes iffy), not to be 24/7 available.

[Hydraulix989]

That's just the first year out of school pay. It goes up to mid six figures quickly once you get a promotion or two.

[demosito666]

Sorry for the flood, just a remark. As a devops engineer from Eastern Europe (with "senior" formal title) in a large international consultancy, these numbers sound like they are from another planet to me. $250k+/year to me sounds indistinguishable from $200000000000000000000/year.

[alistairSH]

FAANG employees, particularly on the West Coast, are an anomaly, even within the US. People also often include stock grants in listed comp, so be sure your comparing apples to apples.

DC/Mid-Atlantic salaries at an established (non-FAANG) company are more like $85-$100k for a recent grad, $130-$170 for senior developer positions. Most of those jobs are in the suburbs, where a nice house is in the $500-$1million range.

[decafninja]

While there is cost of living differences per region in compensation too, I imagine the typical senior+ software engineer in the US is lucky to retire after decades of work having broken $200k-250k total compensation. Meanwhile junior FAANG engineers are probably making that much.

I'd say this applies to HCOL areas too like NYC or even the SFBA. If you're working for a cludgy old Fortune 500 tech-is-a-cost-center enterprise company (where the majority of SWEs are working), you're probably not making more than $200k-250k at best as a senior SWE with many, many years of experience unless you have some niche specialty.

[claytonjy]

Important to note that "senior dev" here means title, not actual seniority, e.g. ~5 yrs experience gets you in that range even at an early-stage startup in the Midwest.

[menaerus]

You haven't. That's the sad reality for devs living in the EU (or elsewhere but not in the States). 200k is also a bit generous, senior engineers that are specialized in <xyz> tech do earn much much more than that, anywhere from 2x to 5x. Yes, 5x that amount for an engineer. I didn't believe this myself but that's really how it is.

However, given that more and more companies are becoming more open to WFH setting, it will hopefully make the things better for the devs outside the States.

[ca01an]

What tech do you have to specialize in to get $1 million a year?

[menaerus]

Big-data, AI, HFT ... Basically anything that has been and is a hot topic and which generates a lot of revenue. But I am clearly not thinking of an average Joe level of expertise. It requires to have all around the stack skills including the ability to grasp the big picture of the product and drive it forward.

Technical skills wise, for areas from above, you'd usually be looking at the strong background in algorithms, math & statistics, internals of operating systems, underlying hardware but mostly about the CPU at the microarchitectural level and strong expertise in at least one programming language.

[snakke]

In general in Belgium if you work overtime that time is then alloted to "inhaalrust" up to a certain point (you're never able to work more then 11h/day or 50h/week). Only if you have like a specific agreement where you work "voluntary" overtime, which is not counted towards inhaalrust, but is the standard 50% extra or 100% extra on sundays/holidays.

More info can basically be found on https://werk.belgie.be/nl/themas/werkbaar-en-wendbaar-werk/a... (also available in French).

As for unions, normally if a company reaches 50 employees they are required by law to have a union rep. How exactly that works I don't know. Also while I personally also have never heard of a software specific union, you can always just go with the big normal unions if you want, it's not like they're going to turn you away.

[Symbiote]

> haven't even heard ever of a union for software developers

Now you have: https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/ or https://www.unitetheunion.org/ in the UK.

I had colleagues in both at a previous job, depending whether their jobs were more scientific (we'd call it data science now) or engineering.

Both unions are more general than just software/IT.

[sethherr]

It’s very expected to get options, pensions (401k matching) and premium health insurance.

[pjmlp]

Basically DACH region.

[brabel]

I disagree. I also have all those things you mention. I own a house, but it's far from the city center and my commute is one-hour each way (which thanks to COVID I haven't had to endure for 2 years now, I can't even think of going back to that now). If I wanted to buy a house of similar level as mine, but much closer to the city center, it would cost so much I would need to earn something like twice as much as I earn now to be able to keep up with payments.

That, to me, shows that my salary is still well below the well off people in the city who can afford those houses (for an idea of what I'm talking about: houses in the more affordable areas around the city where you can get 20mins commutes or less, or even ride a bicycle to work, cost upwards of €700,000... with my current salary, the recommendation is that I shouldn't borrow more than €350,000 - around 4.5 times the yearly salary before taxes, so I need to first save around €350,000 or sell my current house and hope I'll make this much in return to be able to buy a house where I want... even then I would be playing with fire as interest rates are set to increase and any increase could get me just below water if I tried something like that). I would say that, given this, to be considered well off you need to make enough to be able to afford a house like I am talking about here, which would require you to probably earn at least €100,000 per year, which is well above my current pay and I don't know any companies here that pay this much for developers no matter how experienced (though I've heard it's possible - just never seen it concretely and never seen offers above 75,000).

