>>> many developers by their mid-30's are sitting on a million+ in assets and good ones can rake in 200K+ easy.

What !!!

Edit: I did return to tone down my reaction but I would be interested in any (evidence based) research on the pay scales in and out of SV. I understand it is only the very top tech (FAANG) that pay so highly and mostly though share options.

It's not like that in Europe I am afraid.

But even so, if that's your position by 35, well done you.

GP definitely lives in a SV/US bubble. Here in Europe I know devs in high CoL areas having less than a thousand Euros left at the end of the month. Having millions in assets is fantasy for us unless you won some crypto/stock gambles.

Can attest to sv here. "Senior" (ie 2-4 years of experience at fangs or similar sizes) can make TC of around 200-250 including liquid (and quarterly vesting public RSUs) and 10% bonus on a 150ish base.

> SV/US bubble

It's not SV, it's the US. 200k is easily achievable for a senior engineer anywhere in the US with the rise in wfh.

But what percent of software engineering jobs are in the US? It's not really a bubble if it's the majority of software positions.

Reminds me of Dijkstra's "On the fact that the Atlantic Ocean has two sides" followed by Alan Kay's rebuttal "On the fact that most software is written on one side of the Atlantic Ocean."

Sure developers in the EU get paid less, developers in Mobile Alabama working locally also probably get paid less, but most developers aren't in these areas.

I also know plenty of EU citizens working for US companies making 200k+ remotely, so it's not like these positions are closed off from people residing in the EU.

Even Dijkstra eventually ended up at UT Austin.

Median total compensation for a senior software engineer in the US is $138K on glassdoor, and I'd wager even that is a bit inflated.

There is no reality where most engineers expect to be paid 200K+. I really don't understand technical people perpetuating this idea when you can find data pretty much anywhere that indicates otherwise. There is just no reason to inflate this number.

Glassdoor notoriously undershoots and is off by quite a bit. I’d not use that as a resource at all.

I was talking about the millions in assets part. And 200k for EU citizens is definitely not easily achievable. The median is far far below that.

perfectly doable in London

How exactly?

works for a company that pays its engineers reasonably well?

$200k (TC) is not that high in London for an engineer with 10 years experience

So that's 160k pa total. I'm in London myself

I would be surprised to see someone whose job is coding getting that.

There may be crypto paying silly amounts or lucky start ups.

Either that or I need to brush up my CV

I'm in London and I'm on 400k/year.

See how easy it is to just lie on the internet? :P

I was not saying I was on 160k - i would be happy to announce that if true however :/)

200k USD -> 160K GBP is the point

Yeah I know you weren't, I mean just take it with a grain of salt when everyone on the internet seems to be earning 200k in London

all of this is pretty easily verified on somewhere like glassdoor

look for developers working at trading firms

I'm based in Amsterdam and agree with him. There are a few local companies offering that much, including some who post pay ranges on this site.

I also made that much last year by working remotely for a Canadian company via a.team.

I know more examples of people working for Facebook in Germany and remotely for an Israeli company making over €300k.

Don't write off a company just because they have an unlimited PTO policy. Check out the culture first, some actually respect it. Especially in smaller companies, it's sometimes just easier to judge people based on their output rather than the number of days their butt is behind a keyboard.

I worked for a defense contractor that had a truly unlimited vacation policy as long as you were getting your work done. We actually would get formally reprimanded and put on a PIP for not using enough vacation. All benefits started day 1 including 4 months new parental leave (fully paid; STD following birth did not count against the 4 months), unlimited vacation (no questions asked and auto-approved for the first 30 days per year), unlimited sick leave (up to 5-days per incident after which you'd transition to STD up through 12 weeks then LTD at 100%, then 70% of pay until better or moved onto SSDI exceeding the benefit respectively), unlimited jury duty leave at 100% pay (one guy that I knew there spent 4 months on a jury for a complex civil trial), dedicated paid time off to vote in every election (local, state, or federal), and a whole heck of a lot more. Had I not gotten a much better offer from a HFT firm that fully offset the decrease in benefits, I probably would never have left the company because of how amazing the benefits were. I had taken 4 weeks off for my wedding + honeymoon before I quit and my manager was talking to me about how I should still schedule another 3-4 weeks off that fiscal year for vacations at other times.

