Google Is Tops for Software Engineer Salaries(mashable.com)
mashable.com
Google Is Tops for Software Engineer Salaries
http://mashable.com/2012/10/18/google-tops-software-engineer-salaries/
19 comments
I personally think the "cost of living" argument is bogus a huge portion of the time, at least it was for me when I moved from Maryland to NYC.
Sure, rent is expensive. That's about it, and even then if you're willing to live in the right part of Jersey you can still be 30 minutes from work and have very cheap rent.
Most big ticket items are the same. Anything ordered from Amazon is the same. Laptops, tablets, sound systems - the same. Tons of clothing deals all over the city. Food is actually cheaper because there are so many little farmer markets and dollar stores. I understand that if you just go by what some people are paying for a hamburger, you could think that NYC is much more expensive, but you don't have to eat at the same place i-bankers and tourists eat! A street gyro cost $4 and there's $1 slices of pizza.
Finally, even if the cost of living is higher, it's not a comparable product. You are paying not only to have a place to sleep, but you are also paying to live in New York City, one of the most exciting cities in the world with endless amounts of diverse people, places, and activities. Paying higher rent so that you can live in the city many people dream about makes sense, and the fact that salaries are largely adjusted to make this a reasonable proposition makes it an easy choice.
Sure, rent is expensive. That's about it, and even then if you're willing to live in the right part of Jersey you can still be 30 minutes from work and have very cheap rent.
Most big ticket items are the same. Anything ordered from Amazon is the same. Laptops, tablets, sound systems - the same. Tons of clothing deals all over the city. Food is actually cheaper because there are so many little farmer markets and dollar stores. I understand that if you just go by what some people are paying for a hamburger, you could think that NYC is much more expensive, but you don't have to eat at the same place i-bankers and tourists eat! A street gyro cost $4 and there's $1 slices of pizza.
Finally, even if the cost of living is higher, it's not a comparable product. You are paying not only to have a place to sleep, but you are also paying to live in New York City, one of the most exciting cities in the world with endless amounts of diverse people, places, and activities. Paying higher rent so that you can live in the city many people dream about makes sense, and the fact that salaries are largely adjusted to make this a reasonable proposition makes it an easy choice.
Yeah, look... it's an impossible problem.
On one hand you put your finger on it. Your life in place A is completely different then your life in place B so trying to so that you are paying x% more per sqft and therefore you arre y% poorer is obviously nonsense. Same goes for inflation calculators. This week you spent your money on iPads, international foods, air travel, divorce lawyers and antidepressants. 200 years ago you could have taken that money and bought this many slaves, that much bread and a weekly leaching. Therefore $1 in 1804 is worth $349 in todays money.
On the other hand there obviously is such a thing as inflation over time and cost of living variances. You can tell because you can live in a house, eat food and drive a car with a certain amount of money in one place but you can't pay for a the smallest apartment in another place with the same amount.
On one hand you put your finger on it. Your life in place A is completely different then your life in place B so trying to so that you are paying x% more per sqft and therefore you arre y% poorer is obviously nonsense. Same goes for inflation calculators. This week you spent your money on iPads, international foods, air travel, divorce lawyers and antidepressants. 200 years ago you could have taken that money and bought this many slaves, that much bread and a weekly leaching. Therefore $1 in 1804 is worth $349 in todays money.
On the other hand there obviously is such a thing as inflation over time and cost of living variances. You can tell because you can live in a house, eat food and drive a car with a certain amount of money in one place but you can't pay for a the smallest apartment in another place with the same amount.
When it comes to food, I disagree that NYC isn't significantly more expensive. It is true that you can find cheap street and fast food in the city, but there's no way you could stand eating that all of the time just like any fast food. Groceries are more expensive than other parts of the country and you are often dependent on several stores for getting the kind of goods you want unless you live in Manhattan near a big store like Whole Foods (a store which is expensive). In terms of salary, only white collar and union jobs have any kind of salary adjustment that helps with the cost of living.
I wasn't just talking about street foods, I specifically mentioned the markets that have cheaper produce and meat than what I paid in Maryland. For household items there's dollar store type places with pretty cheap general products. You do have to shop around more. As far as whose salary is adjusted, I thought we were only discussing developers.
I've lived in NYC for 15 years, and the only market that's relatively cheaper is Chinatown. However, it has a limited selection and it's only accessible if you live around it, i.e. in some of the most expensive areas of Manhattan. So yes, you could save a few dollars a month on baby bok choy, but you'd be living in a $3k a month studio apartment and paying a 20%-80% premium on everything else - electric, cable, non-chinese food, etc.
The only things that are cheaper in NYC are international flights (and only because you don't have to pay for connections) and immigrant labor (such as apartment cleaning). Other than that, to say that anything in NYC is cheaper than Maryland is just plain untrue.
And all this "willing to live in the right place in New Jersey" so you can have a 30 minute commute is propaganda. What it really means is, ghetto-living with an hour and a half commute, and that's only if you work 10 hour days because the commute around 9-to-5 is actually 2 hours. I've done it, and it's not worth it. (Unless of course, you are actually poor and simply have to).
Working 10 hour days and commuting 3 more is work+sleep, not living. Yes, you have your weekends, but when you are in NJ, let's face it, you miss out on all the spontaneous things that people do, which is the whole reason you've moved to NYC in the first place.
The only things that are cheaper in NYC are international flights (and only because you don't have to pay for connections) and immigrant labor (such as apartment cleaning). Other than that, to say that anything in NYC is cheaper than Maryland is just plain untrue.