[sascha_sl]

Have a Germany anecdote.

>Healthcare

That's definitely a you problem, the US is the outlier here.

>30 paid holidays

24. Based on 6 day workweek. So 20. More is optional.

>Unions, Paid overtime

Rarely are there Unions specifically for the IT department. Employers here like "Vertrauensarbeitszeit", which means count your own hours, which usually ends up with you doing more (unpaid) work.

>weekends and calls off work come extra

Also very much depends on the job, many people do it without asking for compensation. In one place just being on call got me a good extra 20% salary, in another they refused to pay for it and now it's "non-mandatory" - but they know someone will likely still pick up the phone.

>Retirement

Biggest scam in history. I get the need for such a programm, but I'll be getting maybe 10% of what I put in out. Fuck being a millennial I guess.

>Flex Time

Already said. Mostly a negative because your performance review will check if your projects, planned with way too little time, will be completed. At least that's the case in development teams. I stick to platform teams for this reason.

[pjmlp]

Pick companies that have IG Metal deals, for example.

Quite a well known names do it.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Pick companies that have IG Metal deals

Cherry picking a specific company/domains doesn't help your argument of "everyone in Europe has it so good".

Yeah, everyone knows IG metal in Germany has it good. Others? Maybe not so much.

[pjmlp]

Whatever I would have written, people would always nitpick one way or the other, so I simplified it anyway.

[rusticpenn]

I am in a company which is part of IG Metal. Still does not work well. IG Metal does a lot of good for us though.

[bitschubser_]

I second that... IG Metal companies have nice deals 35h/week is the norm, 30days paid vacation and a decent salary for germany...

[eyjafjallajokul]

> Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ...

If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently. I posit that making this much money more than covers any of these additional expenses that you call out.

[exdsq]

Anyone here earning $500k in their 20s like this person suggests?

I’m sure some can but this is not the norm and expectations need to be checked and called out when wrong.

[dan-robertson]

I think it feels like a bit of an extrapolation from recent market conditions. But someone who’s 28 is still in their 20s and can have enough experience to be considered a senior engineer. Big tech companies will pay >$250k for that and recently those companies have done very well in stock markets so if you were offered $x of shares (at the current price) over 4 years at the start of the job, they would now be worth say $2x. If you combine that with a job market where those companies are all competing for the same people it is likely one could do well by being in the group that is being competed for.

So I think it is reasonably plausible for someone towards the older end of the range with a bit of skill and good fortune. It feels unlikely that the trend which I described above (of company stock going up 2x every two years) will continue so I would expect effective compensation to go down a bit. But on the other hand compensation can be pretty sticky and plenty of people will be willing to quit after reaching the 4 year cliff (where their stock awards would no longer be worth 2x what they were meant to be worth) to look for high pay elsewhere.

[chifintech2021]

Most of the devs at prop trading companies in Chicago or New York will hit 500k/yr after a few years if they can hack it and stomach it. Depending on how close to the money they are, it could be 2-6 years.

[exdsq]

The fact we’re specifying specific types of roles in specific cities indicates it’s not a case of “just moving to the US to earn $500k”

[aix1]

Yes, and those aren't your typical 9-5 gigs either.

[nvarsj]

Unless it changed dramatically in recent years, when I was in Chicago prop trading firms were paying mid 200 to 300 after a few years. 500k was definitely not normal comp for most engineers at any trading firm, although obviously there are exceptions.

[exdsq]

Thank you. This is really my point. People share these rumors of a small minority making huge sums and normalize it as what anyone can do, which just does harm to the industry and to individuals. People actually in the sector/area know it’s not true yet there are those just sharing things they heard like facts.

[comp_throw7]

Entry-level SWE comp for top-end finance shops in Chicago & NY is 400k+, so, ah, no. See levels.fyi.

[0xfaded]

I was in startup land over in SF, so my salary topped out lower at 160k USD but with ~2% equity.

I was in a partnership in a small plane, and one of the guys was "in his 20's making $500k+" at google as an L6 plus retention bonus. Several engineers in my circle (early 30's) are on $500k+.

Currently I'm living in Europe but leaving back to SF. I tell people all the time about salaries in the US and point them to levels.fyi, but these salaries are so detached from their realities that they seem simply unable to believe them. Go look at levels.fyi, it matches very well with what I've heard on the ground.

