At the end of the day, it's a job. And jobs that pay the most usually recruits the best.

If they're looking at $350k base salary plus incentives, I may give them another look, especially if I can still do WFH.

Monetary compensation is certainly important and, if driven high enough, can account for extremely poor scores in other areas - but most people will tend to be pretty holistic about their job search. If I posted a job with a 700k compensation that was accompanied by constant 24/7 stress and existential dread you'd be surprised how many senior people would pass on that opportunity.

Amazon have launched more successful non-core businesses than any other big tech company. I suspect there's a belief throughout the company that qualities of the culture that lead to high attrition rates are the same qualities that breed revenue growth and success. In turn, that explains the reluctance to address those issues.

Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. Those have always been pure tech plays. Amazon started out competing with Barnes and Noble.

But yes, I get what you mean. Companies are very reluctant to change the secret sauce.

I can hardly imagine earning $350k a year. I've never earned a third of that anually. What I can imagine is a job that places such a demand on my time and attention that I don't have time for a life outside of it.

Most of the reason those big companies can pay software developers so we’ll is that they are worth it, and they can be worth it because they have more leverage: if you do something that causes a small company to be 1% better, and if that same thing would make a small part of a massive company 0.5% better, the latter can be worth a lot more just because the denominator is so much bigger. It feels harder to explain why they must pay so much. The first order argument is that there is lots of demand for software developers and that pushes up the price, but these companies are active in markets where developers are paid less well (e.g. Europe) and they could adjust hiring to favour candidates who are good but less competitive (e.g. because they are bad at a particular kind of interview) so I don’t understand why market forces haven’t lead to things being more balanced.

However in the case of Amazon this isn't based on "imagining" but extremely widespread reports across multiple sources.

If your children hate you or you lose the love of your life -- or you ruin your health -- then what's the point of all that money and free time?

Ultimately it's a decision that you'd have to make depending on what you care about. You could turn your question on it's head; what's the point of having children or a significant other if you are incapable or unwilling when you could be making money for the things you do care about in life?

That's a good point, actually.

Which I will bookmark as the perfect description of the kind of personality profile that is most suited to working at Amazon-- and perhaps the only personality type that can thrive there, actually.

I prefer a bit tougher job that means I'll be financially free in 10 years. It also means my wife doesn't have to work and can really focus on raising our children.

I've worked some long days, but not 16hrs. Plus I really dig the projects I'm on.

You can ruin all that on a 70K job.

There are several companies where the revenue they create per employee is so astronomical that reasonable work-life balance and high pay are on the table.

Especially so if you are single income family.

How on earth can you say that $350k is "not that much"?

Also, I'd be curious to know where you get your numbers from - simply because numbers for total comp (across all companies) seems hard to come by. One can't go by what's posted on levels.fyi of course, because that's skewed heavily towards people who have ... something to brag about.

Yeah it really still is. Living in the bay area as a single 20 something making that kind of money you are approaching 1% status. Rent is a little higher sure, but what really is the difference between $2k/month and $4k/month when you're bringing home $20k+/month? And everything else in California besides housing is the same as anywhere else really in terms of cost of living.

You don't bring 20k+ per months, more like 9k+ after tax/401k contribution. And stock grants are liquid assets, but they are not cash, and most people I know won't exercise them right away, so they are still numbers in certain DB table

That's the point these companies don't get, and never will get.

All of their mouthed pronouncements about "wellness" and "work-life balance" notwithstanding.

Speak for yourself, I guess.

I would strap myself into the torture machine from Clockwork Orange for 8 hours a day if you paid me $350k to do it.

The magic wears off fast and it doesn’t go as far as you imagine.