Tech Salaries in 2022: Why the Six Figure Pay Makes Techies Feel Underpaid

https://www.toolbox.com/tech/it-careers-skills/articles/tech-salaries-why-techies-feel-underpaid/

by rustoo • 4 years ago

275 595 4 years ago

A solid article, but it should have commented on single family home prices. If you use the 3x salary rule, a $120k a year techie couldn't afford the median home price in America ($374k). A software engineer in San Francisco would have to make $526k a year in cold hard cash to reasonably afford the median single family home ($1.58 million).

Talking about six figure salaries as if they are unquestionably upper-middle class should take housing prices into account.

bigcat12345678• 4 years ago

Where does 3X salary rule come from?

Layke1123• 4 years ago

Early America when homes were steady at about that price.

xcambar3• 4 years ago

It's a rule of thumb that your total debt should not exceed 1/3 of your income.

It has no economic foundations whatsoever.

Yet, banking institutions use(d?) this rule to reject whatever application they were not comfortable with.

BatteryMountain• 4 years ago

Also checkout the "rule of 72" if this stuff tickles you. It is also a rough estimate that gets used in place of more complex formulas. (Actually closer to 69/70 but 72 makes things cleaner)

consp• 4 years ago

It used to be that the average monthly payment on housing would go up to around 25% of your spendable income, at least that was what the government used as a guideline. These days you need over 40% to even get anywhere and even that is unlikely to be enough. I've also noted around here the required income went from about 3-3.5 to around 5 times the rent rate despite that meaning you need a 6+ figure income for even the most basic apartments (which is rare here) which is just risk reduction for the owner.

patrick451• 4 years ago

Yeah, six figures isn't what it used to be. Same thing with being a millionaire. Inflation has deflated the significance of accomplishing my dreams.

abnercoimbre• 4 years ago

What do you plan to do?

dalyons3• 4 years ago

What 1980s fantasy is this 3x rule?

Median household incomes to home price ratios have risen to ~8x across the US as a whole , not just crazy house price areas like SF/NYC. Canada and Australia are far worse again, pushing 15x in some cities.

3x, if it ever was a rule, has been dead for a long long time.

silisili8• 4 years ago

There's no way in hell it's close to 8x.

Just crunched the numbers, and an 8x mortgage would exceed my monthly take home.

I felt pretty uncomfortable at 2.5x. I feel a lot of people are probably extending out to 4 or even 5, but 8 would be irresponsible and I doubt you could even find a lender for that.

closeparen• 4 years ago

Take, like 30 cash-rich buyers chasing 25 available homes in a given year. That sets the value of hundreds of thousands of homes in the metro area. All those homeowners now have a ton of equity that they throw around in their subsequent purchases.

That doesn't mean "everyone" is spending huge multiples of their salary in cash, it just means a handful of people did. The rest rode the wave of equity.

refurb6• 4 years ago

When interest rates were at historical norms (5-7%), 3x income was a good rule of thumb to estimate a housing payment of 1/3rd your after tax salary.

$100,000/yr = $8,300/month pre-tax = $6,000 after tax

$300,000 home minus $60,000 down @6% = $2,000/month for mortgage + tax + insurance

But I recall right before the 2007 crash my manager was shopping for a mortgage and they were willing to lend him $800,000 on a $120,000/yr salary.

randomdata• 4 years ago

What 1980s fantasy is this 3x rule?

The one where you were paying 20% interest on your mortgage.

escapedmoose• 4 years ago

My gut reaction was also “what kind of outdated rule is this?” until I realized that I accidentally followed the 3x rule almost to the dollar in buying my house. And I have to say, I feel extremely comfortable with the results, so I would recommend it.

__turbobrew__• 4 years ago

Vancouver has an average household income of ~$96000/yr and an average price of detached home of $2139200. Pushing over a 22x ratio.

This city is actively hostile to new home owners and I am moving away this year to start a family.

mattmanser3• 4 years ago

in the UK at the moment you can get morgages for 5.25x salary, especially if you have a high income.

I assume the US has roughly the same now.

The old mortgage multiplers have gone for now.

adhesive_wombat3• 4 years ago

5.25 joint salary, though, so that could be as high as 11.5 times one person's salary for one house if you're buying together (they may have a slightly different calculation when combining salary).

And indeed my house, but not the mortgage, was well over 10 times my salary when I bought it. The mortgage was around 8 times my (entry level UK) salary, but about half that if you counted both of us.

Which is one route to how people end up in serious trouble: get a mortgage as newlyweds with 8 times one person's salary, then one person stops working for The standard post-marriage activity: kids, and now you have a house you could never have passed the affordability checks for, as well as a very expensive baby. Then interest rates rise. Game over. Luckily for lots of people, interest rates have been miniscule for a while, but I get the feeling that there's a lot of people on the edge.

noir_lord• 4 years ago

Yep you can.

My partner and I earn dissimilar amounts (I earn more than double what she does) so we are borrowing only what can be covered on her wages which is about a third of what the bank will actually lend us (a frankly eye watering amount).

We don't want to be in a situation where I have to earn what I do now forever to cover the mortgage and doing the above would allow me to take a 50% paycut and still comfortably pay all the bills.

The houses we are looking at decent size in a nice area with good sized gardens, what the hell more do we need, there are only 3 of us, a 3 or 4 bed is just fine.

We are effectively borrowing about x2 our household income not the 5.whatever the bank would lend.

newobj• 4 years ago

3x? That's crazy. I bought a $375k house on an $85k tech salary 20 years ago.

Glyptodon• 4 years ago

Funny enough my first and only house was actually very close to 3x income at the time I bought it 10ish years ago and everything real estate seems crazy to me now...

knicknic• 4 years ago

3x rule is not a rule but a guideline. It applies more to the average person.

If you give someone 100 dollars a day they have to buy food, clothes, rent, education, transportation. You give them 1000 dollars a day they still have to buy the same things. They can then use this leftover to buy nicer food or nicer house. This is why values of homes can get so high in areas. For the people getting 1000 they chose where ti spend this extra money. For people with 100 a day they don’t have extras to reallocate towards rent.

dcolkitt2• 4 years ago

Why would a single person need to buy a 3 bedroom home (the median American home size)? A household with two $120k earners can very comfortably afford a $1 million home at current mortgage rates.

atwebb2• 4 years ago

Am I so out of touch that this sounds insane? Mortgages are leverage and that's a whole lot of it.

coinbasetwwa• 4 years ago

In a world where property taxes, apartment maintenance fees, etc didn't exist, sure.

swozey• 4 years ago

I'm single and bought a $350k 3 bedroom when I was making around $130k. I bought the home because the city I lived in at the time (Austin) had banned townhouses/duplexes/etc so my only option was to rent in a midrise, rent a home, or buy. I wanted a townhouse downtown, not a SFH in the suburbs.

Unfortunately I sold said home at the beginning of 2019 and have watched it essentially double in value over the last two years.

thewebcount• 4 years ago

There are a number of possible reasons:

1. A single person likes to have guests stay over and wants to offer them a room and also have a home office for working from home

2. There are no "starter" homes available in their area. This is what my spouse and I hit in Los Angeles. We tried a condo and ended up suing the person who sold it to us because it was so noisy as to be unlivable. (And it turns out most of the condos in the area are like that.) But there were no small homes available on the market to purchase. When one did show up, they were usually purchased immediately for cash for more than asking price, torn down, and a new home built lot-line to lot-line put in its place and sold for 3x the cost. Eventually, I got some bonuses that allowed us to purchase a larger home so we did that. Now we have a guest room and an office which has worked out great during the pandemic. I'm really glad we did it.

maerF0x0• 4 years ago

Now that value delivered is disconnected from location, live somewhere inexpensive and push for your actual value. The only real requirement is US friendly timezones and 10+Mbps up speed internet. I'm sure there are 100s of cities in America that meet this expectation and would make you "rich" in that locale with a $200k TC .

Choosing to live somewhere for the "lifestyle" is in itself a form of expenditure for which your employer should neither be subsidizing nor penalizing.

lcvw3• 4 years ago

I hope that is what happens. So far only a few companies are giving up fully on pay being linked to COL. Even so, flexible work (1-2 days in office a week) is currently revitalizing parts of New York as people move twice as far from the office, drastically reducing housing payments, while keeping the same pay and same total commute time.

twblalock2• 4 years ago

A price to salary ratio doesn't make a lot of sense because it ignores interest rates.

At today's interest rates, which are still historically low even though they increased last year, 3x is unusually conservative.

The better rule of thumb is to keep housing expenses under a certain percentage of gross income. 28% and 30% are common number that get mentioned in that context.

Why gross income and not net income? Because two people with the same gross income might have very different tax situations and their net income could be very different. So, of course you also need to consider what percent of your net income your housing costs represent -- these are all just rules of thumb.

indecisive_user4• 4 years ago

the average tech worker’s salary [will] reach $104,566 in the U.S. — a 6.9% increase since 2020, the report found.

But inflation is over 11% since 2020. This isn't an increase. The average tech worker is making less than they were 2 years ago according to the Dice salary report.

Why do tech workers feel underpaid? Many companies posted record growth and profits over the pandemic, but still give out paltry 3-5% raises every year. The cost savings of work from home must have been enormous for these companies, yet none of that savings or record profits trickled down to the people writing code.