And all this "willing to live in the right place in New Jersey" so you can have a 30 minute commute is propaganda. What it really means is, ghetto-living with an hour and a half commute, and that's only if you work 10 hour days because the commute around 9-to-5 is actually 2 hours. I've done it, and it's not worth it. (Unless of course, you are actually poor and simply have to).
Working 10 hour days and commuting 3 more is work+sleep, not living. Yes, you have your weekends, but when you are in NJ, let's face it, you miss out on all the spontaneous things that people do, which is the whole reason you've moved to NYC in the first place.
And all this "willing to live in the right place in New Jersey" so you can have a 30 minute commute is propaganda. What it really means is, ghetto-living with an hour and a half commute
No, it's really true. The right place is Jersey City near one of the PATH subway stations, particularly Journal Square. That really is under 30 minutes from either the downtown or midtown commercial areas of Manhattan, and hardly ghetto at all. Other options are Union City or North Bergen along one of the many bus lines into Manhattan 42nd street. Or Hoboken a bit more upscale but still significantly cheaper than Manhattan.
I've lived in these areas of New Jersey and commuted to Manhattan for my entire professional life. It really is the best solution for a Manhattan commute. You don't need a car if within PATH subway range. Weekend access to NY is still just as easy. Grocery stores abound, both big chain and ethnic speciality. NJ sales tax is a bit less than NY, and you dodge the NYC income tax.
It's unclear if you meant you actually lived in NJ yourself. Did you, and where and what commute?
No, it's really true. The right place is Jersey City near one of the PATH subway stations, particularly Journal Square. That really is under 30 minutes from either the downtown or midtown commercial areas of Manhattan, and hardly ghetto at all. Other options are Union City or North Bergen along one of the many bus lines into Manhattan 42nd street. Or Hoboken a bit more upscale but still significantly cheaper than Manhattan.
I've lived in these areas of New Jersey and commuted to Manhattan for my entire professional life. It really is the best solution for a Manhattan commute. You don't need a car if within PATH subway range. Weekend access to NY is still just as easy. Grocery stores abound, both big chain and ethnic speciality. NJ sales tax is a bit less than NY, and you dodge the NYC income tax.
It's unclear if you meant you actually lived in NJ yourself. Did you, and where and what commute?
Anything near Path (or along those illegal van routes in West New York for that matter) is not cheaper, just slightly nicer (newer and bigger) than comparable lower priced Manhattan apartments. The parent could not have been talking about that though:
Sure, rent is expensive. That's about it, and even then if you're willing to live in the right part of Jersey you can still be 30 minutes from work and have very cheap rent.
Very cheap rent is not available until your commute gets well outside of 1 hour on a good day. Which means an hour and a half on a real day. The bus/non-Path rail system is an abomination. The wait times are unpredictable, the buses regularly miss their scheduled route (meaning you wait an hour for the next one), and the drivers hate and routinely abuse the passengers.
If you want a specific example, I've lived in Teaneck NJ for under a year. People like to say that it's 15 minutes from NYC - which is true, if you have a car and make the drive at 1am on a Tuesday (plus you have to figure in around $30 for parking). At a reasonable hour and no car, it takes an hour and a half, plus the bus wait time. And Teaneck is not cheap, merely cheaper than NYC. But you still won't find much under a $1,500 a month. Of course, you must add the monthly bus pass at ~$150.
Sure, rent is expensive. That's about it, and even then if you're willing to live in the right part of Jersey you can still be 30 minutes from work and have very cheap rent.
Very cheap rent is not available until your commute gets well outside of 1 hour on a good day. Which means an hour and a half on a real day. The bus/non-Path rail system is an abomination. The wait times are unpredictable, the buses regularly miss their scheduled route (meaning you wait an hour for the next one), and the drivers hate and routinely abuse the passengers.
If you want a specific example, I've lived in Teaneck NJ for under a year. People like to say that it's 15 minutes from NYC - which is true, if you have a car and make the drive at 1am on a Tuesday (plus you have to figure in around $30 for parking). At a reasonable hour and no car, it takes an hour and a half, plus the bus wait time. And Teaneck is not cheap, merely cheaper than NYC. But you still won't find much under a $1,500 a month. Of course, you must add the monthly bus pass at ~$150.
The prices drop off as you get farther into the outer boroughs. Even a token crossing of the East River saves you about $500 a month in rent. (I live in Brooklyn Heights. It's overpriced, but not Chelsea overpriced. And it's only 15 minutes to commute to Chelsea.)
I think a lot of people lower their standard of living when they move to expensive places. For instance, I live in the mid-west in a 5-bedroom, 3-bath house with a 2-car garage. My wife and I own 2 reliable cars, and we eat at mid-level restaurants almost every day. If we tried to live a comparable life in NYC, I'm certain the cost-of-living argument would apply.
My whole point was that my standard of living went up compared to Maryland. I'm making more and my bills didn't increase as to offset that. I have more money for vacations, going out, etc. It's true that the big house and car lifestyle may be more expensive, but even talking about those things IN NYC is ridiculous, obviously it makes much more sense to living in NJ or Long Island, where a develop salary can definitely get you a house and a few cars. I'm pretty sure cars are the same price most places and NJ has the cheapest gas in the country as far as I know.
Wait, this dumbass page just divides the salary by the cost of living ratio? This is idiotic. It would only make sense if you spent all you salary on "livings", trying to maximize the monthly number of "livings" you get.