I'm gonna need the name of this contractor. Hell i'd switch tech stacks for these kinds of benefits. Do they offer Remote? I make about 118k in NJ as an Angular+Python dev and what keeps me from leaving is the "unofficial" remote they offer me + the extremely relaxed working environment(no stress whatsoever). I'm not doing anything cutting edge but at my age (34 still living at home while saving money) I just don't feel like I want to be in any competitive environment anymore. Only worry I have is that I will be SOL once this dries up. I guess I gotta get on those "personal" projects/leetcode practice that I don't really feel like doing.

It was Harris Corporation but I heard the benefits got worse after the merger with L3.

Yuck. Everyone I have known who worked for L3 was a jerk who loved the smell of their own farts. They picked up all of the nastiest colleagues I had in engineering school. I have a very bad impression of this company. Don't they make the 1990s style "secure" phones that the government relies on?

> some actually respect it

I'm yet to see one or hear from a friend who works in one. I admit there might exist one somewhere, but by and large, they don't. Unlimited PTO = culture of overworking, at least for me. And small companies with unlimited PTO, 3-5 engineer teams (and some other staff, obviously) seem to be the worst offenders. The bigger the company, the higher the chance unlimited PTO might actually work.

That being said, I'd love if someone can teach me how to tell them apart.

I used to work at Workday, who has an “unlimited PTO” policy, and they were fantastic about it.

A few months into the pandemic, my manager sent me a message saying that he was worried I wasn’t taking enough PTO, and suggested I do a 3- or 4-day weekend in the next couple of weeks, even if I wasn’t going anywhere. This happened to a few other coworkers, too.

It can be a trap, but it isn’t always. And this isn’t some little startup - 15k employees.

That's a positive thing to hear and thanks for sharing! What I'm worried is, if 90% of unlimited PTO policies are complete shams (number taken from my informed RNG), how do you tell them apart? You can't afford to start at 10 companies and remain in the 1 that has a good policy... On words, they are all about work-life-balance (they don't tell you the balance is 90% work). And I'm not talking about being ridiculously lazy, I'm talking about employers openly setting expectations that you work at least 5x10-11h as a software engineer and demanding that.

It works as long as you have a culture where people don't abuse it. It's not workable if people think it's acceptable to disappear with some critical information only in their head and screw their coworkers. Document stuff. Set deadlines in advance, and expect people to meet them. Have a team that collaborates and is considerate to their peers. If people do this, nobody is counting how many days they're out.

I'd rather work at an unlimited PTO company with reasonable people than one with a generous allowance where people are always scheming to use it as a weapon.

Therein lies the problem… Define “abuse it.”? If there is such a thing than PTO should be limited to that ;) Dont say it is unlimited and then say that actually is limited…

I did define it... in the rest of my comment.

If the workplace culture isn't such that it is clear what abuse of the policy is, then yeah, it's not going to work out. Expectations have to be clear.

I think the best way to define what abuse is, is give explicit numbers. Even something like "25 days/year free use PTO, 20 more days to be discussed with your manager" or whatever. I came up with that policy right now, I haven't seen it anywhere, but point is - setting expectations beforehand is much better than just saying "unlimited". For some, unlimited means "20 days if you're lucky", for others it's "up to 40 days we don't bat an eye, if your output is good otherwise". "Unlimited" doesn't convey that. I want to know before I start working. Please convey it.

In the interview process, ask questions like "How many days off did you take last year?" or "How many days off in a year does an average team member take?". If the answer is <= 15, or they bristle at the very mention of the question, there's your answer!

As an anecdote, I've worked at a startup with unlimited PTO where the culture was that most folks were working 45-55 hour weeks regularly, but everyone took vacation whenever they felt they needed it. I averaged ~5 weeks of vacation per year taken during my tenure there. That was probably about par for the course with that team. As long as you're performing well while you are working, give enough advanced notice, and willing to be somewhat flexible (eg don't take 2 weeks vacation right before a big deadline with 2 days notice) - it can work out quite well for all parties.

