[jghn]

At least one of the entities on that list is a nonprofit academic institution. Expecting pay equal to the standard software industry is misguided.

Whether or not that's a tradeoff you're willing to make is another question.

[tikhonj]

The problem is that it isn't just about pay, it's about everything: autonomy, flexibility, culture, work quality, respect... If an organization can reliably convince—show, not tell—that it will be a much better place to work overall, I'm certain they can hire highly skilled engineers even if they can't compete on pay.

My experience is that most non-tech organizations can't or won't.

[nine_k]

If you go to academia, you're certainly are not going for the money.

People can work for less if they are visibly valued, or where they are doing some heroic stuff that appeals to them personally.

People can for some time withstand being treated as second class, being overworked, etc, if they are paid a lot.

But if it's neither, why would anyone bother?

[jghn]

> But if it's neither, why would anyone bother?

Because they find it rewarding in some other way? I agree that that way is not the conventional wisdom, but it exists, it turns out that some people value doing things that provide a demonstrable benefit to humanity.

Also he second class citizen thing has diminished over the years. It still exists but there are plenty of companies where that's no longer true. This is in stark contrast to when the field was getting off the ground, for instance it wasn't uncommon for benefits like PTO to be tied to your degree level & not length of employment.

[zach_garwood]

And three of them are FAANG. They could certainly afford it.

[jghn]

And they pay their standard rates.