[mcv]

I think the big question is: can you reach these salaries on a normal work week, or does this require sacrificing your personal life?

[michaelt]

For some jobs, higher salaries correlate with worse working conditions. The warehouse worker who moves from day shift to night shift, or the oil worker who moves from onshore to oil rig work, can demand a higher salary.

But more broadly, higher salaries correlate with better working conditions. That warehouse worker will have targets to hit every single shift, get in trouble for being five minutes late, will get written up for taking sick leave without a doctor's note, and will have to pay for their own food and drinks.

On the other hand, most jobs that pay a six-figure salary? There might be quarterly department-level targets, but you won't get fired for missing them. Flexible working hours, and no checks you're putting in your hours. Illness? Take as long off as you need. Of course there's free tea, coffee and snacks. Maybe there's also free breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Just because a job is highly paid, doesn't mean it'll be particularly onerous - in fact, often the opposite!

[mcv]

That's true, but my impression is that many of those super high-paying jobs in the US expect 60-80 hour work weeks. That's a pretty hefty sacrifice. If you can also get those salaries on a 36 hour work week, then that's definitely better.

[lrem]

I'm L6 at Google. My work week is the 40 hours of my choosing. I spend Wednesday afternoons with my kids.

[exdsq]

I live in Palo Alto so I’m aware - but it is not easy to get to that point. It’s not a case of “oh, move to the US and earn $500k!”.

[dastbe]

are you interested in the norm in terms of raw numbers, or where you would need to work to achieve this? and are you interested in people who have won the stock lottery, or just people who have their total comp pegged at 500k+?

assuming the latter, you're looking at getting hired in at level as a senior engineer (maybe one level higher depending on the company) at most of your brand name tech companies that value engineering talent.

[exdsq]

Okay sure, but it’s hardly the case one can just join a FAANG company at a senior level to earn $500k easily as OP suggests.

Want to retire early? Easy! Just become a managing partner at JP Morgan in your late 20s and you’ll be rich enough by 30.

[ricardobayes]

Although I have yet to see a person with no lifestyle creep in these kinds of jobs. You start earning, you start spending. Yes, some people don't, but I keep hearing sad stories on that front too (guy did FIRE only for his wife to leave him after 6 months because they didn't keep up with the Kardashians. Some people feel mega-excluded if they can't partake in casual conversations like 'we are shopping for a new expensive carpet' or 'we just got a 8k lamp'.

[sgerenser]

I don't know if this is who you were talking about, but this guy was a big FIRE proponent/blogger who posted last year about his divorce after not updating his blog for several years: https://livingafi.com. It took a few years of early retirement and his coming down with a medical condition, though: "During this time of physical rehabilitation, while I was struggling with the physical issues, my partner finally figured out what would make her happier. It was a relationship with another man."

[dastbe]

i would guess as a percentage there are two orders of magnitude more senior engineers at an arbitrary tech company vs managing directors at an arbitrary investment bank. senior engineer is ~5 years of experience to achieve, with maybe 1-2 years extra if you're meandering.

[exdsq]

I was being facetious - advising someone to become rich and retire early by getting a very difficult to achieve role in another country 10x that counties annual salary in their 20s is not much better than saying to someone if they want to become rich they should just become a world famous actor or something. It’s just unrealistic advice that does more harm than good (and it rubs me the wrong way hence these responses lol). It seems to be a view perpetually shared by someone who knows someone who heard something and then treats it as the norm.

[rpmisms]

I recently hit six figures at 20. By far not the norm.

[maccard]

There's a huge difference between 100k and 500k though.

[exdsq]

The gap between 250 and 500 is far wider than 0 and 250. Six figures at 20 is awesome but it’s not continuous explosive growth

[Broken_Hippo]

Is it really? I mean, you more than likely aren't going to get paid 500k+ per year, even if you "navigate your career" efficiently.

And in so many cases, you might be losing out. Did you want vacation time or do you simply want to work while you are young?

Do you want to have children in your 20's? If so, maybe not move to the US. Your child probably will have citizenship of your home country - but maybe not, especially if you don't move back. Worse, though, is that the child automatically becomes a US citizen. This means that if you move away, your child must have a US passport if they ever want to visit again... or must pay $2350 to renounce. It means that the child will, until they renounce, be taxed by the US government on their global earnings.

You probably won't get 4-5 weeks of vacation a year - and even if you do, it isn't a legal requirement that they let you use much of it. And they probably won't let you take 3 weeks off at a time.

