I'm pretty sure a non-trivial amount of that is talk more than average reality. Which isn't to say that there aren't a bunch of people making a half million or more in total comp at a FAANG company, but there are almost certainly a whole lot more quiet people making 100-200K who aren't going to brag on HN about it.

Lol, I got an offer from one of the more coveted companies a couple years back for a position in TX (where i live) and while it was a few $$ more than what I'm currently making at a company that is considered "cheap" (although like everyone else they claim their compensation is market rate), it wasn't enough to make me jump for a job that sounds like its 3x as stressful as the one I've got.

I'm guessing the San Jose, pay scale for the same job was probably 3x+, the HR person who gave me the offer letter actually apologized and suggested I negotiate for more.. Which I found pretty funny, but they wouldn't budge on the PTO vesting schedule, and I'm at an age where I refuse to be in a situation where I have two weeks of PTO, which isn't even enough to take the kids on a couple trips a year during spring break, summer break, etc.

Plus, for a company with 10's of billions a year in profits, I've never seen so many red flags... From the HR department to the inexperienced parts of the team I met with (and the experienced guys who where apparently "lifers" and unaware of the outside world if you will).

It surprises me that a company will pay someone $$$$ and work them like dogs rather than paying $$$$-10% and hiring another 1/10th of a person so they don't have to work 50+ hours a week with 2 weeks vacation.

sounds like Apple!

Indeed. I mean what would be the point of talking total comp much smaller than base pay at these companies beyond self-pity and anger.

100-200k is incomprehensibly large for me

I think this is what makes US politics so difficult for outsiders to understand. (And many insiders as well.)

There are a lot of people making 100-200k salaries.

There are also a lot of people making subsistence wages in a system with no universal public health care and meager government benefits.

Those are two very different voting blocks. The first group doesn't want to do anything too radical to rock the boat and mess up the good thing they have going. The second group wants radical change but has trouble organizing against the high paid lobbyists and campaign donors.

And then the really mind bending thing is those two groups often vote for the opposite party you would expect, considering their economic position.

It would take quite a bit of effort, but if you get a visa and are confident you can get a job at Amazon, there ya are. I've got a couple Central / South American coworkers that started at tech companies down there and eventually got jobs up here. It was a combination of luck and persistence with the US immigration system.

money is one thing, you also need to take into consideration how much work US tech expects, how little vacation is provided, and how things like Health Care isn't universal.

The only people who say this are those who don't work at the major tech companies. I worked at Google and Microsoft and know plenty of people who work at Facebook, AirBnb, Uber. Neither myself or anyone I know is overworked, or is unable to take plenty of time off for vacation, or doesn't have access to absolutely amazing health care plans.

It's not Goldman Sachs we're talking about here.

That's a very broad brush statement. Many US tech companies have pretty reasonable work/life balance, less vacation than is typical in Europe but still in the 3-4 week range, and you'd probably be hard pressed to find a large or even not-so-large employer that didn't offer healthcare (albeit you may have to pay half the premiums or so).

I have worked at many companies in the US where my take home pay was $140,000 + bonus. I got 4-6 weeks of PTO every year, the company paid for my high deductible insurance plane and kicked in an additional $1000 to an HSA. This doesn't include the dollar for dollar safe harbor match on my 401k that was up to $8,000 and more after that at a reduced rate. There as no stock or anything like that. I worked on average 40/hr a week and we played a lot of golf.

Is this the norm definitely not but there are a lot of good companies out there paying well.

Point me to a US company paying 150k that doesn’t cover your health care. The majority of companies also have very generous vacation (unlimited in a lot of cases).

You have to account for out of pocket maximums, which are up to $17k per year for a family, and increase every year, plus the risk of losing your ability to earn income, especially in your 50+ years.

Currently, a family of 4 would spend $35k plus or minus $5k on premiums, plus the $34k you need on hand for out of pocket expenses because it’s per calendar year, so if something happens at the end of the year, you need to be able to pay for 2 years worth of out of pocket expenses.

And that is today, so account for quite a bit of inflation if you are starting a family in your 30s, you need to be able to providing until 55 to 60, when the kids should be able to provide for themselves (at your expected quality of life).

Plus education prices, and insuring yourself from legal expenses. I know, 90% of Americans are not and will never be insured against these risks, but once you are in the $200k to $400k income range, you can actually achieve it and come to expect it.

You realize that’s before taxes, right?

You realize that it's incomprehensibly high in most of the countries in the world regardless of how it's taxed?

I don't think it's quite that simple. Cost of living has to be factored in, at least. Buying a bog standard middle class house in my city is $850K. And this isn't California, obviously.

If we are comparing to the rest of the world, a bog standard middle class house in the US (and the accompanying land) is quite a few deviations from the middle.

It is indeed incomprehensibly large compared both the rest of the world and compared to the cost of most necessities (food, clothing, electricity, whatever electronic gadget...)