The tech company I currently work for has unlimited PTO. I've never had an issue, even once, when I said I'm going to take XYZ days off and have gotten pushback. It probably happens but I haven't seen it.

You never mention if you took 15-20-25 days per year or let's say 40. I'd say that if you're taking up to 25 days per year, then there's no point in unlimited PTO - that's such a standard number that it's better to just put it there. If you took more than 30, then I'd love to hear specific numbers. Saying that you took 30-40 days in a year and didn't get pushback means a lot more in terms of a good "unlimited PTO policy", assuming you remain otherwise very productive.

I take a "standard" amount of PTO but it still makes sense to have unlimited PTO because:

1. Some people take more and some people take less, and that's fine. Not everyone has the same life circumstances.

2. If you set an allotment, you should track it. Why waste time counting calendar days against a PTO budget if nobody cares? If you start tracking towards a limit that people don't actually care about, then you create opportunities for people to be treated unfairly, or you demonstrate that your organizations rules aren't actually worth following.

Yeah, I do have to say every company I've worked for with "unlimited PTO" really means "no PTO and if you take any you will be shamed for it and possibly fired."

The only place I've heard of that went to unlimited that sounded serious about it was a non-profit (non-tech) where the execs said: we going to unlimited PTO, but we are going to enforce PTO minimums if you don't take PTO (you will be taking time off each year, either you will schedule it or the company will). They combined the move with creating some company-wide long weekends that augment already long weekends (eg. add a Friday or Tuesday to the July 4th holiday to make it a 4-day closure).

This comment is intesting. I've experienced unlimited PTO in a couple of big companies and it was amazing. There was never any push back on taking 'reasonable' time off (1-2 weeks at a time) and being able to take off without counting hours was fantastic

Correct. I’ve had unlimited PTO at a few jobs. All of them I’ve taken 5+ weeks off outside of company holidays every year. This is usually better than the 20 days standard you get from some FAANG.

I was at a company with such a policy and I was fired for taking too much time off due to a family emergency.

I don’t do unlimited PTO unless there’s a mandatory minimum time off.

Fully agree, nowadays I just don't bother replying any longer, if they aren't at very least at the same level as what I am having salary + benefits.

Also if they are calling themselves modern and don't offer 100% home office, scrap that.

Same applies if there is any mention of code golf, or me being great at things that aren't even part of my CV.

Naturally when unemployed, one doesn't get to be as picky, but thankfully that hasn't been the case.

By my mid-30s and having started programming at 9 and professionally at 14, 200k is chump change for a salary. That's what they really haven't caught up to.

This is only true for US salaries (and sometimes specifically within Bay Area/Seattle/New York markets)... pretty much everywhere else, salaries are a lot lower.

L7 salaries are 300k base and around 400k equity in the US, so hiring experienced/accomplished developers is intensely difficult for companies outside of the top tier with high margins or startups with potential exits.

Definitely only true for US and certain geographical areas, including the one I'm in. All I'm really saying is top-tier, experienced talent in top paying geographies make significantly more than $200k.

I dunno, I think this might be a bias of your social circle. Looking at the latest levels.fyi submissions[1], the majority are for <$200k/yr.

[1] https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer&s...

200k is not chump change for every other profession. Get off your high horse. You're not special because you know software.

> You're not special because you know software.

The article is about how hard it is to recruit developers, so presumably they are in fact at least a little bit special because they know software.

Money really doesn't much once you've hit financial independence. I can live out the rest of my days with $1m invested. $200K-$500k annual salary, hell, even $100k, is enough at that point.

“I can live out the rest of my days with ... $200K-$500k annual salary”

Sorry, but this isn’t “living out the rest of my days with” money, this is a top 5-1% pay range you’ve just suggested. I don’t necessarily disagree with your point but anyone who needs a $500K salary clearly is not financially independent

I'm from Canada. I make ~$100k/yr at the moment. It's considered a top 10% salary. I am content. Top 1% here is ~$200k/yr. It's a lot of money, but not a lot of money is needed frankly for the average Canadian. I don't think I'll ever reach $200k/yr+, so the $100k/yr I'm at I'm thankful for.