What matters is the amount of cash you're left with after you pay the actual cost of living. In this model, 20k/y raise is a 20k/y raise wherever you live, assuming you've already got the monthly balance positive. Of course it's still not the perfect metric but still much better than this bullshit.
What matters is the amount of cash you're left with after you pay the actual cost of living. In this model, 20k/y raise is a 20k/y raise wherever you live, assuming you've already got the monthly balance positive. Of course it's still not the perfect metric but still much better than this bullshit.
CNN has a cost of living calculator that seems to take grocery , housing, utility, transportation, and healthcare factors into account.
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.htm...
107,798 in SF would be 73,278 in Minneapolis
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.htm...
107,798 in SF would be 73,278 in Minneapolis
So the key is get hired by Google in the bay area and "work from home" in Minneapolis! :-)
At both Sun and NetApp where I was familiar with the compensation practices there was a 'modifier' applied to bay area jobs which increased their compensation, but even with the modifier the 'net' take home pay was less than it was elsewhere.
That said, when I was at Google they had a really interesting pay practice for engineers which consists of a base salary and a 'bonus', the bonus was affected by a personal multiplier and a company multiplier. The system was designed to make it impossible to figure out what the multipliers were so basically is simplified to the old fashion 'tweak the folks we like' non-accountability that you got elsewhere but it certainly gave the impression to people that they were going to earn more money than they actually did. (And yes, it annoyed me, but Lazlo Bock the VP of HR didn't really care that it did :-) Perhaps when they did that whole 10% across the board thing they normalized things a bit (which would have been a good thing, the old system was causing good people to quit when it should have been rewarding them)
At both Sun and NetApp where I was familiar with the compensation practices there was a 'modifier' applied to bay area jobs which increased their compensation, but even with the modifier the 'net' take home pay was less than it was elsewhere.
That said, when I was at Google they had a really interesting pay practice for engineers which consists of a base salary and a 'bonus', the bonus was affected by a personal multiplier and a company multiplier. The system was designed to make it impossible to figure out what the multipliers were so basically is simplified to the old fashion 'tweak the folks we like' non-accountability that you got elsewhere but it certainly gave the impression to people that they were going to earn more money than they actually did. (And yes, it annoyed me, but Lazlo Bock the VP of HR didn't really care that it did :-) Perhaps when they did that whole 10% across the board thing they normalized things a bit (which would have been a good thing, the old system was causing good people to quit when it should have been rewarding them)
Just an FYI for those in DC: on that calculator, Washington is listed under the state of Virginia. Geographic boundaries are tricky business, but c'mon, CNN. You could at least pretend District of Columbia is a state.
But it's not a state, it's a district. I'll grant you that it's obviously a place where people live and work; but a state it is not.
I did say "pretend." I'm not interested in debating DC statehood, rather I am interested in a good user experience. In my case, I actually live in Maryland, yet I had to pull up Virginia to find my metro area.
Still missing the point. Consider the common case of earning and saving in NY and retiring to FL.
One has to distinguish cost of living for a non-saver from cost-of-living for a saver.
One has to distinguish cost of living for a non-saver from cost-of-living for a saver.
And I'll assert that it just doesn't matter for this discussion.
Look, as someone said elsewhere, this is an impossible problem. You have too many factors to figure out. Have a family? Want to own a house instead of rent? Do you need a car? What lifestyle do you maintain?
The point here is that we're trying to assess what it would cost to maintain a similar standard of living in two different cities. Food. Transportation costs. Housing. Rents. Healthcare. Forget 52" TVs and trips to Paris for the time being.
Look, as someone said elsewhere, this is an impossible problem. You have too many factors to figure out. Have a family? Want to own a house instead of rent? Do you need a car? What lifestyle do you maintain?
The point here is that we're trying to assess what it would cost to maintain a similar standard of living in two different cities. Food. Transportation costs. Housing. Rents. Healthcare. Forget 52" TVs and trips to Paris for the time being.
>> what it would cost to maintain a similar standard of living in two different cities.
Someone who saves $20k/year or spends large amounts on travel would have a much higher standard of living in SF than Minneapolis.
Try the algebra from the other end.
"I have a wife and two kids. I want to own a 3 bedroom house with a yard. I need a car, and I drive 15,000 miles a year. We eat <x> number of meals at home each week, and <y> at restaurants. We do <z> things as a family including movies. This takes up 80% of our net income."
Okay, now what would that cost in Minneapolis, and what would that cost in San Francisco? That's all we're trying to ask.
"I have a wife and two kids. I want to own a 3 bedroom house with a yard. I need a car, and I drive 15,000 miles a year. We eat <x> number of meals at home each week, and <y> at restaurants. We do <z> things as a family including movies. This takes up 80% of our net income."
Okay, now what would that cost in Minneapolis, and what would that cost in San Francisco? That's all we're trying to ask.
On the other hand, consider the more realistic scenario of renting in NY vs. building house equity elsewhere. Given that house equity is the prevalent savings scenario in the US, the average New Yorker has a higher cost of living and a lower savings rate.
In particular, you shouldn't adjust for CoL any parts of your salary that will be spent on (nonlocal) trips/vacations, or on nationally priced consumer goods. The cost of big-screen televisions or Xbox games doesn't get any cheaper when you move from San Francisco to Fresno, for example, and neither does the cost of taking a trip to Paris.