Yet, everything changes if you consider housing, medical expenses, childcare, pensions: ta-dah the ratio between income and expenses is worse than in Europe.

Then count your real working hours over a 30-years period and redo the math.

Perhaps health insurance costs FAANG employees several hundred thousand dollars, but if it doesn't then it's hard to imagine it being better elsewhere.

In my part of Canada, a decent dev salary for a new grad is about 45k USD. After taxes you'll be left with about 32k USD. Rent for a 1 bedroom apartment within a half hour drive of the city is about 1k USD, food for one person for a month is 200-250 USD if you don't eat out but do eat reasonably healthy (frozen vegetables, ground beef or pork chops, pasta, stuff like that). After internet, power, car expenses, telephone costs, etc. come out, you're maybe left with 10k USD to spare each year.

If a new grad in California making $180k+ is left with that little after the same expenses in the USA, I'd be impressed.

Granted, other things become more expensive later on. No doubt childcare is more expensive in California, as is housing. But it's not cheap here - a cheap house within a 30 minute drive of the city here costs about 500k USD, while that might be, what, 1-2 million in California? But a senior dev salary here is about 80k USD, vs 300k+ in California. And sure, the ratio might seem not too bad - 80k vs 300k is like a ~4 times difference, 500k to 2 million is like a 4 times difference. But after you deduct living expenses, you're looking at a much different ratio - unless every living expense is 4x more in California. But I'd be shocked if, for example, 1kg of medium ground beef that costs $10 USD in Canada costs $40 USD in California. Or if a $100 internet plan for 100 Mb/s up/down here costs $400 in California.

That is a general problem in most of the US too. The desirable ~25% of town is mostly unobtainable for people who aren't in the top couple percent of the income structure because so few properties come up for sale in those areas that their inflation rate outpaces wage growth in the area. In growing towns and areas that are generally desirable enough that outsiders move there its probably more than 50% of the city is out of reach for say ~80% of the population for the same reason as above, combined with the fact that people moving from high cost of living areas eat up another few percent. You see this in town after town in the US. The younger local population is forced to live an hour drive+ outside of town because the older generation is sitting on properties that are outside of their price range.

The theory says that once those older folks start to die off their children will inherit the windfall, but I'm not really that sure. Its definitely not true for my parents which for various reasons didn't manage to benefit from the real estate/stock market booms over the past ~50-60 years. I know a couple people like this (they have middle class jobs and live in apartments while their parents have tens of millions), while others are like me because their parents burned up imense amounts of money in their later years with travel/health care/etc.

>Yet, everything changes if you consider housing, medical expenses, childcare, pensions: ta-dah the ratio between income and expenses is worse than in Europe.

this is a gigantic cope. it may be true for lower middle class earners, but in the tech sector american workers really truly are staggeringly more affluent than their british and european counterparts even after you subtract the tuition money and healthcare costs and all the other shit americans have to put up with.

Citation needed.

Move to the U.S. where your skills have a much higher value?

Sure, you have a visa for me? I will be on the next flight over if so

I'm assuming that based on your username, you are an EU citizen? If so, apply for a job with any large US based company in one of their European offices. For example, Google in Zurich or Dublin, Amazon in London, etc.

After one year, you qualify for what's called an L1B 'internal transfer' visa. You can then transfer to another team within the same company that's based in the US. In many cases the company will sponsor your visa application and even the cost of moving (e.g. plain ticket, cost of shipping your belongings, etc.)

Once in the US, you can start the application process for a green card. As long as you're not a citizen of either India or China, this should take 2-3 years.

I'm Dutch and this is the path I took.

> As long as you're not a citizen of either India or China, this should take 2-3 years

Whats different with these two? Why does it take so long in general?

India and China go in a different bucket, and it often takes 6+ years for the exact same process. Sucks hard :|

You say that as if it's easy to do.

hard to get visa. and I don't fancy trekking across the mexican desert to get in the other way.

If you are a Mexican citizen, then a TN visa for a software engineer is pro forma - should be about $50, no caps/quotas and adjudicated in a few weeks. If from further south then why not have an employer sponsor you for an H-1B around lottery time and you either get it or you don't? The employer handles the cost and paperwork. You don't start until they do. If this really is life changing money it seems like the risk-reward profile favors application.

Of course if you're willing to take 20-30% less pay, immigrating to Canada and working for one of these tech companies in Vancouver or the Toronto area is much, much easier.

briton, just making a joke about how you sometimes see people from all corners of the world land in mexico and take their chances with los coyotes for the journey north

I did get a British accent in your original comment haha, I knew a Briton who moved to South America so I guess it seemed plausible :)

try 50% less once you factor exchange rate and culture of underpaying engineers.

Depends which company, and whether you're looking to work remote or not. I know my employer is far closer to my number than yours, but I do expect wide variance. I'm not sure I'd call it "underpaying" just that market rate is lower in that market.