Or you might find that you get sick and lose your job. You might fall in love and realize that your partner isn't eligible to move to your country with you. You might find that your retirement in your home country isn't as much because you haven't paid into it as much (depending on the system). Or you could very easily find that your retirement is tied up in a 401k that failed miserably, leaving you without.

If you have dark skin, you might find yourself dealing with a US police force at a traffic stop in ways you didn't in your home country. Good luck if you are trans, and in some places, a same-sex relationship will get you ostracized. Of course, the places in the US where that happens most aren't places paying 500k - in no small part because those places are few.

So no, it isn't totally worth it to move to the US.

[faiD9Eet]

I would like to second that. I would even take education options into account, if I had kids.

I did the calculation for my current job (Germany, huge telekommunications company, city of 200.000 inhabitants). It goes like this

* 72'000€ a year * 38 hours of work per week, distributed to my choosing * 44 days of paid vacation per year * approximately 20 days of paid sick leave per year * 10 days of paid child sick leave per year * covered health insurance

To match those conditions, a job in the US must pay 180'000$ per year (in cash) plus health insurance for me, my family and their education.

Though I do not know what equity is worth. Can those 500k$/y earners get their compansation in cash?

[frockington1]

Most vacation packages for software devs are unlimited or in the 3-4 week range. Plenty of time for a long vacation in the Spring and a shorter one in the fall. It's one of the only things that keeps me going through it all

[Broken_Hippo]

In other words, you might be able to take a couple weeks in the spring - with some companies - and maybe a week during the autumn. Yet stories of folks getting vacation and not being able to actually use the vacation time abound.

It shouldn't be an issue to take all of your vacation time all at once if you should so choose.

[rojcyk]

It used to be like that. I was playing with the idea a couple years ago as well. But looking at the social climate in the states, I'll rather keep my low paying job (in comparison to the FAANG) and enjoy the general safety.

[nly]

You say that like moving to the US is as easy as pie. Emigration to the US is incredibly difficult.

[marvin]

It depends. A friend of mine has been working for Microsoft in Ireland for a few years, and immigration to the US (green card track, two years if employed, I think) for him was practically a formality.

[drcoopster]

It goes both ways. Emigration _from_ the US to another western country is also incredibly difficult.

[eertami]

Moving from Western Europe to the US is such a QOL decrease that even for 500k, people are only going to do it if they are desperate.

[ghaff]

Because Western Europe and the US are such homogeneous entities.

[suifbwish]

I will bite. Show me links to the data on this.

[menzoic]

https://levels.fyi

[mcv]

Looks like there are plenty of $200k SE jobs in Amsterdam. It's just that most of them are at Booking and Adyen.

[weatherlite]

Plenty idk. Could be that high earners really like reporting about their salaries? I mean it must feel much better to go into a salaries website and tell everyone you're making 200K than it is 70K, so it could be biased upwards. Truth is these Dutch companies don't have to pay that much - so many people from all over the world want to work there 80-100K is more than plenty. Maybe super high management will get 200K.

[mcv]

That's possible, but if Amsterdam has big name tech companies, Booking and Adyen are definitely it, so perhaps it makes sense that they pay more. Sadly I'm not that interested in working for them; Booking uses way too many dark patterns for my taste, and I've been to Adyen's office, and they had dozens of programmers working in a single noisy room. That didn't appeal to me at all.

[pjmlp]

Assuming success and a better career outcome away from home without support from anyone.

[b112]

Yes, but, it is trivial to pack bags when young, show up for job, rent a furnished place, and just start living.

If the job doesn't work out, you can just pack and go home.

Worst case, you get to see a new city, meet new people, and have some memories.

[ihateolives]

> Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.

It is changing though in the tech field. Yes, it used to be that 10 years in the same company showed that you're loyal and dependable, but now it's more like "so you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". There's a difference between changing jobs twice a year and every few years.

[zelphirkalt]

As a software developer, if anyone asked me something like "Should we hire this person, who has had 5 jobs in 10 years?" I would suggest caution. Not immediate rejection, but at least caution. Especially, if all they talk about in the interview is, how they introduced new tech xyz at previous employer. Even more so, if it is about some frontend framework of the month. For me 5 jobs in 10 years would still be some kind of an at least yellow to orange flag.

Many people just want to try out new tech and when that fun is over and they have introduced the cost of complexity for that new toy, they run off to the next job. "Improving" the world in another place.

Fun for them, maybe, but bad for the employer. 2 years is often barely enough to have experienced maintaining the full system of the employer for a while and have felt the costs of complexity. Someone who runs from that every 2 years ... I would be careful with that. I am not saying, that this is the case with everyone, who follows the 2 years strategy, but often it is.