The CoL calculators, as they're usually implemented, make the most sense for people with no real disposable income beyond living expenses, but they don't make a lot of sense for Google-level salaries.
The CoL calculators, as they're usually implemented, make the most sense for people with no real disposable income beyond living expenses, but they don't make a lot of sense for Google-level salaries.
> they don't make a lot of sense for Google-level salaries.
Yes. This was my point.
> you shouldn't adjust for CoL any parts of your salary that will be spent on trips/vacations, or on nationally priced consumer goods.
Indeed, the real comparison of salaries should take into account what you plan to do with the income above the CoL. To the above I would also add that the interest on the rest of your cash stash (you don't plan to spend all of it on LCDs and trips?) is pretty much independent of where you live.
Yes. This was my point.
> you shouldn't adjust for CoL any parts of your salary that will be spent on trips/vacations, or on nationally priced consumer goods.
Indeed, the real comparison of salaries should take into account what you plan to do with the income above the CoL. To the above I would also add that the interest on the rest of your cash stash (you don't plan to spend all of it on LCDs and trips?) is pretty much independent of where you live.
Are you counting sales taxes? How about income taxes? Both affect your ability to buy even national goods, especially now that states are starting to enforce sales taxes on out-of-state items.
Anyone from CA want to chime on what state income and sales taxes are compared to the rest of the country?
Anyone from CA want to chime on what state income and sales taxes are compared to the rest of the country?
I can't speak for California but for New York vs. Minnesota, the taxes breakdown is roughly: 50% in NYC vs. 35% in Minnie. When you look at mortgage deductions - a far more common scenario in the "rest of the country" - the difference is even greater.
I'm getting much lower rates when I plug them into tax calculators. For example, if you make $100k, are single, and take the standard deduction, you pay an overall $18k in federal income tax (18%) and just under $7k in MN income tax (7%), for 25% total. YMMV if you have a spouse, kids, or a mortgage, of course.
I couldn't agree more. Also, I don't know how many times I've heard potential employers who are very interested in me, tell me "well the cost of living is so much less out here, we don't want to pay you jack $h!t!". As if I don't understand how compounding my raise percentage works over the course of my career, or they think my rent is going be drastically different... It's disturbing to think they can get away with it.
> As if I don't understand how compounding my raise percentage works over the course of my career
That only helps if your raise percentage exceeds inflation. Otherwise, you could actually find yourself worse off. e.g:
That only helps if your raise percentage exceeds inflation. Otherwise, you could actually find yourself worse off. e.g:
$100K earnings + 2%
$50K living + 3%
--------------------
$59,756K after living expenses after 30 years.
$70K earnings + 2%
$20K living + 3%
--------------------
$77,177 after living expenses after 30 years.That's true, and you make good points. I guess another factor is raise percentage, in this industry, I've never heard of a 2% raise unless they're thinking of letting you go... (or you've got 15 yrs under you belt, by which point lets hope you're making enough already) But I bet that's different the farther out you go from cities.... I wonder if there is a correlation with getting crummier raises in the lower cost of living areas as well?
The 2% was made up for demonstration purposes, I'm not really sure how it plays out in the real world. It is a good question. Though consider this:
[1] For the first 15 years, whereafter you suggest it could plateau (at around $140K, in this case, which doesn't seem unreasonable given the current market and historic income increases)
[2] Assumes all non-living expense allocated income is invested at 5%.
$70K + 5% [1]
$50K living + 3%
-----------
$2.5M saved after 30 years [2]
$70K for life
$20K living + 3%
-----------
$2.7M saved after 30 years
[1] For the first 15 years, whereafter you suggest it could plateau (at around $140K, in this case, which doesn't seem unreasonable given the current market and historic income increases)
[2] Assumes all non-living expense allocated income is invested at 5%.
> * I guess another factor is raise percentage, in this industry, I've never heard of a 2% raise unless they're thinking of letting you go...*
Sounds like you have never worked for a large defense contractor. The "standard" raise given to ~70% of the engineers last year (my last review cycle working for that company) was 2.1%.
Sounds like you have never worked for a large defense contractor. The "standard" raise given to ~70% of the engineers last year (my last review cycle working for that company) was 2.1%.
So I work in the same industry, and I'd suggest shopping around some companies if possible, or explore the "consulting" side of things (which can still be very technical), but much more lucrative... I'm sure you can get a good pay bump just from a company switch too.
Low balling potential hires due to cost of living isn't right and won't win you any hires... but.. It's disturbing to think that you'd pay the same, or close to the same for rent wherever you live.
In my experience, that's not the case at all.
It might be true for large populaces, or big city areas, but the difference between say, Memphis, TN and Annapolis, MD is huge.
I got a 200% pay increase when I moved, only to find that the majority of it is consumed by the housing difference.
It might be true for large populaces, or big city areas, but the difference between say, Memphis, TN and Annapolis, MD is huge.
I got a 200% pay increase when I moved, only to find that the majority of it is consumed by the housing difference.
3x in pay just by moving from Memphis to Annapolis?
That means you were grossly underpaid and could likely get 2x increase just by changing employer and staying in Memphis.
That means you were grossly underpaid and could likely get 2x increase just by changing employer and staying in Memphis.
It's not at all improbable that I was underpaid, though I highly doubt that I could have gotten 2x.
It's also worth noting that I switched career paths at the same time and moved from a strictly engineering role to an enterprise architecture role.
It's also worth noting that I switched career paths at the same time and moved from a strictly engineering role to an enterprise architecture role.