Meanwhile for those that have the time and willpower to grind leetcode, they know they can command a 20-40% raise every few years. It's not a secret that tech companies underpay their employees and bank on them being too complacent to go through the interview gauntlet yet again. Most devs will admit that they couldn't readily pass the interview at even their own company without many hours of studying and practicing algorithms.

silisili8• 4 years ago

I don't feel underpaid, but I definitely feel like I've lost tons of ground in the last 2 years.

The floor has risen big time. Entry level jobs are paying up to 60k these days, whereas they were closer to 30k a few years back. Good for them, seriously. But watching the floor rise closer to you is never a great feeling.

welder3• 4 years ago

You should look into a remote job with a California tech company where entry level is 120k. [1]

[1] Filter by "Location independent pay" https://himalayas.app/companies

brabel2• 4 years ago

That's a strange concern you seem to have... why does it bother you that fellow programmers are getting salaries close to yours? Do you think it would feel better if your salary could be 5x higher than theirs? Why? That will not actually affect you negatively in any way! Unless you're being actually underpaid compared to your peers with the same experience and skills, there's only good things about people with lower skills getting higher pay.

b200003• 4 years ago

entry level jobs in software engineering at FAANG were over 120K about 10 years ago and that was already underpaid. California is a really expensive place to live long term and people generally do not do the math and do not account for child care, retirement, sickness or health issues or whatever. then there is the cost of (ongoing) education and issues of mental health in this industry.

And those who think remote will be long term to their advantage are wrong. All that will happen is that these companies will find a way to pay you less. The solution is to organize.

for those who will reply that people are making less in CA and also need to survive… i was in a black uber recently and the driver told me he was averaging 20K per month. not bad for driving a car with zero education or leetcode requirements.

heromal• 4 years ago

Entry level jobs in NC start at 75k...you're way out of the loop. They haven't been 30k anywhere in far longer than "a few years back".

missedthecue4• 4 years ago

Annual raises doesn't have anything to do with being over or underpaid, strictly speaking.

To clearly illustrate my point here, if fortune 500 CEO pay is up less than 11% on avg since 2020, I don't think that's an argument they're underpaid.

harry82• 4 years ago

if fortune 500 CEO pay is up less than 11% on avg since 2020

It's up a /lot/ more than that! And what do you know, they're also not underpaid. The former will predict the latter pretty damn well, I think you'll find. So yes, strictly speaking, annual raises and having the market power to command meaningful ones do actually have everything to do with being over/under paid.

indecisive_user4• 4 years ago

I don't think that's a good analogy. The value of a CEO should be relatively well known before hiring into a company. CEOs are rare, and at the endgame of their career, so you're already pricing in the present and future value you think they will add to your company. CEOs generally can't job hop every couple years for a large double digit raise.

Most good engineers(especially early in their career) will be an order of magnitude more productive after a couple years at the same company, as they build up both domain knowledge in their tech space, and institutional knowledge that can't be learned outside of the company. And companies know the value of this experience. That's why you can switch jobs after 2 years for a 20-40% increase. When the market rate for your labor is 1.2x your current salary, I think that's called underpaid.

nikitaga2• 4 years ago

if fortune 500 CEO pay is up less than 11% on avg since 2020

Yeah well, in reality it's up considerably more. They didn't get to be the 0.1% by accepting sub-inflation pay raises for the last 100+ years. Here is what their actual raises were:

19% in 2021, 16% in 2020, ~14% in 2019 & 2018. Sources below.

Meanwhile that's what average hourly wages increased by:

4.7% in 2021, 1.8% in 2020

https://fortune.com/2022/04/01/ceo-pay-rose-record-19-percen...

https://fortune.com/2021/05/28/ceo-pay-increase-2020-pay-gap...

If you want to make your argument, show a profession which has ACTUALLY been getting sub-inflation raises for a decade or more, but you still consider to be overpaid. It's no coincidence that such combination doesn't exist.

rocketbop2• 4 years ago

...a 6.9% increase since 2020, the report found. But inflation is over 11% since 2020. This isn't an increase. The

I have heard this point made a couple of times recently. Is there any reason why these two values should be the same? It is a point of concern for those on very low incomes who spent all their income and are not able to save anythiny, but if you are on a six figure income and only a portion of that income is spent on groceries and housing then I assume you can still end up wealthier than the previous year.

np-• 4 years ago

The employer is the one taking that extra value, so why wouldn’t the “you already have enough money” argument cut both ways? I also assume management is wealthier than the previous year.

quickthrower28• 4 years ago

On a six figure income here. Most is spent on groceries and housing because we have kids.

gameman144• 4 years ago

The main issue is that all of your dollars, even the ones you save, are worth less.

Let's invent our own unit: the "grocery-year" -- one grocery-year represents the amount of money needed to buy one year of groceries.

Now let's say I am making $100k this year, and spending $10k on groceries. My annual salary is ten grocery-years (though I'm saving nine of those).

Let's assume that inflation is 10%, but I get a 5% raise. You're absolutely right that my net income will increase in dollar-terms (i.e. I'll spend $11k on groceries now, but make $105k; a $4k net increase). The issue here is that in actual purchasing power, my salary has gone down: my annual salary is now only 9.54 grocery-years.

Obviously not everything experiences the same rates of inflation, but the idea here is that inflation affects all of your income, not just the income you're spending. Likewise, my actual purchasing power will decrease if my raise doesn't match inflation, regardless of how much actual purchasing I do in a given year.

giantg27• 4 years ago

"Is there any reason why these two values should be the same?"

Are you producing the same value for the company as you did last year? If inflation is higher, then you are receiving less value via your pay from producing the same or more value for the company.

refurb6• 4 years ago

I hope people realize that when monthly inflation numbers are released those are annualized.

So the 8.5% inflation rate in March is actually 1.085^(1/12) = 0.7% for March, and 8.5% assuming that same rate lasted for 12 consecutive months.

In 2021, the CPI-U was 4.7% for all of 2021.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...

indecisive_user4• 4 years ago

Ok, but the cumulative inflation rate since January 2020 is still around 11%

$1 in January 2020 is worth $1.11 today

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=202001...

kilroy1233• 4 years ago

I got ZERO raise this past year and boy let me tell you, it really pissed me off. I didn't feel I wasn't making enough until that happened.

eru22• 4 years ago

Genuine question: would you have felt better with a 1% raise?

In 2010 I was working in the UK and we had about 5% inflation that year (or so). I got a 2% raise, and found that more insulting than if they had given no raise; even though objectively any positive raise is better than no raise.

giantg27• 4 years ago

I got a 1.5% raise. It's a 4.5% paycut after inflation.

__app_dev__2• 4 years ago

I haven't gotten a raise in probably 10 years. But realistically I make a lot more than most developers where I live (Los Angeles) and there would be no reason for my company to give me a raise when I'm probably the highest paid non-sales person where I work (and often have been). So I'm ok with it.

Just got an extra side gig for 20-25% hours per weeks so it's like getting a 50% raise and feels great.

Although seeing how many $500k jobs exist in Silicon Valley makes me think I should spend more time grinding leetcode.

astrange2• 4 years ago

But inflation is over 11% since 2020. This isn't an increase. The average tech worker is making less than they were 2 years ago according to the Dice salary report.

Are you buying the average number of used cars and housing? I'm not. My expenses haven't gone up 10% in nominal dollars.

(Related anecdote: people tend to say the economy is bad if they heard it was bad on TV, even if they just got a new job and a raise.)

lotsofpulp4• 4 years ago

Assuming your goal is to have a car, your budget should always be accounting for the time when you will need to buy a new car since cars do not last forever.

Same with land. If your goal is to purchase lands, then your budget needs account for increases in the prices of land (specifically the land you want). And healthcare. And education.

Also, my food purchases have definitely increased at least 10% nominally in the past couple years.

tomc19855• 4 years ago

The money we make pales in comparison with the size of our contributions to the company. Especially so if you are in a value-adding position and not something like internal tooling. Management and executives are DEFINITELY underpaying us relative to what we bring to the table for them.

Maybe that is one of the reason headcounts have ballooned and complexity has increased so much -- an attempt to minimize individual impact.

(edit- NOT knocking internal tooling, it's just that it is traditionally considered a cost center)

lumost4• 4 years ago

This strongly depends on the company. In high growth industries this is absolutely true, in low-growth industries/companies its somewhat debatable. I suspect that this is why software salaries were tightly correlated with tech growth for the last 3 decades. The 90s, and 2010s were great times to be a software engineer - but average salaries were more than cut in half during the oughts.

dolni• 4 years ago

Especially so if you are in a value-adding position and not something like internal tooling.

Why the knock on internal tooling? If internal tooling helps a value-add position go 10% faster, that's worth a lot. And most likely it isn't just one position, it's many.

jen20• 4 years ago

What? Internal developer productivity tooling is one of the most important investments a company can make, especially at the scale phase. B tier companies give that work to juniors. A tier companies give that work to the most senior people they can find to do it.

doliveira• 4 years ago

Do you think internal tooling is just a cost center?

chasd002• 4 years ago

well we all like to think we're the sole reason "the company" makes any money but there's a lot more to the equation than just the person typing out the code. Without the code there would be no value but the code is meaningless without all the other expertise required to turn it into bank deposits. The technical part is maybe 10% (if not lower) of the overall effort to get a paycheck in your hands.

mrfusion• 4 years ago

The money we make pales in comparison with the size of our contributions to the company.

That’s a tautology though. They wouldn’t hire someone to break even and they wouldn’t hire someone to make a little more money since there’s work and risk in hiring.

Ozzie_osman• 4 years ago

The money we make pales in comparison with the size of our contributions to the company.