In comparison, if I was visiting interviews and if someone interviewed me and asked something like: "So you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". I would probably start to laugh and mention to them, how I had a major hand in basically everything that was developed in the whole organization, have done everything from dev-ops to backend and frontend and more in my job and I have maintained it. If that is nothing to them, then they are probably do not value experience or have no idea what to look for.

[csunbird]

This post really strikes me as ignorant. Most of the developers stay around 2 years in a company, because the companies usually do not make market price adjustments to the salaries and you start to lag behind if you stay too long.

For example, after 2.5 years, I am looking for a new job, as the company is simply refusing to make adjustments based on the market prices, even after a promotion, I am making 20 percent less than I should be making right now, and this is not an isolated incident.

Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good. Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.

[mwigdahl]

That's a pretty harsh categorization. I am a hiring manager at my company and I echo GP's thoughts almost exactly. An extended history of 2-year engagements is not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it requires explanation. The hiring and onboarding process is arduous enough without having to repeat it every two years for every position.

I get what you're saying about the salaries -- our company just recently started a program to normalize salaries with the market and it was certainly sorely needed as we had become notably out of sync. But from the perspective of the business, we don't start getting a strong positive ROI out of a new hire until about a year in. To turn over staff after less than two years is a real cost to us and potential employees that are prone to that are often not the best choices when that risk is factored in.

I also reject your false dichotomy. There are not just two reasons to stay at a company for 10 years. You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.

I'm sure you have pursued all avenues with the company you are currently at, but on the off chance you haven't tried it, I suggest talking frankly with your manager about your market value (backed up with hard numbers from reputable sources) and pointing out that their cost to replace you _and train your replacement_ would greatly exceed the cost of bringing you up to a competitive salary. If the manager has latitude and a brain, this might work for you.

[csunbird]

I have discussed this with my team leader, but, unfortunately, my company's HR/People organization do not believe in opening up Pandora's box by increasing salaries.

The discussions with my team leader/manager has been going on for more than 6 months now, and it always hit up the same wall: The salary bands are inflexible and the short sighted approach of "making an offer after the employee puts their notice in" culture continues. The HR team believes that (as this is what they have been doing pre-COVID), they can just import people below the market value abroad and replace the people asking for more salaries, although this is just a false notion right now, and they are having extreme problems with hiring.

> You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.

Yes, but this is something that needs to be explained to the hiring manager. Leaving after 2.5-3 years are now the norm, and staying for 10 years is now an outlier, unlike what the GP trying to picture 2 years stays as red flags. I do not feel pressured to explain why I want to leave the company, mostly what I am being asked is what I am looking for in the new company.

[zelphirkalt]

I feel sorry, that you are in this situation. Consider this: If they are willing to raise wage when employees put their notice in, then perhaps that has become the normal flow in the organization, towards higher salary. Or also: If they are willing to pay higher salary then, why not before one starts drama?

I am talking from a position of never having had to ask for a raise, so I am probably biased as well. My job is not a job, in which one can sit back and do a lot of busy work. We have new challenges often and are developing the core product, while the organization is growing and there are more customers all the time. We are thinking about scalability of the product and such things. Many things are in the making. Is it the perfect job? Maybe not. It depends on what you value in a job. Pay, work-life balance, what you work on, co-workers, office setup. There are many things, so the answer might look different for different people.

Best wishes for the future and hopefully you will get that raise.

[zelphirkalt]

You are making a good point on one hand, but on the other hand you seem to have misunderstood me. Let me elaborate:

> For example, after 2.5 years, I am looking for a new job, as the company is simply refusing to make adjustments based on the market prices, even after a promotion, I am making 20 percent less than I should be making right now, and this is not an isolated incident.

OK, that is just one job change. It is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years. I think everyone is fine with a few quick job changes. Just don't let it become a pattern. And even then I mentioned, that I would not immediately reject, but caution. I am not seeing, what is ignorant about that, tbh. So yes, if the company does not want to adapt, or pay for experience, then I would not argue against job change. However, also one should consider, that most people make way less money in the job market and that they are not in the position to ask for a raise every so and so many years, just because those years have gone by. Software developers already earn good wages usually, in many areas, and I am not merely talking about the valley or stuff like that. Just compare your wage with nurses and similar.

