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