I used to think so but I think that is incorrect for the following two reasons: - Stock compensation is not included. This is significant now. - I believe the salary numbers are purposely underreported. The numbers are given to show they are paying a professional wage. I heard (not confirmed) that someone getting paid $200k/year in base salary can be reported as $150k/year, since 150k clears the threshold. I saw salaries in my company that did not reflect what I understand to be the market rate.

I thought the conventional wisdom these days was to treat stock compensation as nonexistent unless the company already IPOd because in so many cases you end up paying to exercise and pay taxes on options that end up worthless.

This is a function of how many H1Bs you work with + your stock compensation. Adjust accordingly.

Even if you could underreport wages, why would you want to?

This data is better than nothing, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The _sample_ is flawed because H-1B visa holders are atypical. In some situations they are hired precisely because they have lower salary expectations than US residents (paying them less than the prevailing rate violates the terms of their Labor Condition Application, but it happens). In other situations the employer puts up the with expense and delay of the visa application because they have unique skills that also make them more valuable.

The _data_ itself is flawed because the salary information is only recorded at the time the offer was made, since which it has presumably increased, and it does not include bonuses or non-cash compensation.

I just looked up my info there (lookup company, by title and sort through to the date my application was filed).

They just have my base salary listed there, which is a super-inaccurate way to compare salaries, in my opinion. RSUs and bonus are almost 50% of my comp. They also have my starting salary there, no increases, etc since then.