I am also not arguing about wanting to get paid a proper wage. Maybe I would argue a bit against always wanting more, because you can have more elsewhere. That does not really entitle anyone to "have a right to get paid more". Of course you are free to aim for money rather than solidity, but if you do it frequently, you will one day have to face the consequences. Those being, that people might have a hunch, that you will be gone at the first sign of higher pay elsewhere. (Exaggerating here, ofc.)

But now to the points, where I think you misunderstood me:

> Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), [...]

Well, I did use the conjunctive form there. I am not.

> [...] or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good.

And those are the only 2 options you see? That either skills are not transferable or that it must be the perfect place? Sorry, this is waaay to black and white. It is also possible, that you learn many skills on your job, which are indeed transferable. That is a possibility you do not consider.

> Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.

Why do you automatically assume, that everyone who works somewhere for a longer time has "withered their skills"? It's non-sense in that generality.

[csunbird]

As I explained in a sibling comment, unfortunately, the 2-3 year stays are now the norm and 10 year stays are the outliers.

Doing the same job in the same company does give you blind spots, as 90 percent of the companies do not allow novelties in their processes and tech stacks, e.g. you might not be allowed to do containerize your applications, as the current procedure "just works". If your job allows you to sharpen your skills, keep up with the tech stack, allows you to learn new algorithms and add new skills to your arsenal, even after 10 years of work: Congratulations! You have the perfect job, please let me know of the company, so that I can apply.

>OK, that is just one job change. It is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years.

Exactly! The frequency needs to be slower, as with more experience, you are supposed to have a good sense what works out for you and choose a job that you won't be leaving after a year or two. That is why you are expected to stay longer as you get more experience, from what I understand with my measly 6 years of experience in the field.

But, maybe you should also consider that the job market has changed and 2 year turnovers may not present a huge red flag, as long as the candidate can explain why they wanted to switch jobs. Although, many companies are now optimizing their salary/perks/promotion structure and their culture for developers staying for 2-4 years, instead of 10 years as it is used to be. All my three companies were like this, maybe I am just too unlucky, I guess.

[hiq]

> I am also not arguing about wanting to get paid a proper wage. Maybe I would argue a bit against always wanting more, because you can have more elsewhere. That does not really entitle anyone to "have a right to get paid more". Of course you are free to aim for money rather than solidity, but if you do it frequently, you will one day have to face the consequences. Those being, that people might have a hunch, that you will be gone at the first sign of higher pay elsewhere.

This is self-correcting though: if you end up with a CV with so much job-hopping that you don't get any more offers because of that, you'll just stay where you are until your last experience is long enough to prove that this is not a concern anymore. So I wouldn't worry about that.

No hard evidence here, but I think you really have to push it to end up in this situation, and I don't think 3 or 4 two-year stints put you in this position (especially not in SV, but even elsewhere as long as you have a story to tell). Talking about the market in general, of course some companies might have biases for candidates who only had longer experiences.

[pjmlp]

Depends, there is a big difference between staying at the same role or having moved between roles while at the same company.

Also better have a good answer why having changed so much between companies, saying it was for more money isn't going to be a good outcome on an interview.

[mcv]

This has never been a problem for me. The job I stayed the longest was almost 4 years, most were 2 years or less. Switching jobs is good for your development and growth.

If you want a good answer for that question, tell them you switch jobs once it's become clear that there's not enough room for growth in a company anymore. And this growth isn't just about salary; it's also about learning new skills, new technologies, new responsibilities. If they want to keep you longer than that, they need to keep investing in you.

[eyko]

I'm from Europe and I don't find unions particularly attractive, especially when they want to function like guilds, as they do in my country. That's basically gatekeeping and they want to have the power to specify salary ranges based on qualifications (e.g. university degrees, certifications, etc). A lot of people in the tech community are self taught and don't always take well to the idea that the only way to prove your worth is with a piece of paper they'd have to pay for.

In my current situation (UK) I have all the benefits you mentioned with none of the drawbacks, especially not the salary $60k salary cap (which I think is a misconception since some jobs I looked at during the whole Brexit fiasco were in Europe and paying closer to €90k).

[avar]

I don't know about unions in the UK, but in some other European countries your union won't have anything to do with your salary negotiation or setting industry-wide salary ranges.

They might if you're in a teacher's union, or working in some minimum-wage job with a mandatory union.

But for any high-paying position like software engineering your union is there to have your back if you're being screwed over on your employment contract, to bust the balls of employers who worked you for 41 hours, but only paid out 40 etc.

It's essentially a form of collective employment insurance for your industry, for which you'd pay a small monthly fee.

