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...