[e4e78a06]

I know many startups who are now paying _interns_ more than other companies are paying senior devs. It is conceivable to get paid $70+/h at Series A startups as an intern and $140-150k + 20-40k in options as a new grad.

Speaking frankly as someone who has worked at bog standard F500 companies that pay "not so much" to HFT, experience is not nearly as important as raw skill. A 20+ year experience engineer who has mediocre skills will never be able to write a compiler, work on complex distributed systems, or bring new verticals to market (think AR, VR, ML applications) very quickly. A skilled new grad might be able to contribute meaningfully if their hand is held on architecture and design.

For example, it's a reasonable expectation for those skilled new grads to be able to grok and start doing easy tasks in a complex codebase (e.g. on PyTorch or Spark itself or business logic in a distributed system) within a week or less, and for them to require at most 1-2 hours of help from an existing engineer to get started. I posit that a 20+ year mediocre engineer is never going to get the skills to contribute to something like PyTorch if they haven't developed those skills in the 20 years they've worked.

[rr808]

Agreed, perhaps the point is the market is not "on fire" for mediocre devs. Perhaps as more people are attracted the industry the market is worse.

[twomoonsbysurf]

>It is conceivable to get paid $70+/h at Series A startups as an intern and $140-150k + 20-40k in options as a new grad.

conceivable? Sure. But what use is "conceivable"? I'd rather know what is "normal" i.e. common.

I think it's more pertinent to represent the median, than say the 80th-90th+ percentile.

For example, I almost interviewed with Vercel recently (accepted an offer from different company, instead of continuing to interview)-- Series D currently [1].

And sure-- this is only one datapoint-- but I think it still illumniates that $70+/h as an intern may be "conceivable" but I doubt it's "common"...

0-1 years of experience there at Vercel pays about $70k-$100k -- And that's in Boston / San Francisco. I would have expected more, given those locations.

Meanwhile, my first programming job was also about $100k, in San Jose, CA (4 months exp. before getting laid off). And then later, $80k on contract, fully remote (2 months on contract. Then got hired on salary by a different company at $105k, still 100% remote.).

Now I have about 3 years of SWE experience and making about $170k TC fully remote ($140k base plus some equity).

https://www.levels.fyi/company/Vercel/salaries/Software-Engi...

[1] https://vercel.com/blog/vercel-funding-series-d-and-valuatio...

[2]https://www.levels.fyi/company/Vercel/salaries/Software-Engi...

[e4e78a06]

> I'd rather know what is "normal" i.e. common.

I think using comparative benchmarks instead of absolute benchmarks is where we differ. The absolute bar - being able to grok large codebases, work on complex systems, etc. with some help from a senior engineer - is not high. It's the equivalent of a proper undergrad education in CS. So when you set the bar at a, in my opinion, very achievable level, the benchmark is $70/hr for interns. We're not talking Jeff Dean or Linus levels of skill here. You can't just look at the percentiles and say it's unachievable. You have to look at it objectively. We're in a talent shortage precisely because there aren't enough people that meet the low bar.

The question should be, if I work my ass off and get good at what I do, how much could I potentially make as a random new grad / 2-3 yoe SWE? And the answer to that is if you meet the already very low bar, you can make a lot. I never compare myself to the average and you shouldn't either.

I know when my friends at startups look to hire they don't target percentiles, they target an absolute level of skill or intelligence.

> 0-1 years of experience there at Vercel pays about $70k-$100k

That would be getting underpaid if you had the skills I mentioned above.

> Now I have about 3 years of SWE experience

My whole point is that years of experience don't necessarily make you a better engineer. It correlates, but in general having more skill is a step function change compared to another year of experience. A senior engineer at mediocre level will be less productive than a new grad engineer at high skill that needs their hand held on design, because the high skill engineer is capable of doing things the mediocre one can't even complete with infinite time.

[renewiltord]

Paying our interns $14000/4wk for their 12 wk stint this summer here in SF. Position is not remote.