Finance.

That's true if the goal is purely money. I think, though, that if you're just looking to make six figures and don't quite care if it's 150k or 500k then working at a Google or Facebook will be the far better alternative as the workplace culture is better and the hours are likely to be better. For a lot of (most?) engineers, there's not enough money in the world to offset the difference in utility from working at a finance company instead of a development/research company. It's your life after all, and you spend a sizeble chunk of every day at work either way.

The work in finance can also be intellectually stimulating.

Of that I have no doubt, but I think on average the perception is that you are giving up your quality of life for money by going to finance.

Working in finance:

1) Go to finance for the money

2) Stay there because work and people are interesting

It's questionable whether you'll make more money as a developer in finance than at Google. It'll certainly require a lot more politics and careful planning.

Depends on the location. Depends on your profile.

Smart techs go to tech companies. Smart & ambitious techs go to finance.

If you're at Google, you certainly won't participate in conversations with coworkers about how Google just tried to poach you with an offer soooo ridiculously low it's laughable.

Any chance you can share more info? I'm very curious.

It's certainly true that almost all finance software jobs pay much less than the big tech companies, and I've yet to personally run into one that clearly paid more (at best, similar or slightly more for some but not all algo trading). So I never exactly know what these comments mean.

Which are the big payers -- just algo trading? -- and does everyone get paid that much or just the high performers, or even just the high performers at the high performing firms? How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?

#London

SV and Wall Street in the same place = an interesting playing field.

---

I wouldn't say it's fair to compare ALL finance jobs to a few big tech companies.

If you're doing over $500k somewhere in the USA, you should stay there. There are very few places on the planet that offers that for engineers. (and they're probably all big companies).

Can you throw out some numbers?

I almost never hear of London developers making >$200k.

I'd rather not talk numbers sorry.

Let's just say that if you want easy money in London, you should get into consulting. It's also very tax friendly. (200k = 1000 daily rate, don't expect that for most people).

> I almost never hear of London developers making >$200k.

Yeah. £150k is extremely rare (pre-brexit exchange rate)

I dunno know about the costs of living in SF but it is my understanding that at $100k you can barely afford a one bedroom. At £100k in London, you're doing incredibly well.

Yea, if you're not going to give any numbers I'm calling bullshit on the notion that finance pays better than big tech. From my experience in NYC tech, finance developers (not quants) make less than big tech by far.

With $100k you can easily afford a one bedroom. Don't listen to all the griping on Hacker News—it's an exaggeration. Yes, prices are exorbitant but you're still doing incredibly well.

It's not like London is especially cheap. $100k in SF is $70k in London. [0]

[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

I am genuinely confused by London salary in dollars. That makes absolutely no sense.

$100k in SF = $70k in London = £55k in London - is that what you're saying? In that case, we both agree, the costs of living are a lot cheaper (so are the salaries).

Google top salary is 85k base for senior developers, which is shit (numbers from the guys I know, some of which are openly mocking Google and advising people to never go there because of the pay).

Not sure about the other big 4 (Facebook/Microsoft/AMZ), not much more allegedly.

Quants make a shitload more than developers. The standard in finance institutions is £130k base + variable bonus. (Well, now that I think about it, the difference might be the industry, not the role :D)

As for what the top developers make in the top few financials institutions. I need to get a few guys drunk to get accurate numbers. But I already know that it is definitely higher than at Google.

What's your numbers for top performers in NY and SF? In London, there is no money in the usual valley companies. That's just how it is.

> $100k in SF = $70k in London = £55k in London - is that what you're saying?

Yes.

You're right that European developers (even at the big 4) make far less. My comparison was more with SF/NYC salaries, where big 4 developers will easily break $200k and reach $250k without excessive effort.

Well, in Europe, the best is London, and the best in London is either consulting (easy and awesomely low taxes) or finance (hard).

In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you.

In case anyone wonders: inter-continental comparison are worthless so don't bother. It's [almost] impossible for Europeans to get VISA to work in the USA, and even if they get one they won't have the leverage to get the top range salaries.

> In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm based here and making those comparisons myself.

Specifically, NYC has both finance and tech. For developers (not quants), big tech pays better.

Can you throw out some numbers?

I already did. $200k is very achievable for senior developers in big tech, with potentially another $50-100k in RSUs on top.

Finance you're typically looking at $180k total comp.

LOL. I'm sorry, there might be a disconnect between us. You're not in the right order of magnitude ^^

It's easy to get $200k for ANYONE in the NYC/SF. Please re-read the first message from ceras that started this conversation:

"How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?"

You can't simultaneously claim to know nothing about US tech salaries and then claim it's "easy for ANYONE to get $200k in NYC/SF."

$200k is absolutely achievable, but claiming that ANYONE (and EVERYONE?) is getting it is farcical. The vast majority of developers are making less than that.

The notion that entry-level developers are getting $400k-500k is a joke. Not even quants start at that.

----

Since you'd apparently like to be an asshole about markets you know nothing about, I'm done with this conversation.

The keyword is "high performer".

$200k is a classic "senior" package. It's good but it's nothing outstanding.

No offense intended but finance comp doesn't stop at $180k, you're not looking at the right place or you don't have the profile.

I declined an offer from Jump Trading once. The money was very good, the people were very smart, and in the end, it was mostly that I was happy where I was (at Facebook) and didn't want to move to Chicago. Under difficult circumstances, I could have seen myself taking that offer and being very happy.