2x is still 33% less than 3x (in Annapolis).
Was it hard to find enterprise architecture position in Memphis?
Was it hard to find enterprise architecture position in Memphis?
For a bit of backstory, I had already decided to leave Memphis for reasons that had nothing to do with job or pay, and was literally in the market to go anywhere. Shortly after casting my resume to far broader nets than I ever had (I had interest from companies in London, Australia, Boulder, CO, Bay Area, etc.) we took a vacation to visit some friends in the Annapolis area and I fell in love with the place.
With that, I decided to refocus my job search and someone I'd known years prior hired me on for a security-clearance required position in the federal government at a job I'd never done (but which he thought I was qualified for). Because of the customer, my contacts, and the cost of livings increases, I was paid a salary well above the "2012 average base salary" for a Google engineer per the linked article. Before that, I had made something like $60k.
Except for some very specialized positions (SAP, EMC, etc.) in Memphis, I don't know of any engineers making much above $100,000 (though indeed $100,000 in Memphis is a very respectable salary.)
Since leaving, I've had a number of Memphis-based employers trying to buy me back into the area, but the discussion generally dies when we get into money as, at least from my anecdotal experience, wages just aren't that high around there, and the only large paying employers are those who have successfully commoditized the market (FedEx, International Paper, etc.) and aren't hiring 'rockstars'.
In summation, while I'm sure there are people making what I make or above in my field in Memphis, it is by no means as common as a six figure salary in the valley, or bay area, or in places where there are large IT-based firms that are competing for talent. Even if there were, I wouldn't really have been qualified at the time - at least mentally, having taken a job I didn't feel qualified for and making absolutely damn certain I performed well at it made for interesting times, but ultimately boosted my overall confidence a million-fold.
Edit: I would also be remiss to add that at least amongst my peers, colleagues and family, I was doing fairly well. A lot of that had to do with the TN cost of living.
With that, I decided to refocus my job search and someone I'd known years prior hired me on for a security-clearance required position in the federal government at a job I'd never done (but which he thought I was qualified for). Because of the customer, my contacts, and the cost of livings increases, I was paid a salary well above the "2012 average base salary" for a Google engineer per the linked article. Before that, I had made something like $60k.
Except for some very specialized positions (SAP, EMC, etc.) in Memphis, I don't know of any engineers making much above $100,000 (though indeed $100,000 in Memphis is a very respectable salary.)
Since leaving, I've had a number of Memphis-based employers trying to buy me back into the area, but the discussion generally dies when we get into money as, at least from my anecdotal experience, wages just aren't that high around there, and the only large paying employers are those who have successfully commoditized the market (FedEx, International Paper, etc.) and aren't hiring 'rockstars'.
In summation, while I'm sure there are people making what I make or above in my field in Memphis, it is by no means as common as a six figure salary in the valley, or bay area, or in places where there are large IT-based firms that are competing for talent. Even if there were, I wouldn't really have been qualified at the time - at least mentally, having taken a job I didn't feel qualified for and making absolutely damn certain I performed well at it made for interesting times, but ultimately boosted my overall confidence a million-fold.
Edit: I would also be remiss to add that at least amongst my peers, colleagues and family, I was doing fairly well. A lot of that had to do with the TN cost of living.
[deleted]
The mortgage on my 1600 sq. ft. house is about $800/month. Do you know anybody paying $800/month or less in rent in the Bay?
Yeah, but that will only save you a set dollar value, for a limited time. lets keep it simple. say you start out at $70k/yr, and assume $800/month rent (9600/yr). And your friend Joe takes $100k/yr, with $1400/month rent (16.8k/yr). Assuming 5% raises/year (conservative, assume no big promotions) for the both of you, and both taxed a flat 28% (for simplicity). At the end of year 1, Joe has 55.2l, you have 40.8 left over.
In 5 years from now, your buddy Joe is making ~127.6k, you are making ~89.3k. Joe has gained 8.3k more than you GAINED, (which is greater than the difference you pay in rent) So now Joe clears ~75k/year (after tax and rent), and you are clearing ~54.7k. The gap is only going to get bigger from there as time goes on, that's only after 5 years. You've GOT to think of money in terms of percentages, not just hard dollar values, or it's going to bite you.
In 5 years from now, your buddy Joe is making ~127.6k, you are making ~89.3k. Joe has gained 8.3k more than you GAINED, (which is greater than the difference you pay in rent) So now Joe clears ~75k/year (after tax and rent), and you are clearing ~54.7k. The gap is only going to get bigger from there as time goes on, that's only after 5 years. You've GOT to think of money in terms of percentages, not just hard dollar values, or it's going to bite you.
You're replacing a simple mental tool with a whole complex system. The problem with big complex systems like that is they're built on numerous assumptions. If you're decrying that someone might look at cost of living and base their whole life around it, sure, you have a point. If you're instead arguing that you will always come out ahead being where salary is higher despite higher cost of living, take note of your assumptions: real estate value changes rapidly, no two jobs are completely interchangeable, yearly raises are rare and getting rarer, people in our industry change jobs very frequently, and so on. You aren't necessarily going to "win" (whatever that means) simply by taking the highest paying job.
All very true, and make no mistake, there are a seemingly infinite number of variables one would need to take into account to make a decision on a job/industry/location to live. I was just trying to make the point that most people don't actually stop and do some simple math, even when faced with large, possibly life altering decisions. Yeah, you never know everything, but you have to at least use the information available to you to make the best decision from the information you have. Otherwise you never make up your mind and end up nowhere.
