Talent War in Silicon Valley Demands High Salary (axios.com) 189
An anonymous reader writes: Employees at Google's parent company Alphabet earned "a median pay package of more than $197,000" in 2017, around 18% lower than Facebook's median salary of $240,000, the Wall Street Journal reports. Per the Journal, this illustrates the competitive "talent war in Silicon Valley, where talented engineers are in limited supply." These two salaries were more than $100,000 above Amazon's median pay, which sat at $28,446. The median price for a home in Silicon Valley is upwards of $1 million, in Seattle the median home price is just under $800,000.
Median Salary (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing valuable or sane about comparing Amazon's median salary to that of Facebook or Alphabet. When either of the latter two start employing thousands of low wage workers you'll see their median salary plummet to Amazon levels.
But hey, I guess we can't expect the Wall Street Journal to apply basic critical thinking skills.
Re:Median Salary (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be curious to see Amazon's median salary minus the warehouse workers. They compared two marketing/advertising giants with a retail enterprise, and we're supposed to feel bad that Amazon's tens of thousands of warehouse workers don't earn a quarter-million dollars/year like top-talent programmers and technology specialists?
Puh-leeze.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to see Amazon's median salary minus the warehouse workers. They compared two marketing/advertising giants with a retail enterprise, and we're supposed to feel bad that Amazon's tens of thousands of warehouse workers don't earn a quarter-million dollars/year like top-talent programmers and technology specialists?
Puh-leeze.
Exactly. Having a lot of lower wage employees is going to drag the median way simply do to the numbers. You're comparing two populations that are not the same and drawing a conclusion from it. Unfortunately, I'd wager many of the people reading the WSJ won't recognize the fallacy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Having a large number of lower range salaries will lower the _average_. It need not have any effect whatsoever on the median salary, which is the salary where half of the personnel make more, and half make less income. If there are "classes" among the employees, the clusters of income for those classes can profoundly distort an analysis of the wages.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a large number of lower range salaries will lower the _average_. It need not have any effect whatsoever on the median salary, which is the salary where half of the personnel make more, and half make less income. If there are "classes" among the employees, the clusters of income for those classes can profoundly distort an analysis of the wages.
As you point out, a large cluster of employees will distort the median. Amazon has a lot of low wage warehouse staff, who's numbers dwarf those of higher wage employees. Those, the salary distribution is not a bell curve but has a very fat tail at the lower end, thus driving down the median wage. If you compare Amazon's median wage to a company that doesn't have the same wage distribution, as the WSJ did, you are making an invalid comparison. If you want to compare Amazon to SV companies you need to use sim
Re: (Score:2)
Having a large number of low salaries workers can distort the median.
For a hypothetical, let's say each company employees 9 workers.
Alphabet's employees are paid ( 100,000 | 120,000 | 130,000 | 140,000 | 197,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 200,000 | 210,000 ).
Facebook's employees are paid ( 100,000 | 150,000 | 170,000 | 210,000 | 240,000 | 260,000 | 265,000 | 270,000| 275,000 ).
Amazone's employees are paid ( 23,000 | 24,000 | 26,000 | 27,000 | 28,446 | 30,000 | 100,000 | 110,000 | 120,000).
Alphabet's mean is 166,
Re: Median Salary (Score:3)
What if two-thirds of your workforce are warehouse pickers? What does that do to your median salary?
Re: (Score:2)
We have college students that intern at Amazon starting between $90K-$100K, right out of college. They work long hours (10-12/day), but none of them would say they're not compensated well for a starting job.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be curious to see Amazon's median salary minus the warehouse workers.
From what I've heard, the salaries are comparable albeit a bit lower.
But even then, base salaries are useless by comparison. A useful comparison requires the inclusion of benefit packages, PTO/vacation, hiring (or annual) bonuses (and in the case of STEM companies, college reimbursement.)
Base salaries do not make apple to apple comparisons, and it is a near-fatal yet common mistake that techies make (specially when they consider going into consulting.)
Re: (Score:3)
> and we're supposed to feel bad that Amazon's tens of thousands of warehouse workers don't earn a quarter-million dollars/year like top-talent programmers and technology specialists?
No, but maybe you should feel bad that whatever their salary is it dragged the median down to $28,000 so they're making much less than that, all the while not being able to take a break long enough to use the can so they're pissing in bottles and working in cold in winter, boiling hot in the summer. All so you can save an e
Re: (Score:2)
Median literally means middle. It's not an average. It just means as many workers make less than 28k as make more than that. The lower half can all have salaries of 27.9k and the upper half can have salaries in the billions, and the median stays the same.
