This comes up time and time again on HN. Due to the demographic here, everyone seems to know at least SOMEONE who makes $200K+, but there's no evidence that these compensation packages are anything but outliers (even including equity), no matter the age/vintage of company.

There's plenty of evidence. Just look at glassdoor:

Google senior eng total comp is $252k annually: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engin...

Google Staff engineer is $350k annually with base salary over $200k: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Staff-Software-Engine...

Outlier employees of an outlier company

Editing my curt response:

The original poster asserted that he/she was "pretty sure" that if you work for [established companies], you "will" be making well north of 200k+, as if it was a certainty or at least a high probability. I don't deny that some outlier companies have some outlier employees that make that much, I'm just questioning the claim that it's usual to make that in these companies.

I thought Netflix was the outlier company.. but then again it is only ~500 engineers or so..

I think you're right that it's mostly startups, but that's also the job market in SF right now. They far outnumber the established companies.

Also, from what I know of (fairly experienced) friends and acquaintances working at larger companies in the bay area, the financial trade-off is still pretty sketchy. A salary of $250k a year will support you well in a decent single-guy lifestyle, but it won't go much further than that.

Even with rents of $4000 a month, $250k is a fantastic salary. The median average family income in NYC, btw, is $50,000, and the average rent is similar to SF.

Yes. Many of the comments here speak of a growing disconnect between the elite engineer class and the regular people. This can be dangerous to our profession over time.

$250k / year will only support a "decent single-guy lifestyle"? That's just insane anywhere in the world (except maybe if your last name happens to be Al Saud).

For comparison, that is significantly above the average salary of a European prime minister. German Chancellor Angela Merkel makes slightly more than $250k / year.

There is a disconnect: between people in SF, and people in most of the country who are paying less than a quarter of what SF residents pay for housing.

That's a big deal. Stop looking at the top-line number and exaggerating the lifestyle in your head. The costs here are insane. Someone earning $250k here is probably doing about as well, financially, as an engineer earning market-rate in any other part of the country.

No kidding. I basically quit working and just consult part-time (in Boston, itself not exactly cheap) because I can live comfortably as a single guy for part-time rates. I'm as guilty of chasing the "high score" at times in my career, but to pretend that it's necessary is just...gross.

$4k a month is 20% of gross at $250,000 a year. That's acceptable, but not great, and it gets you a modestly nice one-bedroom apartment in a "transitional" neighborhood in SF.

But hey, if your baseline for "fantastic" is the family in NYC that can barely afford housing, then have at it.

sigh No wonder all of my friends think most engineers are arrogant and out of touch with the rest of humanity.

You're missing the point: in a city where a cup of coffee costs at least $3 and a small condo runs close to a million dollars, the numbers I'm talking about aren't arrogant, they're just life.

The top-end engineer salary of $160k doesn't go very far here, right now. I'm sure that the distance it goes feels like a lot when you're 23 and one foot out of the dorm room, but when you get older and start wanting to have an adult life (children, saving for retirement, maybe buying a place), it isn't even remotely enough.

$250k, in San Francisco, will rent you a market-rate, one-bedroom apartment ($4k, until they raise the rent next year), and let you live a pretty good lifestyle as a single person: you'll have something like $10k per month after taxes. If you're frugal, and don't go out much, you can get by on maybe $2k a month in expenses. That leaves $8k to save, invest, spend on children, etc.

We aren't talking about big, glamorous lifestyles here.

$250k a year is $12k per month after tax in SF.

If your baseline for living includes owning two luxury cars that you store in a private garage, a brand new luxury apartment, shopping exclusively at Whole Foods, having maids clean your house and take care of your children, and sending your kids to elite private schools, then yeah 250k a year is basically poverty. Life as an engineer sure is hard.

