A positive skew will effectively reduce all employees wages
> Google, like the others, used a “salary algorithm” to ensure salaries remained within a tight band across like jobs. Although tech companies like to claim that talent and hard work are rewarded, in private, Google’s “People Ops” department kept overall compensation essentially equitable by making sure that lower-paid employees who performed well got higher salary increases than higher-paid employees who also performed well.
<snark ratio="0.5">My advice would be to make sure you could find a place to live there first</snark>
The big issue is that right now, $1200, even $1300 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in this area would seem quite reasonable, even a bargain. That's banana crazypants. In Sacramento you could get a two-bedroom, one-bath place with all the amenities for under $900 a month without looking too hard. That means that if you were able to telecommute three days a week -- maybe even just two -- it would cost you less to live in Sacramento and take the Capitol Corridor train in to San Francisco on your office days than it would to live pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area.
I'm not advocating that (the thought has clearly occurred to me, but I have too many friends here in SV to want to make getting to them that difficult), but I think it points to a genuine problem with the local economy. The median housing costs across the Bay Area show an implicit assumption that everybody is making Big Tech Money, but they're not -- and some areas are starting to get too expensive even for the people who are making top dollar. This just isn't a sustainable mix.
There are plenty of places with decent rooms you can rent for $800-1000. I paid $825 for my old place in South San Francisco (20 min commute to SF). It was a 2300sqft house shared by 3 others.
And, I think my larger concern about prices still stands. That $825 a month could get you a 1BR place with W/D included in many other cities. Actually, it could get you at least a 1BR/1BA place with W/D in many other cities, and we're not talking "middle of nowhere" type places, either. There are still certainly reasons to live in the Bay Area rather than those other places, but we're paying an awful lot for the privilege.
Just like Wall Street != actual street.
This is how the media and public use the term SV.
Just like Wall Street != actual street.
Even if SV were the best place to be an engineer, it's hard to imagine it being worth sacrificing 300 hours per year.
A 10 minute commute is 25% of that, which is 75 hours per year, which is still a lot. But for me, there is a huge psychological difference between a 10 minute commute vs 40.
Is it worth it? What are the benefits?
If you plan to spend 8-9ish hours actually working, and another 10 per day on sleeping, eating, shower, and other such necessities, that leaves about 5 hours of real free time. A hour and a half a day of commute time is a pretty solid cut into that. 20 minutes of commute time is hardly noticable. Personally, I'd sooner take the 10 minute commute and have that mental seperation between work time and off time than have an extra 20 minutes a day and work at home.
Currently I have a 20 minute pleasant bus commute to work, and I wouldn't go back to that commute. For me, it wasn't worth it.
Of course, now I live in the midwest and am hating the weather. My commute? Not so bad. But I miss the weather.
While housing prices are quite high, working in technology you are certainly able to afford the higher rents. The problem is when you don't work in tech and live here.
My findings were that startups there are extremely busy. They are slow to respond to emails, meetings and interviews are often missed/rescheduled, and salaries are relatively low (<100k). When talking to execs it became clear that they demand 45+ hours a week.
Compare that to Austin, Seattle, DC, Chicago, and Portland, who all have thriving startup communities that often match SV wages, and SV starts to look less appealing.
SV working conditions are not something a college grad should strive for. They should focus on locking down a nice salary with relatively cheap living costs, clearing themselves of debt, and growing their personal worth with side projects.
Also, the wages here in SV can not be matched anywhere else. It's economically impossible to pay someone a SV wage anywhere else. Economically impossible because if you're a business that has intentionally based your company in say DC then why would you continue to pay your engineers SV-sized wages. You'd be amongst the wealthiest people in DC if you were paid what a typical engineer is offered here.
>...your company in say DC then why would you continue to pay your engineers SV-sized wages.
Because you value great employees? I mean think of it this way. A lot of people can't just pack up ship and move to SF. But a lot people can! Companies keep their salaries on par with the valley to keep up. Granted the numbers aren't a science. It is hard to compare salaries in different areas but It has been my experience that SV wages are not that much more than any other city in the US.
> You'd be amongst the wealthiest people in DC if you were paid what a typical engineer is offered here
This is just blatantly false. Do you know how much government workers and politician minions make? It makes engineering salaries look laughable.
1.) http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Web-Developer-l-Washington,-D...
2.) http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Web+Developer&l1=San+francis...
I do think that a developer getting paid 300k (not unheard of for top talent at top companies) in a place like Austin would be ridiculous.