For instance, folks doing well-paid jobs in let's say China or Hong Kong aren't underpaid, they're paid well, relative to their local market. The same is true in Canada, it's just that Canadians live very close to a very different market with a very different cost structure and externalities - but 'feels' about the same from the other side of the fence. Consider 50% more folks live below the poverty line per capita in the US than in Canada so clearly it's not all bad.

Remember, Canadians can show up at the US border with $50USD and an offer letter in a SWE job and get a 3-year TN status adjudicated on the spot. There's clearly more to it.

> employer sponsor you for an H-1B around lottery time

The vast majority of employers will not sponsor you for a H1B, esp. if you don't currently work for them.

My first tech job I made ~8k$ a year, due to being under 25 years old. My second job as a programmer was 33k$ a year, about 40% more than a cleaner in my city.

It just feels ridiculous that US salary can be 10x this, when costs of living are very similar. Apartments in my city in Sweden is about 200k$, houses 500k$.

I'm Dutch and moved to the US in early 2016 to work for a bigtech company. Compensation here is about 3x what I would make back home.

After working here for just six years I could move back home and buy a house outright with the money I've been able to save.

I don't need a big house or a big car, but making more money means I can coastfire in the next five years, so it's absolutely worth it to me.

It's a large combination of factors that affect this... first off, houses and apartments in top tier tech cities in the US are far more than 200k/500k, the labor market is more competitive, and in some states (like California), non-compete clauses are not enforceable, so switching jobs is relatively low effort/cost for the employee.

Are Swedish salaries given pre-tax or post-tax? Houses with good schools near high paying tech jobs are usually greater than $2M, with taxes that will run 25k/year...

In the bay are an apartment where your property and safety are at risk can start at $400k, and a 3 bedroom house would be upwards of $1.5m.

> It just feels ridiculous that US salary can be 10x this

Those $350k jobs exist, but are very rare and hard to get.

bi-modal (at least) distribution.

Discussion here is often about a bump to the right of the graph :)

Anyone in a 3rd world country could say the same about salaries in Sweden.

Yes, it's also a bit awkward with increasing inequality.

I briefly browsed Zillow in Seattle. It looks like a good 2-3 bd house is 700k+. And of course you need a car since public transport isn’t a thing there. Sending children to a good colleage is probably 50k+ a year just in tuition. I get a feeling money is different there.

> And of course you need a car since public transport isn’t a thing there.

Are we talking about Seattle? We definitely have public transit here.

> Sending children to a good colleage is probably 50k+ a year just in tuition.

If they don't get into UW you mean? UW in-state tuition is only $11,745 (I say "only", but it is much higher than when I went there). However, it is a very competitive state university to get into.

> We definitely have public transit here.

I suppose this light rail train I am watching go by outside my window is just a mirage or something. Same for these buses, obviously a plant.

Never been, but imagined it to be like SF where everyone complains about 3 hours of daily commute driving the car.

> And of course you need a car since public transport isn’t a thing there.

What? Seattle has one of the most utilized public transit systems in the US.

Not to mention University of Washington is like $12k/yr and is a great school for CS. Literally a signing bonus at a large tech company is enough to likely pay off that amount assuming you went without scholarships or other tuition reductions.

Doesn't Amazon provide a shuttle service for employees? Microsoft does, so does Google I believe. There's also a reasonably good bus system here, and they're working on light rail.

Yeah, shuttle service is pretty good, buses are pretty good, and light rail is getting better.

It does

It's comical though - the reason the pay is so high is because the housing prices are so high. The housing prices are so high because the pay is so high. It's a never ending cycle.

Housing prices are high because the supply of housing is very low relative to demand from people who have the ability to pay a high price.

If you took the same amount of high earners and dropped them in an area with five times as many equivalent utility houses, then prices would not be high even though there are the same number of high earners. Hence high housing prices are not a result of a population of high earners simply existing.

As an example, I can afford and am willing to pay $5 for an apple, but I will not because I can easily find an equivalent one for $1.5.

Well that doesn't happen. High earners aren't "dumped" somewhere by some magical god that moves people around. There's often some reason a bunch of high earners are somewhere and when it happens the tap doesn't turn off. It just keeps going until there are no homes left. And at that point there's high pressure for low income people to sell because of the ability for them to get $1.5MM for their $200K house.

My target comp here in chicago is $250,000 for the level below senior software engineer and average home price here is $303,559 [0].

Pay is usually max(COL, local market rate). You don't need a super high COL if the local market is very competitive, but COL can raise the pay because you still need to convince people to move to your location and most people won't do that if it has an abnormally higher cost of living without a corresponding pay increase.

The reason house prices are high in Seattle is because geography limits how well they can sprawl to build new houses and lots of people don't like higher density housing.

[0]: https://www.zillow.com/chicago-il/home-values/

...with an interesting "side effect": it allows most people in those cities to buy plenty goods and services made by people in poor countries. And not the opposite.