That's unfortunately not how markets work. If you create 10M of value every year, and are only paid 250K for doing it, it's because there is someone else out there who is willing to do it for the same. (Yes, there are asymmetries in information and power, but broadly, tech salaries are market-driven)

formerkrogemp2• 4 years ago

Management and executives are DEFINITELY underpaying us relative to what we bring to the table for them.

This is true of every industry going on decades of increasing productivity and stagnating pay. What's new here besides greater awareness and labor churn? Will there be an actual change going forward? Of course the demographics favor workers now, but the laws and politics often don't. Immigration and outsourcing and automation can change that power dynamic very quickly. What're you going to do? Form a union? Start a company? Vote? Quit and work elsewhere? Interesting times we live in.

Maybe that is one of the reason headcounts have ballooned and complexity has increased so much -- an attempt to minimize individual impact.

All of my friends and aquaintinces in nursing, tax, retail, and trucking have a few people who are trying to break into programming because of the benefits and pay. Outsourcing, scope creep, and automation exist and are expanding in my industry as well. How long until this drags down programmers as well?

Spooky232• 4 years ago

I have a colleague who left and is essentially doing the same work as I do, but is making about 5x more due to getting a cut of the revenue, but has a low base compensation.

Due to the nature of my employment and some benefits, it doesn't make sense to leave right now. But you can bet that I will be out the door the minute the clock ticks to the appropriate date.

7speter2• 4 years ago

The money we make pales in comparison with the size of our contributions to the company. Especially so if you are in a value-adding position and not something like internal tooling. Management and executives are DEFINITELY underpaying us relative to what we bring to the table for them

I mean, I’ve seen people working in retail make this same point. And I’m not saying either of you are invalid in your claim, thats just how work is, it seems

scarface7410• 4 years ago

I work as a billable consultant. Therefore I know to the dollar the revenue I bring in in a given year.

However, that revenue goes to support accountants, lawyers, marketing, internal tools, HR, healthcare, employer side taxes travel that’s not related to a customer, infrastructure costs, etc.

I am not saying in a perfect world I shouldn’t be making more and honestly, I probably could. But, I like having a large corporation to take care of all of the stuff I mentioned above.

sam0x17• 4 years ago

Depending on the industry, this can be so true that at a certain point you start to wonder why VCs are even tolerant of companies with zero technical founders in 2022 given the obvious risks of this situation.

jcims2• 4 years ago

How far down the stack does this mentality go? My brother does fiber construction and repair for a major telco. I bet there's been a trillion dollars of economic activity conducted over glass he's put into place, but he just gets paid an hourly wage plus overtime.

pyuser5833• 4 years ago

This is what makes me feel underpaid. I see how much value I’m adding. I get a tiny, tiny fraction.

I didn’t become a Marxist until I hit six figures, but dang it I want the wealth produced by my labor!

lumost4• 4 years ago

you know, I'd be very curious what kinds of radical interview approaches teams have considered to break out of the LC mold. A little LC is useful in an interview situation, if an engineer can't do a simple 20-30 line coding problem or reason over the constraints/design space - then there is a good chance that they will need help with core coding in the day to day (which may not be a deal breaker in every employer).

A lot of LC tends to hit on "specialist in LC". We overweight this type of candidate in our interview processes, mainly as "specialist in LC" no longer translates to "highly interested in Comp Sci fundamentals" or "Algorithm expert" - many grind LC just to get a job and promptly forget the fundamentals.

A few interviews that I've seen gaining prominence.

- Code Review interviews. Give a sample code review, and have the candidate provide feedback. I'd love to see this extended with just having the candidate write code review comments in whatever code review tool the company uses - you could then discuss the code review afterwards. Clarify ahead of time the tool that will be used for code review.

- Debugging broken code. Let the candidate show off how they approach dealing with broken/buggy code, clarify ahead of time the language/environment for debugging.

- Build a service/program to a spec via take home. Does the candidate build the system properly? do they exceed expectations? skip requirements? test the code? work double time?

- Given a problem, build a working solution in your IDE of choice.

I'm not even convinced that 5 45 minute to 1 hour interview block is the right size. Why not do a 3 hour time block where the candidate has to build something, then review with them at the end? This is common in interviews with for MBA-type positions.

PheonixPharts• 4 years ago

if an engineer can't do a simple 20-30 line coding problem or reason over the constraints/design space - then there is a good chance that they will need help with core coding in the day to day.

This isn't my experience, I've found that the number one reason for not doing well on leetcode problems is simply because the candidate hasn't practiced doing leetcode problems. I've known plenty good engineers who, when interviewing with LC style interviews for the first time, fail utterly. Then they realize they just need to practice and did better.

I've been in the industry for around 15 years now, my anecdotal observation is that the average quality of engineers is negatively correlated with the rise of leetcode. 10 years ago the strongest signal was a solid github profile with lots of relevant projects.

That's not to say leetcode is the cause of this decline. The cause is the flood of SWE being rushed into the career as fast as possible (this is why github is no longer a good signal, bootcamps started training their students to create meaningless GH projects just to attempt to create signal).

However I've also seen no indication that leetcode type challenges have any relationship to being a good engineer. I've worked at plenty of places that required pretty tricky leetcode style problems filled with very, very mediocre engineers. Leetcode has become a game that has little to nothing to do with real world programming, in the same way that speed-cubing (solving Rubik's cubes in record time) has absolutely nothing to do with the player's underlying understanding of group theory and combinatorics.

The old fashioned walk through and reason about non-trivial code someone has written is still an excellent method to see how a programmer thinks and if they can code.

khyryk2• 4 years ago

"Code review this" or "debug this" or "refactor this" are things that an actual developer doesn't need to do special preparation for as they probably do it almost every day, unlike LC, and should provide a signal more relevant to the job of coding that the candidate is smart and capable of doing good work. Having a bit of code to work with can also take away some stress by reducing the emphasis of typing a complete solution from scratch -- there are many LC interviews where if someone isn't typing right away, they have no hope of solving the problem in their 20-25 minutes of time even if they fully understand the problem and the correct solution.

Take homes can get a bit out of hand because candidates can choose to spend too much time (12 hours on something that "should" take 2 hours) out of desperation (or perhaps simply not having a life) if the primary criterion is the completeness of the solution. I think it works best if the solution or partial solution is used as something to have a conversation about in the next interview. For instance, the applicant can explain their lack of unit tests by providing their reasoning for relying more heavily or entirely on integration tests as the system relies too heavily on an external service.

ketzo2• 4 years ago

Anecdotally, as someone who just did a bunch of interviewing, I saw a number of these types of questions instead of super hardcore LC stuff. Particularly the last two. It was a pleasant surprise, as I really struggle with dynamic programming/binary trees/etc.

bogomipz3• 4 years ago

"Build a service/program to a spec via take home."

The problem with this is that the company has no skin in the game. Sadly flakey companies and recruiters are prevalent enough that it's not at all uncommon for a company to ask you to complete their "take home" assignment and then never get back to you. I've had it happen enough that I would simply refuse this now. I think if a company wants you to spend 3-4 hours on their take home project they should pay you for that time.

gorbachev• 4 years ago

The overall economy inflation numbers are completely meaningless when cost of education, housing and healthcare has been skyrocketing for more than a decade, maybe even longer.

The average worker, especially those with families, have seen their costs inflate much, much higher than 11% per year for quite some time.

chrchang523• 4 years ago

Much higher than the previous official inflation rate of 2% per year, yes. But not (previously, anyway) higher than 11%.

IMTDb• 4 years ago

11% of growth every year for 10 years is 2.83, almost 3. Things haven't gotten 3 times more expensive in the last decade - far from it.

erwincoumans• 4 years ago

In Foster City, CA, bay area, a salary of $146k is considered low income, and can get access to affordable housing [1]. A 3/4 bedroom townhouse in Foster City, CA bay area used to be 800k usd 10 years ago, today it goes for 2M usd, with offers 200k to 400k above asking price. [2] [3] [4]

[1] https://www.fostercity.org/faqs?keys=&field_microsite_tid=Al...

[2] https://deniseliew.realscout.com/homesearch/listings/p-812-m...

[3] https://deniseliew.realscout.com/homesearch/listings/p-893-e...

[4] https://deniseliew.realscout.com/homesearch/listings/p-1112-...

overtonwhy2• 4 years ago

You should learn how inflation is calculated before spewing this stuff. Maybe try providing references to reputable sources as well? https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm

Cthulhu_• 4 years ago

And to think, people working in IT actually get raises, and can earn more money by changing jobs; they are already quite privileged compared to those earning closer to minimum wage (like 30K a year?), given that said minimum wage hasn't been increased from $7.25 in 13 years now, while cost of living and inflation HAS gone up.

One issue is that while costs of products, housing, etc is adjusted pretty much instantly with supply, demand and inflation, wages aren't. When inflation numbers are introduced, companies jump to announce they're raising prices, citing cost of resources or... whatever. But they don't increase wages.

How often have wages gone up at a rate higher than inflation? I can't remember it. So basically people are expected to continue living on a currency that is decreasing in value constantly. Or they're expected to switch jobs or grow in their career, not to have a better life, but just to be able to maintain their current lifestyle.

Remember these tropes from the 80's and 90's and before where people bought a sizeable house, one or two cars, and put money away to put their kids (they could afford kids too) through college, all on a single income? Yyyyeeeaahhh. actually I don't know if that was the case for most people, it's what sitcoms depicted.

mywittyname2• 4 years ago

I don't know if that was the case for most people, it's what sitcoms depicted.