I guess I am really just trying to stress the fact that people all too often see money from a liner point of view, when in fact it can be advantageous to explore the exponential growth side of money as well. That's all I really want to get out there. It's a balance between basing decisions on the known present or the unknown future.
I guess I am really just trying to stress the fact that people all too often see money from a liner point of view, when in fact it can be advantageous to explore the exponential growth side of money as well. That's all I really want to get out there. It's a balance between basing decisions on the known present or the unknown future.
This I agree with wholeheartedly.
> Yeah, but that will only save you a set dollar value, for a limited time.
Rent typically goes up every year, so the amount you're saving versus renting increases annually, and at the end of the "limited time" you're not paying a mortgage at all.
Rent typically goes up every year, so the amount you're saving versus renting increases annually, and at the end of the "limited time" you're not paying a mortgage at all.
Bay Area rents are ~$1900, 2000 for a 1br in the best case.
SF maybe. Berkeley no. Oakland hell no. Fremont, Hayward, Union City...
There's life outside of Palo Alto and SoMa.
There's life outside of Palo Alto and SoMa.
Say I want to work for Google, want no more than 15 minutes commute, and want to live in a house of ~2400 sq.f (which I live in right now).
How much would it cost me per month (both net and gross, considering that I have to pay taxes prior to paying my rent)?
Those are pretty narrow requirements. I suspect the right answer is "telecommute".
Up to 15 minutes commute usually covers area of ~400 Square miles. That's a lot of housing to choose from. How is that narrow?
I agree that telecommute could be the right choice. But then SF vs Minneapolis comparison is getting meaningless.
I agree that telecommute could be the right choice. But then SF vs Minneapolis comparison is getting meaningless.
Up to 15 minutes covers an area of 400 square miles if you're driving from a commuter suburb to an office building and take the freeway most of the way. If either the source or the destination involves a 'proper' city with any kind of population density, that range shrinks considerably.
[deleted]
Your paragraph makes no logical sense, a 20k raise is not the same wherever you live, taxes and the things you'll ultimately buy with it vary in cost so it's incomparable.
Notice how the salary adjustment jives with the CNN calculator too, this is because the cola takes into account the things that people need to spend their salary on, if you buy a vw microbus and sleep in the office parking lot every night and have minimal dining needs then you will notice an absolute difference between regions, otherwise you won't, the salary variance is eaten by the cost of all he usual things people do.
Notice how the salary adjustment jives with the CNN calculator too, this is because the cola takes into account the things that people need to spend their salary on, if you buy a vw microbus and sleep in the office parking lot every night and have minimal dining needs then you will notice an absolute difference between regions, otherwise you won't, the salary variance is eaten by the cost of all he usual things people do.
Minneapolis has a weird thing going on that skews the salaries to the low end of the scale. People just don't move. I've tried to recruit a couple friends who are really unhappy in their jobs, and they don't want to even hear about it. Literally: they hate their boss, the work is stale, the commute is an hour each way, the salary is low - and yet, they won't even consider a job that offers a 30% raise, half the commute, newest technologies, a $5k equipment package, work from home twice a week, etc. It's mind boggling, but there it is.
In my experience, the higher salaries are easily available. I've been consistently offered much more than $70k and the recruiters are desperate. So I'd say the job market in Minneapolis is actually quite hot - it's the talent that doesn't take advantage of it.
In my experience, the higher salaries are easily available. I've been consistently offered much more than $70k and the recruiters are desperate. So I'd say the job market in Minneapolis is actually quite hot - it's the talent that doesn't take advantage of it.
This is right on. It is so frustrating to see really excellent talent rot away in some intertech cube farm, but I see it a lot. Is it a midwest culture thing? I guess it opens up opportunities for people who aren't so risk averse though.
I live outside Chicago. People in the midwest tend to be here because it's where family is.
You can offer anything you want, but it would have to be ridiculous to get my wife to move away from her family.
You can offer anything you want, but it would have to be ridiculous to get my wife to move away from her family.
Just to clarify, do you mean that people won't move to Minneapolis, won't move from Minneapolis, or people all over the country generally don't want to relocate?
Yeah, I was gonna say, this is just crazy.
I'm a google person, moving from one side of the country (Maryland) to the other (Mountain View), and the price differences are hilarious.
Income taxes are roughly the same in both states (~10%), but for the price of a 2500 sq ft house in the Bay Area, I could get a 4000 sq ft house with gold plated bathtubs in Maryland/Virginia. In turn, the property taxes will also be double or triple what I pay now (~5k) because of the high housing prices.
Of course, the traffic is actually significantly better in the bay area than in DC, so i could live farther away and have less of a commute, but still.
I'm a google person, moving from one side of the country (Maryland) to the other (Mountain View), and the price differences are hilarious.
Income taxes are roughly the same in both states (~10%), but for the price of a 2500 sq ft house in the Bay Area, I could get a 4000 sq ft house with gold plated bathtubs in Maryland/Virginia. In turn, the property taxes will also be double or triple what I pay now (~5k) because of the high housing prices.
Of course, the traffic is actually significantly better in the bay area than in DC, so i could live farther away and have less of a commute, but still.
The traffic in the bay area is pretty bad, too.
The cost of living difference between Minneapolis and San Francisco is HUGE. For the cost of an apartment in San Francisco you could have a huge house on 1/2 an acre of land in the Minneapolis area.
