You're right that there's a ceiling somewhere, but the ceiling is (or at least has been) ludicrously high for the past decade or so in big tech in the US.
But when discussing the entire job market, it's a minuscule fraction of tech workers who could even get there if they tried (sometimes due to no fault of their own e.g. location), and it's a much smaller number that even get there at all.
Hitting L7 in mid 30s and catching a massive bull market to pump up compensation is mythical unicorn levels of lucky. It does happen to some people, but it's not useful at all when discussing realistic expectations even 95th percentile developers in the general population.
Getting into a bubble with top FAANG engineers can really distort perceptions of what the market looks like for the median developer.
Maybe I should just grind leetcode for a few months (my dynamic-programming algo skills are a bit rusty) and switch jobs. I would miss the 30 days of PTO though.
From another point of view - design and behavioral questions original goal is to confirm that candidate have related experience from day to day work, so if you have enough practice on your current job - it is not so much time to prepare for design and behavioral part of interviews.
In a more civilized world they'd have higher bases across the board and the commission/incentive structures would be less "winner-take-all" but they operate those divisions like running greyhounds around a track.
Orders take about 6 weeks to be fulfilled barring catastrophe, so when it's all calculated out every 3 months she makes $29 * 62.5 (40 hours plus 15 * 1.5 = 40 + 22.5 paid hours at base rate) * 12 (weeks) + $10,000 bonus every 3 months = roughly $31,750 or $10,567 a month before taxes.
That's almost as much as I make with a BS degree in the tech field. It's crazy, but then again she does work more hours than I do.
I have some friends making ~600, although a lot of that was getting lucky with RSUs, so I'm not sure they can keep it up in the long run
Either way, the ceiling is a lot higher than 150
You could extend the curve and plateau higher, but then, that money is probably going to cause problems elsewhere for the younger generations. Meanwhile, the younger generations are seeking income increases so they can get the basics out of the way and start working towards their goals. They are already at the point where, despite studying for a long time and taking longer to enter the market, they are starting lower and have to delay their goals way more than the generations before them.
I don't really see a solution here. You can make young people work earlier, but that'll flood the job market even more. Boosting young people will make the curve flatter, which exacerbates the problem. You could extend the curve otherwise, but that means your yearly growth at the start will be smaller (which hurts everyone along the curve). The only solution I see here is to take a larger portion of the profits, and stakeholders are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that.
Where have there have the layoffs started? What evidence do you have that we are "heading back into 'lucky to have a job' territory"?
If you can get the income as long term capital gains, you get to keep a lot more.
At the same time, money is money, and stock isn’t money.
Obviously market, location, expertise will vary, etc.
YMMV.
The thing about pay that the job hoppers apparently don't take into account is that levels aren't static. Looking at my own network over the years, virtually everyone I know has been promoted or otherwise landed more senior roles, to varying degrees on both sides. You may also have noticed a significant increase of "staff engineers" in the past few years, whereas the role was basically unknown some 10 years ago. Many companies also have been quietly giving out retainer bonuses/raises to slow down attrition.
Since I started my career, I've had multiple significant compensation increases, some from raises, some from promos, one from a team move, and some from changing jobs. Increasing your experience/expertise over time can have a huge impact. Going from no-name companies to household names can have a huge impact. Relocating can have a huge impact. Negotiations (even internal ones) can have a huge impact. There isn't a one-glove-fits-all when it comes to an individual's opportunities for comp growth.
On the other hand, stagnation is very much real. There are plenty of people that do nothing in terms of career progressions, negotiations, etc and just wait for year-end bonuses to fall into their laps. It'd naive to be surprised these folks aren't keeping up pay-wise.
Not only FAANGABCDEF, but "Staff+, with specialized skills, at FAANGABCDEF, in a small number of specific metro areas". If 1 software engineer can be found who makes $700K for every 29 software engineers at other companies/metros/levels who make $100K, Hacker News Commenters will tell you that "Software engineers make $700K". Important to point out there are a lot of other things in play that make it more complex.
Get a single +39% increase is one thing.
Getting a +39% increase every single time you change jobs isn't going to happen. If that was possible, you could change jobs every year for a decade and be earning 27X what you started with. If you started at $100K, that would put you at $2.7 million year after 10 iterations.
That's why whenever someone insists that job hopping is an easy way to get huge pay increases, it's probably more a sign that they're early in their career and/or that they haven't been keeping up with compensation negotiations. For people at the sharp end of the compensation scale, job-hopping stops becoming an easy option for compensation increases.