It wasn't. Bill, from the Cosby Show, was a physician, Tony, from Who's the Boss was a former baseball player, the dad from Full House was a TV broadcaster, etc.

It's probably the reason "blue collar" sitcoms were popular in the 90s (Rosanne, Grace Under Fire).

citizenpaul3• 4 years ago

ready quite privileged compared to those earning closer to minimum wage

I really don't like this self loathing mentality on HN. I work really hard to keep up to date in IT, even after I'm off work.

Sorry to burst your bubble but most people just go home from work and get high or drunk then watch 5hrs of TV. Thats the reason they can't work tech jobs. I didn't go to school for CS but I still make lots of money in tech because I want to and I keep myself up to date.

Its not all poor single moms without any time or some other tragic story.

duped• 4 years ago

that said minimum wage hasn't been increased from $7.25 in 13 years now, while cost of living and inflation HAS gone up.

And it never will go up when conservatives have a majority in the Senate, but regardless wages have been growing (1)

How often have wages gone up at a rate higher than inflation? I can't remember it

According to the same source, there were multiple periods since 2007 where wages rose faster than inflation

That's not to say that wages shouldn't grow higher or make up for the periods where wage increase is below inflation... but at the same time, it's dishonest to point to the floor set by the government as evidence, when in periods of high labor demand and economic growth we see wages go up in (since you can't hire anyone at the minimum wage!)

(1) https://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/

commandlinefan2• 4 years ago

The cost savings of work from home must have been enormous for these companies

It would have been if they had shut down the offices, but they've paying rent and heating/cooling costs on completely empty buildings for years now because they hold out hope they can drag people back.

spywaregorilla• 4 years ago

That's not strictly true. If the average is dropped down by an increasingly large share of new joiners at entry level, you might see the average raise exceed 11% while the average comp level is raised only to 6.9%

Raises are often somewhat small, but job changes can be pretty hefty. And it's better than most positions by fair margin.

rainboOow92• 4 years ago

What baffles me though is that its not like this crazy interview gauntlet is being maintained purely by HR. Engineers in those big tech companies are very protective towards those processes as well, and loudly protest if one would try to change them (complaining about lowering the bar, not hiring top tier talent anymore, etc.). And tbh, I would be afraid of what they would replace those LC interviews with. At least, I can prepare and grind a LC test. I do not want to have to explain in details what a inode is when interviewing for a back-end position, while I have never had a need for that kind of knowledge in 10 YoE.

fnimick• 4 years ago

Amusingly, I have gotten exactly that question - or rather, "what's in an inode." I answered "data about a file object, but none of the actual contents of the file, which are stored elsewhere" and failed because I didn't mention the magic words "metadata" and "permissions". Fair, I guess, but this wasn't for a systems development position at all, so I can't imagine it would have been critical to the job!

Another favorite of mine, for a web development position, was "what happens at the network level when you load a webpage" where I got marked as getting it wrong for skipping explicit description of SYN/ACK step of the TCP connection. Again, fair, but probably not relevant.

AnIdiotOnTheNet2• 4 years ago

Engineers in those big tech companies are very protective towards those processes as well, and loudly protest if one would try to change them (complaining about lowering the bar, not hiring top tier talent anymore, etc.).

Hazing is a feature of almost every organization that is regularly recruiting new members.

daniel-cussen2• 4 years ago

Grind leetcode that's it?? All I have to do is ace every leetcode problem and I get a 20% raise every year?!

glouwbug3• 4 years ago

Buddy of mine solved 1400 leetcodes and still failed several rounds

ar_lan• 4 years ago

Most devs will admit that they couldn't readily pass the interview at even their own company without many hours of studying and practicing algorithms.

I don't think, if asked to interview for it today, that I could land my current job. I'm also fairly certain I'm one of the top engineers on my team, and I do think we have a really good team of developers overall.

It makes me feel better that I'm not alone, in this regard, but it often just makes me question the interview process even further.

blagie2• 4 years ago

It's a random process.

If you set the bar 2 std. div. above what you need, you are hiring qualified people with a p value of 5%. You're rejecting /most/ qualified people too.

Most people underestimate how random the process is. There are a few ways in:

- Be 2 std. div above the qualifications

- Apply to many places and pick the one where you're lucky

- Give another, less noisy source of signal than resume + interview (e.g. networking into a company, consulting, references, major open source contributions, etc.)

I wouldn't get my current job if I randomly applied right now. I happened to do well on an interview process which wasn't well-aligned to my background. That was a fluke. I was probably the most-qualified candidate, but if I didn't have a lucky day, I don't think an interview would have shown that.

Last hiring cycle, I was also rejected several places where I am pretty sure I was better than the candidate who was hired too. If you make this about you, you'll feel horrible. If you understand the huge random factor, you'll do much better.

(Disclaimer: I have specialized skills, so my interview process isn't a typical SWE interview process).

mgkimsal3• 4 years ago

The cost savings of work from home must have been enormous for these companies, yet none of that savings or record profits trickled down to the people writing code

Lots of companies had long term leases or obligations anyway. Eventually the 'cost savings' were probably there, but I don't know too many companies that were just able to jettison their initial lease payments in the first few months of the pandemic. I know I couldn't quickly get out of my office lease.

v_nh• 4 years ago

Factoring in the rise in home prices as well as the dramatic collapse of everyones stock portfolios, 11% inflation only scratches the surface of our problems...

ryandrake2• 4 years ago

Meanwhile for those that have the time and willpower to grind leetcode, they know they can command a 20-40% raise every few years.

One thing a lot of people forget about this 20-40% number is: It's only true early in your career. It might be hard for younger folks to believe, but you will all hit a ceiling and plateau. My first job hop was for +50%! The next one was about 40%, the next one 15%, and so on. Now, with 20+ years of experience, my last job hop was for maybe 0.25%.

If I could get +40% every time I switched jobs, I'd only have to have switched jobs 9 times in my life in order to be making $1M/yr.

buscoquadnary• 4 years ago

This is something I don't think gets discussed enough. In my first 10 years of career I basically doubled my salary, by moving every 2-3 years, but I also now know I am pretty much hitting a plateau, anytime I talk with recruiters and talk about the salary I'd like to move which is about 10-20% (which is pretty reasonable given the benefits I got now) then people express reservations. Some people will end up making 200+ but I for an IC type position it seems to top out around 150 is the max, generally. If you want more you need to be an "Enterprise Architect" or "Director" which that becomes a whole different bag of worms. On the other hand love my job, I have enough money to provide for myself and my family, and am working on getting financially secure and paying off debt so I also don't have a strong drive to make more.

bradlys2• 4 years ago

To be fair - you can get to staff and make $500k+/yr. After that - it’s very nebulous as to how you get higher up the ladder and doesn’t involve leetcode as much as it does political prowess and the right connections.

So, I believe it is still possible but it is a very different skill set and does become difficult. Transitioning to management train sometimes is more efficient and then it’s a whole new skill set to progress there.

I will admit though - it does taper off and opportunities do become fewer. But, still, you’re making $500k+ by the time you’re on the really difficult track and that’s a pretty healthy amount. (Still might need a partner to comfortably afford a house in SV but that’s another discussion)

thoughtpalette2• 4 years ago

Due to anecdotal reasons, going to have to disagree. Last switch was a 39% increase at 11 years in industry. The market is hot. Most of my friends/colleagues have seen a similar increase the last year.

Obviously market, location, expertise will vary, etc.

YMMV.

cactus2093• 4 years ago

Your example is not actually that crazy at FAANG level companies. I know a lot of people in their early 30's that are L6 or even L7 at big tech companies, maybe they've changed jobs every 2 years on average in their career which is well under 9 times, and those level of roles have a total comp of 500k-750k/yr. With a 4-year stock grant and some luck on the stock performance in that time, that can turn into well over $1M/yr in years 3 & 4 at the company.

You're right that there's a ceiling somewhere, but the ceiling is (or at least has been) ludicrously high for the past decade or so in big tech in the US.

bastardoperator• 4 years ago

To be honest, I used to think developers in tech did well, then I worked with some really good sales people in tech and realized they're making WAY more on top free vacations and spiff (even more money) opportunities. It's night and day. We've heard about developers making upwards of 500K, I've seen sales people make triple on a single deal with similar deals lined up for following quarters. It is insane, and most developers don't have a clue when it comes to this type of disparity in pay because they don't interact with that process or people at all in most situations. The work is very different, especially the types of pressure each role faces, but they're valued very differently. Maybe most folks know this, I had no clue.

websap2• 4 years ago

If you've been in tech for 20 years and aren't making 1 MM per year, you're doing something wrong. Talk to people around you.

throwaway_goog• 4 years ago

There probably is a plateau, but I was surprised at how high it is. My first job was for $8/hour. Next was for $20/hour. The one after that was $32K/year. Then I went to college. Then it was $66K/year. Then I did a startup for nothing. Then it was $100K/year salary, but TC was about $160K/year. Got up to $300K over the course of that job. Then another startup for nothing. Then back for $630K/year, and it went up to about $900K/year with stock appreciation. Probably less now with the market crash, but still a lot more than I ever thought was possible as a plain old employee.

You do have to interview & negotiate well, and keep your skills sharp, and I'd bet that I'm about at the ceiling of what's possible as an IC. But now I've transitioned into management and all those startup exec positions are theoretically open. :-) There is always somebody making buttloads of money in the economy; if you want it, figure out who it is and how to make yourself useful to them.

citizenpaul3• 4 years ago

. The cost savings of work from home must have been enormous for these companies

First I agree overall, however I think you overestimate how much any companies saved on the WFH shift.