Mind you, I'm not including housing. Housing in Vancouver in Toronto require I make more than $200k/yr which further solidifies the fact that Vancouver and Toronto are owned by the wealthy elite. I am not the wealthy elite.

Our social healthcare has us covered in old age. I can live off $30k-40k/yr once retired. That's a 4% withdrawal rate off a 7% globally diversified ETF of $1m.

The problem with housing in Toronto and Vancouver is that like many other commonwealth countries, Canada isn't particularly strict about shady foreign money entering the country and driving up asset prices (in fact, it seems they welcome it).

This is similar to why London real estate is off the charts expensive for the people who live there... this still happens in the US, but it seems like a smaller deal relative to the size of the economy and banking regulations around things like proving source of income are a tad stricter.

There was a ban on foreign investors last year for two full years, but it's mainly a scapegoat. The real problem is realtor facing, with shadow bidding, cheap access to large mortgages, over zealous campaigning of the "Canadian/American dream", and my personal favorite: total lack of rail infrastructure. The GTA does it better than Vancouver, with it's Go Train system et al, but Vancouver is totally cramped with its encircling USA border and mountainous regions. On top of that, with what available land there is, homeowners and city workers petition to prevent construction of new homes. It's NIMBYism at it's finest, allowing homeowners to gladly rake in yearly appreciations at 10-30% while Vancouverites with "generational" down payments of 200-300k out-shadow-bid each other for East Van / Surrey / Coquitlam sloppy seconds.

The silver lining here is remote work. Both Vancouver and Toronto are in dire need of a physical brain drain. Allow remote workers to work from across Canada. The demand for in-city workers will lower and home prices will fall

In the bay area, a $500k annual salary is really not that much in the grand scheme of thngs.

It's literally an elite salary. It makes no sense to imply you're living a frugal, simple life if you need an elite salary to do it.

It's all relative to cost of living (including taxes) and asset prices... even in relative terms though, it is possible to save a lot in the Bay Area if you're not consuming at the high end or have your eyes set on real estate.

I mean, if you're living in an area with COL high enough to eat through $500k, you are splurging on location, which isn't really any less infrugal than it would be to splurge on travel or imported luxury goods.

I wasn't the one who said I was living a frugal life.

You hopped in to defend the point, but go ahead and take your exit then

I think the point he is making is in context of software engineer, which matters. When you have several option to get paid twice, 200k does seem like chump change (in Bay Area at-least). It is all relative. Don't think I'm special or deserve the pay I get, but given I've options no way I'd settle for less for same work.

I wrote banking software that took a company's valuation from $400 million to $6 billion when it went public. That's not a special ability?

There's probably a bunch of other people could have writeen it just as well or better and it wouldn't have made a difference to the valuation of the company anyway.

You can throw up what-ifs and counterfactuals all day long - gsibble was the one who wrote the software.

That's actually quite an insulting thing to say.

But probably true nonetheless.

I'm not going to write a trieste on why my abilities were unique and let me write this software beyond to say I had worked in that specific industry for a long while, but there were not many people that could have pulled it off. When I left, they had to replace me with significantly more people at a significantly higher cost and it cost their growth and stock price quite a bit.

The problem is everyone else who worked for the company could claim the same nexus to adding $5.6bn of value to the company.

Or were you the one that made all that money and the only one who could do it?

> You're not special because you know software.

Of course not. But the market says otherwise. My partner literally saves people's lives on a daily basis and is lucky if she can earn a 1/4 of what I can. I console myself that at least my taxes pay for her salary.

Umm + 100 to this. It surprises me how much recruiters (from all size companies) want you to leave your current role for a role that is worse in pay or growth opportunities or wlb or perks (usually all of the above) for the chance to "make future impact". What does impact even mean and why I care about it if I am not making more money or learning more or being challenged or growing or leveled up? I gotta really learn how to be shameless from these recruiters!!!