Saw a video of Price saying that his minimum salary may have indirectly raised housing costs in his city and that is not a problem he can solve but something that the city must. I don't know the figures but I would guess that any effect that he had caused was minimal.

He really does come across as great guy. If I was more local I would probably look to work for him.

It is very unlikely that a 100 person company in an already gentrified neighborhood would have any effect on house prices.

Furthermore if you are paid decent wage you can afford to buy a house, further cutting down the rent prices.

It boggles my mind how people spin the stories to protect professional landlords, a class that does nothing but extracts productivity.

Sadly, there's a strange knock-on effect of all the professional landlords: Instead of aspiring to own a family home, a lot of millennials aspire to become landlords, either by buying big and renting part of the space, or by buying small and using it as a springboard to buy bigger and rent the original place. It's a vicious cycle, especially since they often don't have the capital to easily absorb damage or maintenance costs, leading to the properties deteriorating rapidly.

Genuinely curious, not judgemental here. How did the usually-much-better-paid people feel about this? Did they complain that their salaries were now closer to the lesser paid people?

Like, I could see somebody not feeling like that's fair so I'm wondering how the morale was impacted by that.

If you read the article it covers that.

It doesn't really. It just said a couple people resigned in protest.

Never understood this. This is like complaining you are unhappy that other people should even have a good life.

It's one thing to aspire to have a good life. And totally different to derive your happiness from watching others suffer.

If their salary was docked to pay for the raises then I can totally see why they left.

My guess is they think they are 10x better than those 70K and yet they are only making 200K. So obviously they want a raise too.

>average tech worker earns $275k a year

I need to move to bay area this year. thats my sole mission this year.

I'm curious where this poster got that figure. I haven't found anything like it, in fact a pretty consistent 145k average salary. I would also be wary of average vs. median, as there's some real crazy outliers out there.

https://www.levels.fyi/ has some pretty good figures.

I also am fairly certain its total comp and not salary...

Levels.fyi: outlier employees at outlier companies. Not even close to “average for normal software developer.”

Outlier employees is probably an exaggeration. Sure, they may be making above average at those companies but no way those Google/FB salaries are true outliers.

I have a sister-in-law that I recently learned is making $275k in a tech job in Seattle. She has no college degree or formal training. She has just learned things on the job over the years. I was frankly astonished. That is more than double what I make as a senior software engineer 3 hours away in Portland.

I also live in Portland. I have a lot of friends in Seattle, and I would pretty strongly assert 275k in Seattle is definitely an outlier.

As a software dev just to the north in Vancouver, BC at 110k CAD: that's bananas money.

When last did you change jobs? A year ago I did and set a hard minimum at 120, and managed 2 offers as high as 160 and took a lower one due to more interesting work and great environment. And had to cancel 3 more on site interviews that knew my range was 130-140. My previous job had a 2% raise over 3 years, with a salary out of touch with the current ranges. It seems the only way to get a raise much of the time is new work (and practice negotiating!)

Just a few months ago. What's your specific discipline and exp? It's good to hear that there's a lot of room to grow. I'm well aware of when/how the biggest gains are made, but I appreciate the insight nonetheless. I consider 110k at the moment to be pretty ok, just considering my extremely spotty track record atm. I'll stick around for now to rebuild my savings and get some current exp, but won't sit on it for too long especially if the compensation doesn't seem right.

I am a software engineer in Vancouver as well, feels bad. My partner doesn't want to move so I am taking the pay cut. I have noticed that Vancouver dev salaries have been increasing the last few years, but no where close to +200K USD.

My end goal is to move to the Okanagan and get a remote job where I could get similar pay to Vancouver with much lower living costs.

That's not a bad idea, I love the Okanagan, though it might be a bit isolating. Salary is certainly one thing, but I wouldn't move for salary alone or that of my partner (I don't think). There just isnt enough personal value to be gained in salary increases enough to sacrifice being with or where you love to be.

And seven times as much as I make working as a compiler engineer with a double BSc and MSc in STEM. Salaries do vary a lot with location.

What job / company (or industry if you can't say)?

Something to do with cloud computing, but not for any of the FANG + Microsoft companies.

Well FAANG seems to be missing an A, and a certain company does cloud computing starting with an A

Well the company she works for doesn't start with an A. But what is the A I'm missing? Oh, Apple. Nope, not Apple.

Presumably from stories like this one earlier this week: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattle-tech-workers-earn-279k...

Amazon/Microsoft TC, probably. Base salary is a different story.

I don't know why there is always this nitpick. I just take it for granted that when someone talks about tech "salaries" they mean "total comp". Virtually everyone in my peer group makes more than half of their total comp from non-salary compensation. Sure that portion varies somewhat due to market forces, but there seems little point in discussing base salaries.