1. They still own the buildings or leases/mortgages. I doubt many were able to get out of leases which in commercial are usually 3-5year min. Mortgage only goes away if they sold the building.

2. They still have to pay the cost of maintaining the building and facilities while unused in the above cases.

3. Pretty much all companies are using their commercial locations to bloat their balance sheets and secure debt. This is actually a HUGE factor as to why so many companies what WFH to end. They simply cannot get rid of their offices or they would be insolvent based on their finances. You can't throw out 2bil in real estate that is securing 20bil in debt or it would be called in.

4. Many companies were unprepared so they had to pay out the nose the get things setup rapidly for remote workers because they resisted it for so long. Why do you think Zoom blew up so fast?

skrbjc• 4 years ago

I think the big savings in real estate came from not having to keep getting more and more space to house all of your new employees. When I worked at a large tech company in SF, they were running up against their limits and just didn't have enough space to house the people they were hiring, so they had to slow hiring.

The smaller startup I worked at also had to get a second office a couple blocks away from the original office.

In the current remote-forward world, while these companies have to keep their existing real estate, they get the benefit of not having grow their real estate portfolio relative to their employee size. I was also told it cost that large tech company 20-30k a year per physical seat in the office. So I'm pretty sure the savings have been decent, even if they didn't dump their office spaces.

zie• 4 years ago

It's not a secret that tech companies underpay their employees and bank on them being too complacent to go through the interview gauntlet yet again.

Remove the word tech, and you basically have it right. Why would companies whose goal is to maximize profit pay more than they have to? There is little incentive for companies to pay more than required to meet their needs.

dehrmann• 4 years ago

Many companies posted record growth and profits over the pandemic, but still give out paltry 3-5% raises every year.

A few disconnected points:

As we're seeing, some of that growth was temporary. Between inflation and growth, record profits is expected from any company not in decline. Allocating profits from growth to more growth is a reasonable choice. There's no reason for wages to track profits. Wages are driven by the labor market; profits just act as a wage ceiling.

matheusmoreira• 4 years ago

those that have the time and willpower to grind leetcode, they know they can command a 20-40% raise every few years

Is this really all it takes?

weaksauce• 4 years ago

yet none of that savings or record profits trickled down to the people writing code.

yeah trickle down economics was just a rebranding of horse and sparrow economics.

as in you feed the horse all the oats and then the sparrows get to pluck the undigested bits from the feces. Never was going to work.

hurxnid• 4 years ago

The FAANG companies also worked together to drive tech worker salaries down by agreeing to avoid hiring each other’s employees.

overtonwhy2• 4 years ago

Inflation is targeted to be around 2% per year on average and that 11% number you threw out without any source or reference is wildly inaccurate. Here's the real inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA

jjav• 4 years ago

Why do tech workers feel underpaid?

I'll throw in a different angle. If I'm truly happy at a job, pay isn't a big concern as long as I can pay the bills. The more miserable the job becomes, the more the money becomes the only way to tolerate it so it better keep getting higher.

Pay in software roles might be at an all-time high today, but respect and independence is at an all-time low.

In the 90s I had a private office with a door and a window. Today we're packed like sardines into an open office (although thanks to the pandemic this part improved).

In the 90s I worked on deep hardcode tech, today nearly every company just wants to glue libraries to frameworks and connect AWS bits together. Work is no longer intellectually satisfying.

In the 90s tech companies produced tech, that was the product, so it was exciting and hip. Today so-called "tech companies" produce advertising, shopping, social spyware, movies. It's not tech anymore. Boring.

In the 90s, senior engineers drove engineering decisions. Today we have non-technical product managers forcing their way into technical decisions.

In the 90s we were trusted to get things done and allowed the time to get deep in the zone. Today it's forced daily status reports, "agile".

In the 90s we could plan ahead and go deep, research and build well-architected solutions. Today the task better take no more than 1-2 days so the story gets closed, "agile".

I could go on and on but will stop. If software engineering today had the working conditions and respect it had in the 90s, I'd happily do it for 25% of my current salary and be so happy.

lsj0627• 4 years ago

That's salary. Total compensation is significantly higher.

beowulfey• 4 years ago

As an academic post-doc, I still dream of even making a slightly higher five-figure salary.

Fezzik• 4 years ago

If true, noting that just shy of 50% of tech folk feel underpaid seems surprising… for how low the number is, not how high. Everyone I know (judges, attorneys, law clerks, doctors, administrative staff, teachers, baristas…) thinks that they are underpaid. The fact that less-than-half of tech workers feel underpaid seems like a great sign to me for the industry.

I’d also be curious who the survey data was gathered from - the cited to studies are from a recruiting agency and have no source citations.

Edit, to add: here’s a survey of 26,000 people indicating that almost everyone feels underpaid - https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/pay-satisfact...

Ekaros• 4 years ago

50% sounds reasonable number. And probably good amount of that is actually underpaid. And I don't mean in way of people here talk, but in real way of earning sub middle class wage.

tjansen3• 4 years ago

It also makes us Europeans feel underpaid :) I have 20 years of experience and don't even make six figures. $350000 base pay sounds like a different world.

ryannevius• 4 years ago

Most tech workers in Europe _are_ underpaid (sample size: 1, me, an American living and working in the tech industry in Europe).

andai• 4 years ago

Do you mean that you are working for European companies and get paid more than your European colleagues?

baal80spam• 4 years ago

Exactly my thought when I read the title. I know the cost of living is higher in US but I'm always baffled by how much tech workers make on the other side of the pond. To me it sounds like a dream.

t-3• 4 years ago

To be fair, 200k+ isn't the norm outside of the FAANGs, but 100k for an experienced dev is achievable almost anywhere in the US, including places with very low cost of living. Many of the southern states have very low/no income tax, extremely cheap land/housing/food, and great weather.

boc2• 4 years ago

You're welcome to join us anytime friend!

tjansen3• 4 years ago

Cost of living in the US is weird. When I am in the US, I don't feel poor as long as I do what 'regular Europeans' are doing. I could go to Whole Foods and pay a small fortune for bread, but as long as I go to Aldi prices are quite European for me. There are many ways to spend lots of money, you can find restaurants where you can spend your weekly income for a family meal, but fast food and fast casual restaurants are not more expensive than in Europe. Houses (outside metropolitan areas) and cars are often ridiculously cheap.

And then there are some things that are just insanely expensive from a European perspective: out-of-pocket medical expenses, college, lawyers, cable TV... makes it very hard to compare.

twistedpair• 4 years ago

I live in a major US housing market. I want to get a bigger house for my family. Realistically, we're talking $1.2M to do so. That feels so crazy, given I grew up in a $150K house. Suddenly you feel compelled to do whatever it takes to make $400K/yr so you can buy a 3 bedroom house.

zeku3• 4 years ago

I have to post this every time we talk about salary and Europeans get in on the convo. This forum is absolutely DOMINATED by SF/LA/Seattle SWEs. Their cost of living is extremely high and their salaries are extremely high.

The US is huge.

I work in the Southeast. Where I'm working Junior SWEs start around 60k. Mid Level Start Around 75k. Senior start around 95k. Manager/Our new "Super Senior" level start around 120k.

Our cost of living is still higher than yours. In my area a 3 bed/2 bath home with a small yard within 1 hour drive of my work costs 450k minimum and that would be a full hour out and the siding would be vinyl.

We have horrible public services, many of us are in debt to have obtained our CS degrees, child care is soo expensive, healthcare is crazy expensive even after we get our employer healthcare plans. Going to a local soccer match costs me $50 for nosebleed tickets, a beer is $14, and nachos are $15. Parking costs me $25 at the game and you have to pay for gas here too which is close to $5 a gallon(but keep in mind we drive further, to EVERYTHING, and owning a car is a requirement unless you're in NYC or SF).

I just want to represent for what is probably the majority of US SWE's.

alex_suzuki2• 4 years ago

Agreed. If you can land a job at a FAANG (not desirable for me), things are different though, even in Europe.

nivenkos2• 4 years ago

Nah, I worked at Amazon in Europe - earned about $75k for a position that pays $160k in the US.

We europoors are cheap labour for US corporations.

welder3• 4 years ago

Get a remote job where they pay California rates no matter your location [1] [2] [3]. It's the new way for companies to stand out and attract global top talent.

[1] https://handbook.sourcegraph.com/benefits-pay-perks/pay-expe...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/airbnb-commits-to-fully-re...

[3] Filter by "Location independent pay" https://himalayas.app/companies

DogLover_4• 4 years ago

Those are hard to find. If you filter in your 3.link it goes from 1924 -> 38. That is 2% of the jobs.

meheleventyone• 4 years ago

You don’t even need California rates of pay. Lots of remote jobs even if they don’t have parity pay more than local jobs.

DogLover_4• 4 years ago

Regarding link to AirBnb[2]. Their job-listing is still country dependent.

nextlevelwizard• 4 years ago

That works if you live in US, but considering if you are 10 hours ahead of California your life will turned literally upside down if you work remotely for Cali company.

DocTomoe• 4 years ago

Be aware that if you include the taxes and mandatory insurances you have to pay (and your employer has to pay), you'd usually pass the six figures easily.

It's easy to be a millionaire if the state takes fuck all from the paycheck.