[weatherlite]

I'm not saying software devs have it necessarily bad in Europe, but a talented individual in Europe is better off doing something in finance (accountant, tax advisor), medicine or law. The salaries will be better, the work more appreciated, and probably better job security. The fact that giving options is so rare in Europe is mind blowing for such a so called socialist continent. It's actually the U.S who is socialist for its tech workers.

[ChuckNorris89]

>30 paid holidays

I'm always angered by these over-generalizations for the whole of Europe. Europe is not a single country with identical laws and working conditions but they differ wildly by borders.

The minimum amount of vacation days by EU law is 20 per year for every full-time worker in the EU but workers can get more based on union negotiations of each individual country or individual company perks that wish to attract talent.

In Austria, the norm is 25 paid vacation days a year for all full-time workers including tech workers. I rarely saw more that 25 days of vacation offered for tech workers here even at supposedly "top" companies which Austria doesn't have many of.

>paid overtime

Same for this. In Austria, most tech jobs don't pay overtime (thanks to shitty "all-in" contracts) but, factory style jobs with clocked shift-work do, since those are usually unionized and the metall workers union is one of the strongest in the country. Also many jobs, especially in public healthcare sector do a lot of unpaid overtime due to underfunding and staff shortages. In low-skilled jobs with high competition, like hospitality and cleaning services, unpaid overtime and your boss being abusive is pretty much the norm.

>Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen

Gee, let me guess, hyper-conservative, 100-year-old German boomer companies(factories)? They're free to expect that, but staying 10+ years at the same company was good way-back-when there wasn't rampant inflation, and rampant real-estate prices, and a factory worker could support a family and buy a home from his income and he'd be employed till retirement and the company would always invest in his training. Those days are long-gone now thanks to globalization, offshoring of jobs and unrestricted immigration, so any company is happy to keep your wage growth below asset inflation levels as you loose out and the company wins as inflation is eating their loan paybacks and the salary they have to pay you, so the only way for you to claw back some of those losses is to job-hop (if you can).

And if you don't like it, there's nothing you can do about it if you don't have skills in high demand in a filed suffering from a shortage in your domain, as unlike the 1960's when even workers with basic education(high-school) had leverage, the company can now hire through a plethora of more candidates thanks to easy immigration, or offshore your job completely to a palace with less employee/environmental protection, while paying fuck-all in taxes through their shell company registered at a post-box in Luxembourg, basically depriving workers of most of their leverage they had in the past. That's why political parties on both extremes of the spectrum are seeing a resurgence in Europe. If we don't fix the rampant wealth inequality yesterday, we're gonna see political extremes and civil unrest growing stronger in Europe. Which is why I guess the EU nation states are so keen on gaining more surveillance powers and banning encryption, to make sure they stomp out any civil unrest before it happens.

The biggest perk we have in most EU countries is paid sick leave and health insurance if you lose your job. If your health ever declines and you end up loosing your job this is invaluable to not becoming homeless. Although many of those social benefits suffered cutbacks and receiving them became stricter in some countries after the 2008 recession.

[IshKebab]

Yeah same in the UK. 25 days is the norm. 28 days is good. 30 days is very rare. Also nobody gets paid overtime, the company's pension contribution is 5% of your salary.

Yes benefits are better in Europe, but not so much that you're better off earning $100k here than $200k in America.

[nivenkos]

And you will rarely even earn $100k.

Like I live in a European capital and am just below $100k after almost 8 years of experience.

We're just colonised by massive US corporations which ship the profits back to the US (and avoid as much tax as they can!).

[wreath]

> We're just colonised by massive US corporations which ship the profits back to the US (and avoid as much tax as they can!).

We're colonized by the over-regulation that doesn't appreciate entrepreneurship and stifles innovation. That's why big tech almost never starts in Europe. For better or for worse.

[weatherlite]

100K is really high for Europe unless you're in Switzerland/UK. Was living in Netherlands and 85K Euro is really really good, that's probably the top 10% of engineering earners.

[episteme]

But does this include bank holidays? We have 8(?) paid bank holidays in the UK so even 22 days is in reality 30. There are much fewer in the US.

[dfawcus]

The UK implementation of the WTR requires that (full time) works have a minimum of 28 days paid leave (including the Bank/Public holidays - of which there about 8).

Contract normally specify the paid leave excluding such Bank Holidays, so will be a minimum of 20. It is only the days above those 20 where the employer is giving one something extra.

[comp_throw7]

Err, what? The company I work for (in the US) has like 13-14 paid holidays, and recently gave everyone an extra 3 days off right before the New Year. I think we probably have one or two more than average, but not by that much.