There's a huge difference from getting stock grants from FAANGM and getting options from startups, which may easily turn into funny money. The recent underwhelming tech IPOs from Uber, and perhaps worrying upcoming IPOs from AirBnB, indicate that even options from unicorns might be of debatable worth. It's just not money in the bank in the same way those from the tech giants are.

Did you read the article you're responding to? It's historical data, which is as literal money in the bank as you can get. What's the point of saying "oh sure, but this is skewed by Amazon/Microsoft TC, base salaries are actually much lower" in this context?

I think a lot of people, myself included, don't know the nominal value of their total compensation. If their employer pays the full costs of their health insurance plans, I don't think many people know what those costs are.

Also, as others have pointed out, certain components of total compensation, like various forms of 'equity' in the employer company, are not reasonably equivalent to cash, and no one could feasibly evaluate the cash value at any particular moment in time given all of the relevant variables needed to even estimate those cash values.

That information is pretty readily available. My low deductible insurance plan is around $800 employer paid + $60 self paid.

Because Cash is king. Everything else can be taken away or reduced or diluted or what not.

This is backward looking data. It's what people earned, not some pie-in-the-sky projection of future IPO windfalls.

Pedantic note. You probably mean mean (or mode) vs median. They are all different types of averages (amongst others).

I'm guessing OP did in fact mean median, since the point is that outliers at the top can really skew the mean. Median gives a more realistic idea of what people are typically earning.

My comment was about "I would also be wary of average vs. median"

You're right, it was pedantic.

$145k for Bay Area salaries? I’m assuming this doesn’t include the wild bonuses and options I keep hearing about, because given how living expenses are, that seems like a negative ROI

Well yes, because bonuses and options aren't guaranteed salary.

Got it here: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattle-tech-workers-earn-279k...

Data scientist here. “Average” tech comp (the study used the mean in this case) is so misleading as to be useless and was probably chosen to promote an agenda. The distribution of tech comp is extremely skewed by the top earners. Median would have been much more representative. (Although I will add that $275k is about the median at FANG companies).

I think I remember reading that Americans, on average, have $700k saved up for retirement. When I dug further into the data, the median was many multiples less than that.

That really seems like a high average, even for the Bay Area. I suspect median total comp is lower, even for FAANG. Also, the company in the article is in the Seattle area. Lastly, even at the extraordinary level of income of $275k, cost of living means that while you’ll be comfortable, you won’t feel especially kingly.

I’d add Portland, Austin, Minneapolis, etc. to your consideration. Comp is 25% lower, but cost of living is even lower than that.

If you only make the average, expect to have a 1hr+ commute to work (:

Total comp with stocks, not base salary. $275k base is an outlier.

Go remote for a bay area company. High pay without high rent

Companies don’t pay Bay Area salaries to remote workers.

There is a lot of good intentions here but we did run a very large scale experiment for 69 years on about 300M people. It was called the Soviet Union and the results weren't pretty economically for the people. So the concern remains how long this can last, how brittle is this and how much can it scale.

I can't tell if you're naive or simply trolling.

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: make the best quality goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

-Henry Ford

Chiming in, absolutely not. My grandfather, excellent engineer, who was learning all his life (and still is) was getting a salary merely twice the level of low-skilled manual labourer (and not a high-skilled factory worker even). The only way to get a decent living was to climb social hierarchy of different government structures (government or the party, probably latter). This kind of system is nothing but broken.

Raising minimum wage is not same as paying equal wages to all (which is what this article describes). No one is trolling and comparison to Soviet experiment is close, if not exactly the same. Please read the article.

I read the article. It pretty clearly states, many times, that 70k is the minimum wage, and says nothing about equal wages.

You obviously missed the core of the story. The title itself is "The boss who put everyone on 70K". The CEO took cut from $1M to $70K. At least two people resigned because of pay cuts to $70K.

This is incorrect. 70k is the minimum wage, and while Price may have reduced his own salary, he did not reduce anyone else's salary. Read the article.

Are you sure they weren't economically pretty for the people coming from Russian Empire where 90% lived in absolute poverty and serfdom?

You cant generalize things that far. But for sake of argument: you are saying that they failed the challange at aliexpress/amazon level distribution - using pen and paper.

I chat with 2 russian chaps working on the technicalities of that challange (coding the model in sofware) they had an interesting thing in common. They both had parents who tried to work the paper administration in soviet days. They told their kids countless horror stories about misplacing a bit of paper excluding entire regions from goods, like no shots. The parents were extreamely entugiastic about computers when they came onto stage. That! That is what we needeed!