DogLover_4• 4 years ago

We pay taxes in the EU as well. Often the rate is much higher than the US but it depends on the country.

mathverse2• 4 years ago

47k net on 90k salary in Denmark. You guys have it insanely good and you dont even know it.

happymellon7• 4 years ago

20 years here too, UK, I've finally broken the 6 digit bar but I had to move to contracting.

My experience made getting job offers simple, but no one wanted to pay more. I'd often get lowballs with the offer of kudos for working at that tech firm.

£95k seems to be the upper limit at this point here for FTEs.

GordonS• 4 years ago

I've seen some remote architech/tech lead roles offering up to £125k, but this is a very recent development.

sgt2• 4 years ago

£95k is very decent in the countryside but in London that's nothing to write home about, is it? I don't live in London or even the UK, so my statement is just based on friends living there.

benjaminwootton• 4 years ago

Contracting has been a very large component of the London market.

Developers have been contracting at £600+ per day, more than £120k per year income, for 15+ years.

It has historically been very easy to achieve that if you don’t mind working for a bank.

I don’t even think I’m in a bubble with these numbers. I know and have hired hundreds of contractors over the years.

yreg• 4 years ago

Tbh I don't feel underpaid; I feel the US/FAANG engineers are ridiculously overpaid.

zelos• 4 years ago

Their employers are making $300k+ net profit per employee. The salaries seem reasonable to me on that basis.

dqpb3• 4 years ago

If that were true, companies would be going out of business, but instead they're thriving. Why are Europeans so underpaid? Are their tech companies not thriving?

linspace• 4 years ago

As an underpaid European I welcome insanely high salaries in USA. It sets a precedent and it has also influence in the global wage market.

eru22• 4 years ago

Especially since the pandemic showed that remote work mostly works.

throwawayo• 4 years ago

Our CEO makes 120.000 € a year. Revenue about 2.000.000 € There are employees that make more than him, but no one is close to 200.000 €. Personal is our biggest expense.

I earn a decent living and can afford a house and two kids and a stay at home wife in Central Europe with 74.000 € (Project Manager / DevOp / Admin).

Cost of living must be insanely high in the U.S. For me, these numbers are so high - I can't imagen what someone would do with all this money.

tasuki• 4 years ago

I can't imagen what someone would do with all this money.

Either splurge or save.

lotsofpulp4• 4 years ago

Cost of living must be insanely high in the U.S. For me, these numbers are so high - I can't imagen what someone would do with all this money.

First is secure yourself with fuck you money so you do not need to sell your labor to procure the things you want, especially shelter (land), food, water, energy, healthcare, and education.

Second is play the game against other high earners. Get involved in other businesses or politics, etc.

gedy3• 4 years ago

Mostly housing and trying to self fund retirement for 20-30 years.

rjbwork• 4 years ago

Save/invest so that I can escape the rat race before I'm too hold to do anything I actually want to do with my time.

triceratops• 4 years ago

Cost of living must be insanely high in the U.S

It's really not, especially if you have good health insurance through work. You can splurge and live life on a grand scale, or sock away generational wealth on American tech salaries.

dschndstr• 4 years ago

There are tax reasons for lowish CEO pay. You get income just up to the highest tax bracket (~120000 eur for married single income in Germany) and funnel the rest through dividends into a holding entity.

SilverBirch• 4 years ago

My experience has been that there's this massive cliff - if you can get into a company that's got a strong US attitude towards Tech salaries you can 2-5x your salary. That basically means do the same job but work for either a FANG style company, or work in some parts of Finance (easy to do in London). Someone of my experience (10 years exp) working in an average software company in the UK is probably earning 50-70k. By moving into Finance I'm now doing the same job for closer to 400k,and I'm not paid incredibly well compared to my US counterparts. It's just absurd.

dqpb3• 4 years ago

Why are European software engineers so underpaid?

dathinab3• 4 years ago

E.g. in Germany the side costs are much higher then in the US. E.g. the cost of paying 80k€ salary is much more then 80k€ for the company.

But in the end the main reason is SV/FAANG.

phendrenad22• 4 years ago

Warning: Every European who comes here feels extremely poor also (and many move back to Europe), so perhaps you should take that into consideration.

cakeplease• 4 years ago

These threads always make me sad. Even an entry-level position in the US makes more money than I do. There doesn't seem to be much competition here. I do get a lot of recruiting emails but most of them just ignore me after I mention my current salary. Granted, I am very fortunate to make 100000€ a year (mostly stock so varies a lot)

Working remotely for a US company would be one option but there is a massive time zone difference. Also, the recruiting messages from US companies (e.g. Turing) seemed to treat Europeans as cheap labor who are not entitled to stock grants.

kodah• 4 years ago

Honestly I've been asking for more pay to come into the office from companies I'm interviewing at because rent is skyrocketing and my competition when trying to buy a home even within an hour of most of these offices is on the order of $100k-$300k + appraisal. My rent should be 1/3 of what I take home.

uejfiweun• 4 years ago

Working in tech is not exactly easy, even if you love computers. You have to move to some awfully expensive part of the country and interact with some extremely thin skinned people all day, and spend hours upon hours examining minute details of systems supporting systems supporting systems that you never even knew existed.

gorgoiler2• 4 years ago

Well said. Working in tech is like writing a book with 50 people instead of 1.

Baeocystin• 4 years ago

It's not that I dislike Jenga so much as I hadn't really expected it to be such a spot-on analogy of what tech work actually entails.

kilroy1233• 4 years ago

Plus it's very competitive. You can't just sit around and rest on one's laurels. You have to constantly be learning and god help you when you need to interview and land a new job.

lotsofpulp4• 4 years ago

Hence the higher pay. If it was easier, there would be more supply of labor relative to demand, hence the prices for the labor would be lower.

RussianCow4• 4 years ago

It depends. I've met a few engineers who coast by on their experience and seniority, likely putting in less than 10 hours per week of actual work. They don't make top dollar, but are still paid handsomely by most measures. Of course, they had to prove themselves first to earn the privilege.

I don't want to generalize (anecdata and all that), but it seems like this would be pretty easy to do at many big (non-FAANG) companies.

jason05976• 4 years ago

You have to move to some awfully expensive part of the country and interact with some extremely thin skinned people all day, and spend hours upon hours examining minute details of systems supporting systems supporting systems that you never even knew existed.

Sounds a lot like engineering to be honest. Lots of travelling to facilities in the middle of nowhere, people that never click together, examining systems with no documentation that you never knew existed in the first place, etc.

Which means that this is not a good explanation for the salary disparity between engineering and tech, as both fields deal with similar problems, yet one is paid substantially more.

dasil0032• 4 years ago

Isn't it obvious? Software scales globally with effectively zero margin, so if you combine this with network effects and blue ocean, unregulated markets in user data, that meant a massive high new ceiling for software engineers set by Google and Facebook.

gorgoiler2• 4 years ago

TLDR: average pay is now >$100k but staff shortages mean longer hours and extra work.

fxtentacle• 4 years ago

I wonder how much of the effect is average vs. median. If you have a team of 10 people and you give a big raise to one of them, then the average will go up. But 9 out of 10 people will feel underpaid, because you did not give them a raise like their 1 teammate.

mywittyname2• 4 years ago

None. Most of these places are using sampled salary data.

nivenkos2• 4 years ago

What a title. Americans are so, so lucky, and don't even recognise their privilege.

passivate2• 4 years ago

With remote work and easier access to the global talent pool, these salaries are bound to normalize across the board. Enjoy the ride while you can, my friends! :)

wil4214• 4 years ago

People have been telling me IT was a bad field to go into since I was in high school in the early 2000s. India and outsourcing is going to take your job, don’t go into IT.

Here I am years later in one of the best job markets for IT. IT related jobs are constantly in the top 3 for projected grown in the next decade or so. Yet, I still have to explain to older people who maybe worked in IT/Telecoms in the 90s that no India and the global market is not taking my job.

globular-toast• 4 years ago

It's partly the hedonic treadmill and partly that most of them are in a bubble. They only mix with people who earn as much as them or even more. It doesn't take long here on HN to see how out of touch some of them are with the wider world.

AnotherAsprin• 4 years ago

Are six figure salaries an american thing? I see people saying "Entry level jobs are paying up to 60k" which is just crazy money!

I have worked for the past 7 years as IT within the UK education sector and expect my salary to be lower than that of industry but I am not even making half that!

boc2• 4 years ago

It's the hedonic treadmill effect. People here in SF making $200K are looking around feeling like they are probably underpaid compared to friends at other companies. Also finance/law can pay a fuck-ton too, but you have to work crazy hours. Have a friend who just turned 29 pulling down $500K in PE, but works like 80-100 hour weeks. At some point that's just a bad use of your finite time. Have also had friends walk away with millions after an IPO.

Not really sure if there's a larger point other than to say that there's always a tier of people above you making more money, so don't let it get you down.

gbuk2013• 4 years ago

“Working in IT” is pretty broad, but a senior JS dev in London can reasonably ask for 70-90k these days, sometimes more.

Nextgrid3• 4 years ago

90k is the top level, and doesn't go far especially in London.

zece2• 4 years ago

Yes, outside London the six figure salaries only start appearing when you have a particularly senior role in a company that's flush with cash.

gnfargbl• 4 years ago

Yes, they are an American thing. These salaries (or a decent percentage of them) are open to you in the UK, but you'll need to work remotely, probably for a US-based company. This may mean contracting.

