[H8crilA]

> "compensation packages people are talking are still like a quarter of what was typical a year ago if that"

You mean much less stock? I can't imagine a senior engineer getting a $50k in annual salary, only in the cash component.

[rprospero]

Hi! I’m a senior engineer getting $53k in annual salary. Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included (government job, so I know the salaries). Also, it’s a government job, so obviously zero stock.

Anyway, just letting you know that we’re out here.

[cuttysnark]

> Everyone in my department is making the same, my boss included

I'm curious—how does this work? More responsibility ought to mean more compensation—what incentive is there to be a boss if you'll make the same as your reports?

[rprospero]

I am at the max salary band for my position. His position can admit a higher salary band. After a few years, he’ll have a track record proving his competence in the new position and can apply to be raised to a higher band.

I believe the theory is to avoid the Peter principle. If someone is promoted into a position for which they are not competent, then they can be transferred back to their old position without lowering their salary (since it’s been the same salary the whole time). I also think there’s some stuff about passion, grit, and drive that’s been imported from the private sector.

[cuttysnark]

This makes perfect sense now, thanks for explaining.

[okennedy]

Differing skillsets? Managing people doesn't have to mean more responsibility. Some people are good at doing, others are good at the bureaucracy game and buffering for the doers. Both are critical, and in a good org, both have different, but not necessarily differing scales of responsibility.

[JamesBarney]

Are you in the US?

This seems extremely low for the US. I've had trouble in the past hiring good sr. engineers in the 150-200k range outside of a tech hub.

Are devs staying because they believe in what they do and are willing to take lower compensation?

[danaris]

Were you hiring for a startup?

Because I wouldn't go to work for a startup even for that much (which is over 2x my current salary). The instability and likelihood of toxic techbro culture (eg, "fast-paced work environment, with people passionate about what they do", aka "you'll be expected to work 80-100 hours a week"...) are just way too high.

[frfl]

There's a real risk of that, but you interview a company as much as the company interviews you. Ask the hard questions and be willing to say no to them if you think they're that type.

I don't know if you're in US or Europe or somewhere else, but "2x my current salary", meaning you're around ~75-100k? In the US that's low for software aside from maybe early career or if you're working for some non-software-oriented company, from what I can tell now that salaries are starting to be publicly listed on more and more jobs.

You're probably doing yourself a disservice by at the very least not even exploring other options and sticking at one place out of comfort.

Just my 2 cents, you know your situation better than some rando on the internet.

[moneywoes]

May I ask what country?

[benreesman]

I have less intuition for how equity packages are working because that tends to happen a little later in the conversation at least in my geography and at my tenure. Broadly people seem to be signaling looser equity purse strings to go along with massively tighter cash purse strings YoY.

I’m sort of L7/L8 with an ML infra focus in California and total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k and now people are seeming to need to “call upstairs” to talk above 150. So maybe half-ish would be closer than the quarter-ish I threw out in my comment.

I was kind of factoring in inflation and that stock comp in a mature public company at a 30-40 PE is unlikely to hold up for 4 years.

[cornholio]

> total cash a year ago seemed to be ~300-400k

That was probably an unsustainable bubble on the long run, inflation adjusted, unless you hold exceptionally rare skills that can't be replicated or taught. It was simply the result of a severely unbalanced market. I'm sure some people still make 400k+, but I'm also sure their performance and contribution is scrutinized quarterly and they are the first on the chopping block unless they hold internal political clout or are famous.

[benreesman]

I don’t think that I hold exceptionally rare skills but I’m probably like an L8 which is give or take junior director level. I’ve got 20 years of experience and am experienced in ML/AI, not at a researcher level certainly but I know my stuff.

When I was a FAANG EM I was an L7, so like one below director.

The market will be what the market will be, there’s no absolute right and wrong, but it doesn’t seem totally crazy that someone leveled around there would make what a successful doctor or lawyer does.

I’m a childless bachelor so it’s not particularly important to me to hit those comp levels again, but as a general thing I think software engineers should be considered on par for a given experience as any other job that requires decades of intense practice to get really good at in a field where one’s employer is making a healthy profit.

[idkyall]

I think it's hard to comment because this depends on the HCOL/LCOL area, the company and the level very wildly. I believe Netflix Seniors make that level of cash comp, and I'm sure staff/principal+ at a large tech company in the bay area or HCOL could push 300k in salary.

[danaris]

I've been working in tech for 20 years now (longer, if you count internships during college), and while I'm making more than $50K now, it's not by a hell of a lot.

Please, please try to remember that not only is Silicon Valley relatively small in terms of the total number of programmers (of whatever particular job title) it employs, it's also a massive outlier in terms of compensation.

Most places that programmers work don't offer equity of any kind, and $100k is still a high salary for many types of programming and tech work outside of SV.