A lot of people a lot of people are making less money than they could be due to being complacent about reaffirming their own value. America, and most of the modern world, runs a labour market and to properly value a good in a market you need real sales data - I think it's a solidly good idea to interview regularly, be prepared to job hop... but make a sane evaluation about the decision before committing to leaving or joining a particular job. Most employers over-advertise their business because... well... advertising works - so the grass might not be greener on the other side. But if you have an offer for 120k and are currently making 80k from an employer that values you you can discuss that with your employer to seek a salary equalization.
This decreases over your mid-career. You can still get good job bumps of 15% - 25% in your mid years by job hopping.
But later in your career you will get rewarded by loyalty and sticking around. Those massive salaries that everyone brags about generally (not always, but usually) come from internal promotion or from poaching. Those careers require you to be part of specialized teams with high-value business-specific knowledge. Those job roles are not given to engineers who job-hop. Simply put, in your late career, if you are only staying at companies for 12-18 months, then you are not getting deep enough into your specialty to be worth the insane salaries. So long term loyalty becomes much greater rewarded.
This is another reason why I recommend people stay away from FAANG early in your career and move to those jobs later. Early on, you should job hop through smaller companies where you aren't as enticed to stick around and you can more easily get promotions. Then settle down later in your career at the large companies who want and reward loyalty with insane compensation packages.
11 years in the (relatively young) tech industry is quite the tenure at this point, _imo_.
My point was that the market is hot. Hot enough for an 11 year "veteran" to still get a 39% increase. Also want to point out I've "hopped" as many jobs in about as many years. Some people coming into the industry get taken advantage of compensation wise for a multitude of reasons just to get their foot in the door. I also strongly believe in skill stagnation at certain companies and hopping is the only way out.
Again, none of these arguments really matter as it comes down to individual experiences.
YMMV is right. There's a lot of factors here. It's almost meaningless to take averages without qualifying those against a fairly large number of conditions.
Total comp North of 300K for an IC sounds like science fiction to many folks which aren't in Silicon Valley, in certain fields, and in certain companies.
“compensation” is something I can trade for cash once I have earned it and then exchange for good and services.
Besides that, it takes the average startup 7-10 years to exit. As opposed to a public company where you can diversify your risk every three to six months depending on your vesting schedule.
Looking at a few non-SV cities such as Seattle, Chicago, Nashville, Orlando, Sacramento, Austin, and Fresno it costs $14-18k/year more to rent a 1 bedroom apartment in the Bay Area than to rent in those other places.
The average monthly spending on food in SF is about $150/month more than the US average. That's under $2K/year.
California does have a high income tax. For someone moving from somewhere else to California you might have to pay them maybe 10% more to compensate for that.
Putting it all together, a job that pays around $100k/year in non-SV non-NY decent sized cities should need to pay if we are generous maybe around $140k/year due to higher COL in the Bay Area.
That Bay Area tech pay is way more than that suggests that something other than SV COL is the main factor.
People are saying $350k remote jobs don't exist. Which obviously is untrue (go work at Airbnb). But they're exceedingly rare.
You do have to interview & negotiate well, and keep your skills sharp, and I'd bet that I'm about at the ceiling of what's possible as an IC. But now I've transitioned into management and all those startup exec positions are theoretically open. :-) There is always somebody making buttloads of money in the economy; if you want it, figure out who it is and how to make yourself useful to them.
So, I believe it is still possible but it is a very different skill set and does become difficult. Transitioning to management train sometimes is more efficient and then it’s a whole new skill set to progress there.
I will admit though - it does taper off and opportunities do become fewer. But, still, you’re making $500k+ by the time you’re on the really difficult track and that’s a pretty healthy amount. (Still might need a partner to comfortably afford a house in SV but that’s another discussion)
Source: My current nearly-concluded job search.
I'd rather us not use Stanford as a baseline even if the crowd is numerous and abundant on HN and SV.
One thing a lot of people forget about this 20-40% number is: It's only true early in your career. It might be hard for younger folks to believe, but you will all hit a ceiling and plateau. My first job hop was for +50%! The next one was about 40%, the next one 15%, and so on. Now, with 20+ years of experience, my last job hop was for maybe 0.25%.
If I could get +40% every time I switched jobs, I'd only have to have switched jobs 9 times in my life in order to be making $1M/yr.