This calculator takes into account more, like housing, food etc: http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=107798%20&city1=50...
"A salary of $107,798 in San Francisco, California could decrease to $56,716 in Minneapolis, Minnesota"
Which is much more in line with my personal experience having worked in both Silicon Valley and Minneapolis.
If you're a good engineer, it is not uncommon to pull down 107k or more in Minneapolis as well.
This calculator takes into account more, like housing, food etc: http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=107798%20&city1=50...
"A salary of $107,798 in San Francisco, California could decrease to $56,716 in Minneapolis, Minnesota"
Which is much more in line with my personal experience having worked in both Silicon Valley and Minneapolis.
If you're a good engineer, it is not uncommon to pull down 107k or more in Minneapolis as well.
If you are single or DINK (dual-income-no-kids) and don't really need more than one-bedroom apartment - you would probably be better off living in Bay Area and working for Google (or whatever). That way you would be able to accumulate cash faster or travel internationally a lot more.
With kids - it's better live in a provincial suburb, have big house with nice backyard while working for 30% smaller salary.
With kids - it's better live in a provincial suburb, have big house with nice backyard while working for 30% smaller salary.
The minneapolis tech market seems to underrated and overlooked. The salaries in the article are not uncommon, demand is high and the cost of living difference is huge. The big drawback being that the tech culture tends to be weighted in the enterprisey java direction. But hey, we have startups too http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4636880
I've moved to Minneapolis a couple years ago and I've been very impressed by the startup scene. I've had a chance to attend one MinneBar (http://minnestar.org/minnebar/) and one MinneDemo (http://minnestar.org/minnedemo/) and see 30-40 startups present. Out of that number, about 5 were in solid black, 5 were easily cash-flow positive, and 5 more well on the way. Minnesota does not have the superstar startups but there are definitely a lot of solid performers.
This also ignores that some of these companies are very big on telecommuting and others aren't. The fact that I can telecommute to my current job is probably worth $10k to me.
It is shocking how often people don't consider this. I myself did not understand the full implications of cost of living until I moved several jobs, to different cities, each time my cost of living went up. At one point I realized, I was getting paid four times more in real terms but my standard of living was worse than in grad school!
A high cost of living often means the area is desirable to live in, which is hard to value. SF has much nicer weather and culture than Minneapolis, which to many people is worth a lot more than the cost of living difference.
Think of it this way: people want to live in desirable places even if they have jobs that don't adjust for cost of living.
Think of it this way: people want to live in desirable places even if they have jobs that don't adjust for cost of living.
I thought I was hearing a lot of chatter in the past few years that Google's salaries weren't that great and that the benefits/environment are really what made it worthwhile (e.g. if you attempted to negotiate they would come back with a calculation about the value of the free food).
Has this changed or was I misinformed? A bump of $13k in a single year does, of course, seem quite significant.
Has this changed or was I misinformed? A bump of $13k in a single year does, of course, seem quite significant.
I do remember 2 things which might have bumped it up. To stem the stream of developers going to pre-IPO Facebook and other Valley up-and-comings[1], they bumped salaries up 10% across the board + making bonuses part of salary that year, IIRC. Also, a Valley salary corroboration was exposed recently[2].
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2417577
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3521817
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2417577
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3521817
The food thing was a myth spread on HN.
Really? This blog post is a lie?
http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/01/21/notfree/
http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/01/21/notfree/
I find this extremely hard to believe. Aside from the obvious fact that glassdoor's data set can hardly be judged to be a fairly conducted survey, I simply don't buy that the average software engineer salary in, say, trading firms, is less than $128k.
I think in trading firms, you would not be defined as a "software engineer", but rather "quantitative analyst". Often times, quants require other advanced mathematics degrees as well, thus creating a distinction between quant, and software engineer. Also, this article seemed to focus only on tech firms anyway.
Nope, software engineers and quantitative analyst are two different positions. The first one is building an infrastructure (market data feeds listeners, caches,...) for second one (which builds model based on that infrastructure). Been there, seen that...
Good point. And now that I think of it that way, It wouldn't surprise me that the software engineers in finance are not making google money. I guess I thought the parent was surprised because he was thinking quants.
And I forgot to mention that 128K is really a low end for finance software guys. It's not uncommon to see salaries about 200K for experienced guys even outside of Manhattan ;-)
Their base salary (which is what is listed here) may not be a whole lot more; a large portion of their compensation comes in the form of annual bonuses. That's also the case for some of the listed firms, FWIW. As a senior engineer at one of them, I have received bonuses that are twice my "base salary" in good years.
Exactly. These kind of bonuses are not uncommon...
Well to be clear software engineer isn't the high man on the totem poll in most trading firms.
I think the outside population has a skewed view of what the technology looks like in a typical hedge fund due to all the stories about highly technical funds.
Many hedge funds dont' have that great of computer technology and the technology that they have is applied to back office processing rather than trading. In these types of firms, which I'd say make up the majority of funds, tech is viewed like marketing would be viewed in a techology company, a necessary evil but not a core part of the team.
Most funds buy their technology and build out to fill the missing pieces.
Some funds do build out sophisticated tech, and in these funds tech is valued and paid accordingly, but they are not the majority of funds.
I think the outside population has a skewed view of what the technology looks like in a typical hedge fund due to all the stories about highly technical funds.