Because some component of tech work usually needs to be synchronous, I'd suggest picking a company where most of the people are on Eastern or Central time -- for me at least, MT and PT feel just that little bit too far. If you're a night owl, that might not matter to you.

teekert• 4 years ago

I work in an international company and it is very difficult to compare EU to US, our US employees are on average 1.5x more expensive but, with that money they have to pay for more expensive healthcare with poorer coverage, and to get their kids to a good school they need to live in very expensive neighborhoods. For us in the Netherlands school quality is roughly homogeneous and when you get cancer you will never see a bill or suffer financially.

But 30k at 7 years of experience in IT is pretty low if you ask me (we’re talking before tax right?), for us that would be called "modal", about what a nurse or police officer would make?

I work in the Netherlands (large healthcare company) and make about 100k (12 years of experience after my PhD), however, I think my company pays quite well and when applying at other places I'd get about 85-90k? Depending on the company, larger is higher I think.

The way to a higher pay (but higher risk) for me is becoming independent I think. Then I'd probable be able to ask for 150 an hour (as consultant/sw dev). This be fore tax, no pension etc.

lawrenceyan• 4 years ago

The average cost of a home in the Bay Area is also somewhere between ~1.5 million dollars as well. So it’s effectively impossible to reasonably buy a home unless you have a salary >300k without going into massive debt.

durandal1• 4 years ago

Worse than that, property taxes and higher interest rates makes that 1.5M home at least 3x more expensive compared to the equivalent European house.

zece2• 4 years ago

Despite the average salary for tech workers breaking six figures in 2022, many IT and tech professionals still feel underpaid.
According to hiring experts, the most significant factor contributing to this feeling is likely the long and extra work hours of the existing IT staff, which makes them feel burdened.

This is great point. I'm sure we all know someone in this field who has experienced burnout from their job, or indeed you may have experienced it yourself.

In the end, by understaffing and piling on more and more work onto their tech workers, managers are stealing not just time from their employees, but their health too.

I personally realized far too late in my career that I'd wasted vast amounts of time working late to meet arbitrary deadlines for projects that, in the end, didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I wish I'd pushed back and just worked my contracted hours, to spend more time with the ones I love, doing things I enjoyed, rather than forcing myself to endure further work stress.

That is much more important than getting extra money on top of a salary that is already well above the average earner, in my opinion. Though more and larger pay increases would have welcome too, of course.

tjpnz• 4 years ago

I'm in that group. Reading HN everyday (and not living in the Bay Area) probably doesn't help.

Krisjohn• 4 years ago

Every time a customer's big whatever grinds to a complete halt and they try to melt down my phone because I'm the only one that can dig them out of whatever hole they've put themselves in, I feel like I'm not paid enough.

mathverse2• 4 years ago

We europeans are underpaid and taxed to death. The US could easily fill its worker shortage by offering easy visas for EU engineers. Many of us would like to move but it's a real PITA to apply to companies that are even willing to consider visa sponsorship.

I actually have no idea why this is not the case already. It's basically 1st world to 1st world transition and the one losing would be EU.

mjbeswick• 4 years ago

It only seems like that but people in the US have to pay for things that Europeans take for granted. You might earn more, but most people would end up with less disposable income.

Nextgrid3• 4 years ago

It really depends on your country. In the UK, the "NHS" everyone seems to love here is completely useless unless you're on the brink of death. Any non-critical care is impossible to get so you end up going private anyway, essentially paying twice.

refurb6• 4 years ago

For some jobs sure, but tech job? The delta is >$100,000USD/yr, which after tax might be $70,000 which pays for all that stuff you get for free or subsidized in Europe, plus some left over.

wil4214• 4 years ago

Paying $12k on the high end out of your non-taxed income for a family of 4 does not make up for a near 2x salary gap.

pb72• 4 years ago

United States has the highest median disposable income in the world.[0] The gap is astronomical if considering tech workers alone.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

jason05976• 4 years ago

Many of us would like to move

I for one wouldn't. I would never ever ever trade my walkable cities for the monstrosities that are car-centric North American cities.

22SAS2• 4 years ago

Why only offer easy visas for EU engineers? There are good engineers in all countries around the world, EU engineers are not some special breed of engineers.

specialist• 4 years ago

What about simple profit sharing?

Maybe I'm weird, comparing my compensation to my own company's execs, vs against industry averages.

alexfromapex• 4 years ago

This article is extremely accurate about fatigue from wrangling and prepping large amounts of data. One thing it oddly ignores is the YTD inflation rate of 8.5% but it acknowledges that salaries increased 6.9% since 2020.

flappyeagle• 4 years ago

There's this dynamic of pay tending to be pegged to your job title. An engineer is an engineer is an engineer.

In SF bay area, entry level jobs at big tech are skewing high and experienced roles are skewing low. This doesn't come close to mapping to impact level usually and we just accept that because it's socially easy.

I've worked at startups where there were clearly >10x impact differences between two engineers and at most there was a 2x salary difference. As a startup, it's basically not worth it to hire junior talent anymore because they are not close to being worth the cost in most cases.

jcomis• 4 years ago

This right here. It's frustrating when you learn that someone hired a couple months ago ("the hottest job market" tm) with 2 yoe makes marginally less than you at 10+ yoe, as an example. A higher performing Sr can expect maybe high single digit bumps yearly, but a job hopping Jr can double digit bump and make it to almost the same level in a couple years. While less important and more ego the same thing is happening to titles. It's just hard to get out of the headspace of feeling underpaid when you see that, especially when you are the one holding their hand and helping them gain experience. Totally get it's all "in your head" and we are all very fortunate or that I should just job hop along with them, but overall just hard to escape those thought patterns.

arcanus• 4 years ago

This is known as wage compression. It is occurring (typical in hot job markets) and has many of the problems you noted. Good indicator of a distorted labor market.

nicksiscoe2• 4 years ago

complains about six-figure pay while sitting at home at computer eating a snack while waiting for someone to review their pull request

technovader• 4 years ago

and then goes out to buy groceries for family that cost 50% more than a year ago.

and then has to fill up on gas but decides to just walk

albertgoeswoof• 4 years ago

if cheap gas is the reason you're driving instead of walking, gas is too cheap

nicksiscoe2• 4 years ago

Your sentiment is not specific to the tech industry. Many who work in tech are quite blessed to have careers that, despite the supposed realities you mention, give them a quality of life others can only dream of.

AnIdiotOnTheNet2• 4 years ago

And said PR was probably adding new ad and tracking tech to make people's lives more miserable.

tristor• 4 years ago

Article was unreadable on mobile due to huge white box for a small banner ad that followed scroll at the top with a second massive uncloseable ad at the bottom, forcing a clickthru if you tried to scroll. Site is cursed.

That said, based on what’s been shared in the thread, I’ll just say two things:

1. $100k isn’t what it used to be. When I started my career a $100k base seemed great, JUST off inflation it’d need a $155k base today to have the same purchasing power. CPI inflation doesn’t fully account for how crazy localized housing is in tech hubs either.

2. As a percentage share of the value generated by each engineering headcount, our earnings have gone down as profits have gone up. The current reality is meaningfully less equitable than in the past, including in stock equity and share dilution.

There’s a lot of hemming and hawing happening in the world because tech workers are relatively better off than other workers, but we still are objectively being harmed by inflation and widening inequality between workers and the executive/capitalist class. The fact we are scraping by does not discount the facts above.

jdlyga• 4 years ago

Don't forget that 100k in 2022 is equivalent to 75k 2010. That was considered to be a good salary for students fresh out of graduate school

Pmop• 4 years ago

Meanwhile I'm making ~1/10th of the average. Been applying but looks like companies are looking for folks with +4yr experience. US and UK companies are no go since most aren't hiring people located outside of the US, and the few that do, it's for 1/10th of the average pay again.

Making +100k USD would be nice but I'm looking for 20k or maybe 30k, that would be way more than what I'm making currently. Can anyone share some tips? Should I just grind it out until I have enough yrs of experience to compete/be eligible for higher paying jobs?

dijit• 4 years ago

I think where you live (unfortunately) has a lot to do with what jobs are available.

I had to move to Finland (from the UK) to get my first real job, and even when I returned to the UK I had to move to London to find another place that would take me. Now I have a few years under me and people seem to throw jobs at me.

The trend has been for a while: "We don't hire juniors", which I think is extremely short-sighted.

The problem is that when you're hiring juniors (or even interns) you have a responsibility for them; it's a bit like having children, you have a stranger that needs supervision, proper education and the company/environment needs to have a good structure.

Companies are scared of a junior being trained (or, invested in) and then running away.

Companies are even more scared of the fact that they don't have a good structure set up. So we have this sort of absence of new juniors.

(also, and this is controversial, when hiring juniors there's a strong emphasis on hiring from minority backgrounds such as women, trans-folk, ethnicities other than white and neurodiversity).

So, my "tip" is to move to where the jobs are. (rather: be very open to relocate)

tlogan• 4 years ago

The salaries definitely did not keep up with inflation so if techies were feeling underpaid in 2020 they are feeling even more underpaid in 2022…

A little strange article… it seems like they assume people who read these articles do not know math.

Finnucane2• 4 years ago

I'd guess a lot of people, regardless of industry, feel underpaid. Simply for the reason that they are. Growing inequality is real, over the last few decades an ever increasing portion of the productivity gain of the economy goes to a smaller portion of the people. We do the work, others get the profit.

enduser• 4 years ago

Everyone seems to want something other than what they already have, and most assume more is better.

Finnucane2• 4 years ago

Yes, but that's always true and the rising spread of inequality is a problem of the last few decades.