[IshKebab]

It doesn't, so yeah standard is 33 days including bank holidays. How many are there in the US?

[mantas]

Why would you include national holidays into vacation days? National holiday is more like an extra sunday. You can't move it for example if you're on a medical leave through it.

[richrichardsson]

I worked for a company in the UK who allowed the option to work on Bank Holidays and take those days in lieu, was great way to actually get some developing done without the constant interruption of working in an open plan office.

[rejschaap]

You can't move it, but you do get paid. So it's worth something.

[thargor90]

Just wanted to add that in Austria you have:

* 25 paid days off (vacation)

* + 13 paid days (national holidays/bank holidays)

* + 1 personal paid day off (this is quite new)

* + 5-10 paid days off to care for a sick child

* + 1-3 paid days off for moving/wedding

* + up to 40 days paid sick leave (per case)

* + 40-80 days paid off for pregnant women (Mutterschutz)

* + some companies/contracts offer more than that

additionally to that you have:

* Karenz - up to two years maternity leave (paid, but capped)

* Bildungskarenz - up to one year education leave (paid, but capped)

* Arbeitslosengeld - unemployment insurance for at least six months, but up to 5 years (paid, but capped)

All this stuff does not depend on your employer. For some

(everything based on 5 day workweek)

[daemin]

Just to add some information for Poland.

The standard is 20 days of holidays, although if you've been in the workforce for long enough (I think it's 10 years) or completed tertiary studies and worked for a few less years you'll get 26 days of holidays each year.

There is paid overtime with a maximum number of days and hours that you can work per year. Though in my industry some people end up chewing through that within the first few months. Things are better in this company for now.

As far as job hopping on the resume, I think the optimal thing to do is to hop every few years, but I don't see that as a negative.

[pjmlp]

Sure it was a stereotype, still there is contract negotiation, there is the law for all cases and what one can manage to put into their contract.

Also get knowledgeable about work law and have a legal insurance.

Even downgrading my example to how things go back home in Portugal versus DACH where I have been for the last 20 years, I would pick our conditions over FAANG salary without the social part.

[ChuckNorris89]

>Sure it was a stereotype

Claiming everyone in Europe gets 30 vacation days when that's obviously false is not a stereotype, but a gross over exaggeration. Just because you get that perk doesn't magically make it true for the whole EU.

[richrichardsson]

> unrestricted immigration

The effect of immigration on wages is overblown.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/

[ChuckNorris89]

How so?

If you have more people competing for the same job, then the wages go down, and vice-versa, the less potential employees you have, the higher the wages have to go to fill the position.

The supply/demands fraction is basic math. Are you saying math doesn't work?

[richrichardsson]

No, I'm saying research has shown that wages are depressed for some workers, but not by the levels the anti-immigration brigade would have you believe.

[ChuckNorris89]

>research has shown that wages are depressed for some workers, but not by the levels the anti-immigration brigade would have you believe.

That statement is pretty vague and pretty obvious on some levels but provides no concrete numbers and evidence that's generally applicable (basically it's easy to cherry pick some results and make generic claims afterwards that don't hold water).

I'm not pro-immigration and I'm not anti-immigration but I know math and personally experienced that whenever you have a lower supply of candidates then I have much more leverage for negotiations and better work conditions and have experienced the opposite, of employers being dicks due to over-supply of labor.

I therefore take those "research" findings with a generous train load of salt.

[richrichardsson]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, did you read the linked article? Are those 3 studies it links to invalid? (genuine question)

edit: sorry, just seen your edit. Care to elaborate why you think they are dismissible?

[donquichotte]

Beautiful, you put into writing what has been on my mind for quite some time.

[sdevonoes]

> Like the OP, my expenses are more than covered, getting more isn't worth the hassle to change.

But (in Western Europe at least) all jobs offer the same nice things: tons of vacation days, unions, paid overtime, healthcare. So switching jobs becomes only about: am I going to get significantly more money or not?

[sokoloff]

Some of those are nice things, indeed, but when you ballpark the hourly rates, you’re paying a very high price for them.

30 days PTO instead of 15 or 20 and being paid overtime instead of just being paid 3-5x as much with overtime being “included” isn’t obviously better to me.

[ryan93]

Faang engineers have most of that plus a few million extra to play with in retirement.

[paiute]

In the USA we describe this problem with the Laffer curve.

[pirate787]

Must be nice to live rent-free under the U.S. security umbrella.

[nivenkos]

Ami go home.

We should build up our own European industry like we had with Linux, MySQL and Nokia, etc.