Many hedge funds dont' have that great of computer technology and the technology that they have is applied to back office processing rather than trading. In these types of firms, which I'd say make up the majority of funds, tech is viewed like marketing would be viewed in a techology company, a necessary evil but not a core part of the team.
Most funds buy their technology and build out to fill the missing pieces.
Some funds do build out sophisticated tech, and in these funds tech is valued and paid accordingly, but they are not the majority of funds.
One other point I should make is that salaries are usually pretty small. $50,000/year at a fund isn't unheard of. Many people draw no salary after they've been at a fund for a few years.
The idea being that you put your money where your mouth is. If you're good you get paid via year end bonus, otherwise you leave the industry:)
The idea being that you put your money where your mouth is. If you're good you get paid via year end bonus, otherwise you leave the industry:)
Isn't there a catch in job position names? I heard that the term Software Engineer is used broadly in Google. Thus a higly-paid Manager in IBM is Software Engineer in Google...
I worked for DEKA for a while, they had a bit over 200 employees who were, on paper, engineers. I wrote software for them for a while and all the programmers were called Software Engineers. I'm a little surprised that the 2 HR people weren't called Social Engineers :)
Yes.
And I would rather be an engineer 2 at $150k than an engineer 3 or associate VP at $100k
And I would rather be an engineer 2 at $150k than an engineer 3 or associate VP at $100k
"Google Is Tops for Software Engineer Salaries" - I'd hope so, compared to traditional corporations like GM for instance; they have similar operating income BUT, Google have roughly a quarter less employees.
They need to be paying high salaries to attract top talent, as an incumbent operator, but their contribution to the larger economic picture is less than impressive, (Unless tax avoidance impresses you).
After many years of reading these surveys, I've started to avoid them. It's not very helpful. Sure, it may tell you if you are drastically underpaid. What it won't tell you is the opportunities of the particular job, whether you will be happy working there, or how much you'll be making in X years because you chose one opportunity over another. All it can really do is make you bitter or smug.
this is clearly only one side of the coin. The money is not normalized: What if a google engineer has to work 15h for this salary?
Then they should have written unit tests from the beginning!
Also, what about variance?
You can get this off Glassdoor's main website... but only if you post your own salary.
Just looking at the sample set in this article you need to factor the headquarters or location of most of these engineers. An IBM employee in white plains ny making 95k makes relatively more than zynga guy in sf making 104k.
why on earth would you sort that list by company name and not by salary?
I wonder how those salaries compare to our companies north of the border in Canada. Also, yes Mashable, that is strikingly similar to how I look while working : http://8.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/programmer.jp...
Are IBM salaries so low because of the "the cost difference is too great" between H1B and domestic employees as posted yesterday? http://cis.org/miano/ibm-cost-difference-too-great-business-...
Heh, ironically, IBM H1B and Google H1B salaries differ substantially http://www.garamchai.com/TopH1b.htm
It would be nice to have salaries of software engineers per country (from France those numbers are huge)
[deleted]
And in other news, water is wet.
Salary postings are link bait for the most part.
Salary postings are link bait for the most part.
How would this be different if they had used "senior software engineer"?
hilarious compared to Software Engineering Salaries in Europe...
id like to hear if there are any European Software Engineers (not PMs or any leading role) that earn more than 70k EUR pa.
Not unheard of, I know of at least one developer earning much more than this working for a bank in London. I had the pleasure of meeting another software engineer from Switzerland who's salary was around that figure.
Sure there are. I'll be starting at Google Switzerland the coming month with a considerably larger base salary.
I'm nothing fancy at that, a fresh university grad with only a year of real programming experience.
Ok Switzerland might be a special case, salaries have traditionally been higher there as in the rest of europe, cost of living is also alot higher though.
I make more than 70k EUR pa at a startup in London (but then I'm sure London isn't particularly representative of Europe).
Hardware companies pay the lowest? Not much in embedded, eh?
Is Base Salary the "starting salary" for a new hire, or is that the "base salary" across all employees across the company?
edit: I ask because my starting salary at MS is surprising close to the number they have listed as "base salary". I can't tell if base pay growth is small there or if this information is simply inaccurate.
edit: I ask because my starting salary at MS is surprising close to the number they have listed as "base salary". I can't tell if base pay growth is small there or if this information is simply inaccurate.
Base salary presumably means salary not including equity grants and bonuses. There's no such thing as "starting salary" because people have varying levels of experience and compensation is roughly proportional to that.
Latter.
Indeed, glassdoor is bad (estimates low), at least at Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Facebook. I saw it on two fronts; as a manager, the salary ranges are fixed for each of the title/pay grads.
As a hiring manager, human resources also paid for Serious Surveys (i.e., not just relying on the people who enter their info into a random website) of salaries for comparable jobs at other places. Of course, that was probably superfluous, as the HR and recruiting people swap between the big tech firms pretty frequently (seemingly moreso than engineers), so for the cost of a trip to the cafeteria starbucks, you could usually get info on comparable salaries from a recent transfer.
As a hiring manager, human resources also paid for Serious Surveys (i.e., not just relying on the people who enter their info into a random website) of salaries for comparable jobs at other places. Of course, that was probably superfluous, as the HR and recruiting people swap between the big tech firms pretty frequently (seemingly moreso than engineers), so for the cost of a trip to the cafeteria starbucks, you could usually get info on comparable salaries from a recent transfer.
Yeah, I thought that was very misleading...
Adjusted for cost of living, $107,798 in San Francisco is equivalent to $71,100 in Minneapolis:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24107%2C797+in+san+fra...