You have no idea what you're talking about. A public garage in a cheap part of SF will run you $200-$300 a month, per space. A small non-luxury one-bedroom is about $3500 a month right now, maybe closer to $4,000. A week of groceries at Trader Joes will set you back about $80 a person, if you're frugal and you know how to cook, and you eat nearly every meal at home, and you like leftovers.

Eating out at a restaurant that isn't a taqueria or in-n-out is about $20-$30 a person at the low end. A drink at a bar will set you back at least $6, and probably more like $12-$15. Getting your one-bedroom apartment cleaned once a month will cost you about $100-$150.

I don't have children, but not-rich friends who do have told me that unless you live in a "good" neighborhood and/or your kid can be bussed long distances, you really have to consider paying for private schools, and that's something like 20k a year, per child.

So one-bedroom, one car of parking (not counting maintenance or the cost of the car), eating out at a modest place once a week: $3500 + $200 + $320 + $120 = $4140/mo. That's frugal. Want a kid? Dramatically more.

And please add saving like crazy for retirement, because for people under 40, there will not be any Social Security money left. And, if you have children, start saving for college (at $250K/child for private college and $120K/child for state college).

While $250K is certainly a comfortable level for a single person, it is not as outrageous as it may seem to people outside of the really high-cost areas in the US.

At the start there I thought you were talking about Sydney. Cups of coffee range from $3.50 to $5.00, houses anywhere close to the city are $1.2M+, and that cost stay constant to about an hour out of the CBD itself.

To have a salary of $250k means that you are well off, in fact I seem to recall that being the cut-off for the 1% range.

Engineers work their tail off to master their craft, build scalable products, etc. while the firm they work for potentially makes millions off the product. I fail to see why engineers shouldn't try to command a very high salary. Engineers are, and will be for quite some time, in very high demand.

Also, how does wanting to be paid well imply that he's out of touch with "humanity"? Are you comparing the engineering salary dilemma to those who lack food and shelter? That's a pretty silly comparison.

No one is out of touch for wanting a higher salary, and that's not what I said or implied. Quite the contrary, I think good engineers should be paid loads more than they are nowadays. However, the implication that making 250k a year is barely scraping is so ridiculous that it's perfect fodder for an Onion article.

Well I don't think he's saying hard to "live". We're talking raising a family, buying a house, etc. And I'm assuming he's saying support both the spouse and the kids. So yeah, in that case, things will be a bit tighter. It's not impossible, but it's not easy street.

Sorry, when you said humanity, it read as being out of touch with all the trials and tribulations of man kind. My mistake if that's not what you meant.

6x what the median family income is should be called fantastic, yes. It's literally in the top 2%, even in SF/NYC.

You're in denial. 4k a month gets you a very nice place in the NY metro area.

NYC also has a functional transit infrastructure. My cousin makes around $250k, commutes a little less than an hour by train, and owns a home that is essentially a mini-estate.

SFO is a gold rush town, but the model isn't sustainable. A shit-ton of semiconductor research has moved to save $$$ to Albany, NY of all places.

$4k a month can get you three bedroom apartments in multiple cities next to San Francisco.

$250k is easily enough for a family of 4 to live a reasonably affluent lifestyle.

250000 a year gets you just under 12k per month after tax.

Even paying 4k for a decent home still gives you 8k a month for other things. Thats fantastic.

San Francisco rents are worse. Five years ago, SF was a better deal.

Also, if you're a decent programmer in NYC, you'll make 20% more than your counterpart in SF. The downside is that NYC finance jobs don't involve equity packages. The upside is that there are bonuses (wildly variable) and there's much more of a career track. Finance companies care more about their peoples' careers than Bay Area tech companies, and that's a big part of why the techies end up answering to finance in the end.

Just one data point, but when I spoke most recently to one of the companies on your list, I was quoted $170 for a lead software engineer role, "but only in our [Bay Area] office".

Big companies don't want to tilt the market against them, either.

I received a similar offer from one of the companies on the list to work in Data Science, which was quoted as a senior-level role.