0daystock• 4 years ago

No mention of current market conditions, namely record inflation? I suspect that may have something to do with why many people - "technies" are no exception - feel underpaid (because they are relative to blown-up monetary supply).

UI_at_80x242• 4 years ago

I was recently laid off along with >30% of the company.

I really liked the job, I had full autonomy to do whatever I wanted. Research new tech, optimize our existing infrastructure, etc. I was the sole SysAdmin and I ran the operations very well. The problem: Pay was stagnate. The pay was decent for my region, but a far cry from larger metro areas and others with my skills.

So I started looking online and found a great opportunity. As a bonus: The pay is $50k+ MORE then what I was making before.

And I still work from home.

So, yes I did feel underpaid; now I don't.

mgkimsal3• 4 years ago

Will you feel underpaid 6 months from now?

UI_at_80x242• 4 years ago

No, this is a life changing opportunity for me. I'll make the most of it and when this contract ends, it sets a new bar for other opportunities.

cat_plus_plus• 4 years ago

So long as there is a labor shortage, workers will reasonably feel underpaid, knowing they have a better deal elsewhere. Just like in a recession people feel lucky to have a job. As for causes, US work visas have been cut while pandemic fueled increased demand for online services. And India/China still have not recovered from the pandemic to the same degree as US.

lkxijlewlf• 4 years ago

TL;DR

High tech workers feel underpaid, so here's how to continue to underpay them and make them feel okay about it.

rob_c• 4 years ago

"six figure", "underpaid", "random.com", medium like article about having it difficult working out of hours...

Dear author, imagine yourself in academia where this is a relaxing week but the pay is half. If you dislike your job leave, or, suck it up and build towards an early retirement. It's not a magical forumla...

dasil0032• 4 years ago

It's subtle, but the headline feels a bit like low-key class warfare clickbait. No one feels underpaid because their salary is six figures, it's because of what they're paid relative to their peers and workload. The article actually covers this decently well, but the headlines makes it sound like techies are a bunch of entitled brats.

sircastor• 4 years ago

This is important. I feel it's especially true of folks outside of the Bay area, who hear of 400-600K compensation packages and wonder why they're being paid "so poorly"

A personal anecdote: A (very much) junior colleague decided to move jobs and when I asked them they told me their new salary - $15k more than I was making (and I had 15 years of experience on them). This person is totally competent and I was delighted they were getting that salary, but I was annoyed that I was not when I had so much more experience.

artful-hacker• 4 years ago

A personal anecdote: as soon as companies starting paying these salaries to remote workers, I found myself a company willing to pay me for my experience. Now I get to reap the benefits of lower cost of living, higher quality of life, and higher pay. I don't know how long this gravy train will last, but I suggest anyone with the experience to hop on get their ticket immediately.

Invictus0• 4 years ago

Annoyed with who?

faangiq• 4 years ago

It’s because we generate millions in revenue per person and manage projects with enormous complexity that are not fungible. (Whereas most corporate functions just require a warm body.) We are vastly underpaid.

omot• 4 years ago

I personally wish there is a healthier supply of modern housing in these attractive workplaces. Places like SF/NY/LA has atrocious rent and that’s okay if housing quality on average is okay but a lot of these buildings are 100+ years old, barely maintained or a new cash grab apartment complex that’s marketed as luxurious but look an inch deeper and you could tell these developers hardly spent time nor money knowing they get away with shoddy quality apartments. What’s the point of getting paid six figures when your office is higher quality and aesthetically pleasing than your own house.

The solution to all of this is a simpler zoning law at the federal / state level that allows competent developers to win in all markets. City level zoning laws prohibits the best developer from scaling and artificially creates cost for developers that care. How come there isn’t a household name akin to Apple for apartment development? I want to be able to stick to one amazing developer for a consistent experience across multiple markets especially now that remote work is becoming a permanent option for multiple developers.

I have a sibling that lives in Japan. They live 10 min away from downtown Osaka by train, their rent is $1100 a month, it’s not large but the apartment is extremely functional, space efficiently utilized for plenty of storage and rooms. There’s also a giant green park in the middle of the complex with a foot bath. They also talk about the developer and boasts about their brand. Their family makes 1/5 my salary but I still feel like they’re living the wealthier life.

Please we could start in California: More housing supply, Let the best developer win and scale, normalize old building tear downs.

thr0wawayf00• 4 years ago

How come there isn’t a household name akin to Apple for apartment development?

Because real estate development is capital-intensive on a fairly unique scale and it's very easy even for good developers to go under. It also doesn't scale in the same way because builders are subject to all of the tax and regulatory implications of each market they're in.

They go bankrupt all the time due to market forces outside of their control. Just look at the price of lumber over the last couple of years. Markets can move more quickly than builders can react because big projects can take years and building supplies can double in price in a matter of months.

I want to be able to stick to one amazing developer for a consistent experience across multiple markets especially now that remote work is becoming a permanent option for multiple developers.

I don't how realistic a vision this is because it's not like developers that dominate a market are inherently incentivized to do good work. In fact, demand is so crazy for builders that getting good work done at all is becoming harder and harder.

MattDamonSpace• 4 years ago

Yeah I think the idea was to have a proper functioning market in which a dominant player gains their position through directly winning over and maintaining customers

encoderer• 4 years ago

Here’s a big one:

Real estate development is not nearly as advantaged by labor arbitrage.

In America you basically have to pay people American wages to develop housing. Not so for iPhones.

travisgriggs• 4 years ago

I don’t feel underpaid. But I do feel undervalued.

I have bemusedly imagined a future discussion where when a prospective employer asks what salary I’m hoping to make I say the following:

“We’ll, that’s an interesting question. I want you to pay me X or 1.2X. If you’ll point me towards value and let me contribute towards that, and act like you trust me and include me in decision making processes, in short some form of equanimity, I’ll do this job excitedly for X. But if you’re going to treat me like a horse, micromanage me, overprocess me, basically devalue me, then that is going to cost you an extra 20%.”

mgkimsal3• 4 years ago

meh... they'll pay you X then bring you in to decision making meetings where decisions are already made, but you get to decide which hours of unpaid overtime you'll work to implement their decisions in the order they demand ("we've already approved this quarter's goals!").

But hey, you were involved in the decision making process, right? You and everyone else gets to decide which weekends you'll work, or which quality corners you'll cut, and which tests you'll skip, which documentation you'll avoid, which security steps you'll ignore, etc. Just don't bother the folks above you with any of those details.

lupire• 4 years ago

There is no "why" here. Just speculation by no-credibility "experts" and spamming arbitrary facts about what some jobs pay, and misreporting Amazon's base salary as total compensation.

hawthornio• 4 years ago

All workers in a capitalist economy are _always_ underpaid

soheil• 4 years ago

I have always wanted a job as a "Computer/mainframe programmer"

etempleton• 4 years ago

Maybe some feel underpaid because some of these companies work environments are terrible. Amazon’s dramatic increase in base pay is almost an acknowledgment that it is not a very nice place to work.

People are generally willing to accept less pay for work/life balance, job security, and non-toxic work environements.

blahblarblar• 4 years ago

Tech work doesn’t feel like something you can have a life long career in. It’s stressful and there’s ageism. Tech workers are mentally amortizing their productive tech life-span over their whole life and then comp doesn’t look as high.

_vdpp• 4 years ago

Whenever I see salary discussions on HN I’m reminded of a saying about military medals: “There are some who deserved more that got less, and some who deserved less and got more.”

dathinab3• 4 years ago

Because averages are misleading, inflation is high, but also do they?

Most people I know might complain they get relatively less then before, but so does anyone who gets less then before.

But I don't know (m?)any which feel they get too little if put in context of jobs outside of IT.

Or at least where I live in the EU? Did the living cost in the US explode to a point where a 100k$ salary isn't enough to reasonable nicely rise a kid?

RussianCow4• 4 years ago

But I don't know (m?)any which feel they get too little if put in context of jobs outside of IT.

I don't think the reference point is outside of the software industry; rather, it's other organizations that pay disproportionately well. When you hear of devs at large tech companies earning $400k+ salaries, it's hard not to feel underpaid if you're earning less than half that, even when your own salary is incredibly comfortable by most other measures.

Or at least where I live in the EU? Did the living cost in the US explode to a point where a 100k$ salary isn't enough to reasonable nicely rise a kid?

Again, this is missing the point a little, but I will add that $100k won't get you very far in San Francisco.

DonnyV• 4 years ago

I believe software engineers should be getting residuals from the products they help build. Like the way writers and actors get residuals for shows and movies they have worked on and are not a part of anymore. The company that owns that show or movie is still making money from licensing that and the actors and writers helped make that happen. Same with developers. Long after you leave a company that software product you helped create is still making money for its owner. Yes the structure would have to be hashed out. Ground floor developers would get more than maintainers. After some time OG creators would get less and the revisionists would get more. But at least developers could live off that money to take sabbaticals and not get burned out.

mdorazio• 4 years ago

The challenge here is that once a show, movie, or piece of music is done, it’s done and can be syndicated out for decades. Software usually doesn’t work that way so you’d get into tricky situations like trying to license particular functions or code blocks, which would usually be trivial to rewrite to avoid paying royalties, etc.

agseward• 4 years ago

Isn't that exactly what RSUs are? They are a share of all the future profits of a company.

AzzieElbab• 4 years ago

Maybe tax brackets should be adjusted for inflation. Just a thought

kurupt213• 4 years ago

I would have never guessed the average tech worker salary was that low

Tech Salaries in 2022: Why the Six Figure Pay Makes Techies Feel Underpaid

Related Stories