Re: (Score:2)
> The lower half can all have salaries of 27.9k and the upper half can have salaries in the billions, and the median stays the same
Mathematically that is correct but do you seriously believe that's the case? Especially in light of the multiple articles published on the minimum wage pressure cookers that are Amazon Fulfillment Sites?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it is proof that it is MAXIMUM WAGE, not MINIMUM WAGE, which drives inflation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a huge leap in logic. Inflation is primarily driven by prices on commodities that poor people spend most of their income on. More income at the bottom means more demand for those commodities, driving up prices.
Re: (Score:2)
In this example of the housing market,
What example? I don't see any housing market example.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
A localized hyperinflationary market is not the same thing as general inflation. You intentionally conflated the two in your original post, even though the general market can balance out as poorer people can find the inefficiencies and live cheaper elsewhere. And this country is HUGE in terms of land mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. But you said that maximum wage drives inflation (general rule). Just use better words.
Re: (Score:2)
The general rule is shown by the example of the specific case.
The general rule contradicts the specific case. Your initial statement is still wrong. Unless and until this entire country is overcrowded, it's utterly and completely wrong.
Re: Median Salary (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That is a rather ignorant way of looking at things. Inflation is caused by printing too much money. The federal reserve is largely in control of inflation, and can usually get as much or as little as they want. Inflation is not controlled by either the maximum or minimum wage. For more information on this topic, look up the monetary equation mv=pq. Raising the minimum wage doesn't affect inflation, but it increases unemployment as some businesses won't be able to afford the new higher wages, and will hire fewer people. The labor pool has its own supply demand curve. Again, if you don't understand why it is called a curve, please don't waste your time arguing. To really understand this topic well it would be helpful to get a good economics book.
You are oversimplifying a bit: https://www.moneycrashers.com/... [moneycrashers.com]
Inflation is also impacted by increased demand. If people have more money but the supply of the goods they want to buy does not increase, we have inflation due to more demand than supply (item 3 in the link). If products become more expensive to produce (having to pay workers more), we have inflation as companies pass on this cost (or hire less people as you mentioned), item 4 in the link.
Re: Median Salary (Score:4, Informative)
You are oversimplifying a bit:
I didn't, I gave the full equation, mv=pq. If you don't understand it, you should go look it up right now.
His point is that mv=pq is a very simplified equation which makes numerous false assumptions. It is good for a ECON 101 class to explain the basics, but it doesn't cover the entirety of what affects the CPI. Some basic problems with the equation include:
M = Money Supply -> This is a very complex topic as there are many forms of money supply with very different characteristics, such as liquidity. This is one way wages enter into inflation figures, because more liquid forms of money supply in the hands of people who spend most of their money on goods and services (such as minimum wage workers) have a higher effect on inflation.
V = Velocity -> In this equation V is not well defined. I'm not going to write a paper about it on Slashdot, but you can read this [pragcap.com] for a little more info.
P = Price of Goods and Services -> This equation also doesn't take into account how inflation can hit different types of goods and services very differently. The type of Money Supply has a strong effect on this.
I was going to type more but have a meeting to get to. I'm not saying that MV=PQ is a meaningless equation, it just doesn't encompass all economic theory on inflationary pressures. Think of it as F=MA before Einstein and quantum mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to write a paper about it on Slashdot,
That's good, because it's obvious you've been getting your economics knowledge from blogs written by failed portfolio managers, and probably some podcasts in there too. Your idea of money supply is bizarre (where exactly do you think wages come from? They don't change the money supply. And your comment on "more liquid forms of money supply" should be entered under velocity. Furthermore the P definitely does take into account how inflation can hit different types of goods and services very differently. I can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because new money also contributes to economic activity and inflation. Yet economics textbooks completely ignore the capacity of banks to create that additional spending power out of nowhere. Or suggest that government surpluses will magically make the economy grow, when the opposite is true. Trade imbalance also explains why Germany is doing so well, while Greece is doing so poorly.
Every boom is accompanied by unsustainable growth in bank lending, every collapse linked to a reduction in money creation. Th
Re: Median Salary (Score:2)
Yet economics textbooks completely ignore the capacity of banks to create that additional spending power out of nowhere
If you take a macroeconomics 101 class you'll spend a couple weeks on this exact topic. In mv=pq, which really is the most helpful model for understanding inflation, it's covered under m.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would if it triggered a larger issuance of debt
How exactly are you thinking that would that happen?
Economics books are rarely helpful.
Uh, stop posting while drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
You're funny. Economic predictions are about as good as those of a typical meteorologist...fifty years ago.
Re: Median Salary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know squat about me or where I get my economic education, and yet claim that you do. Clearly, you're the moron.
Re: Median Salary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When either of the latter two start employing thousands of low wage workers you'll see their median salary plummet to Amazon levels.
This. There's no sane way to take the entire group of people and compare them using a normal statistical mean, or median. That alone should be evident by the fact that Facebook has some 25000 people, Google has 70000 people. Amazon has 566000, checking the number of zeros.... yes I wrote it correctly.
Comparing employees between these companies is asinine.
Your slip is showing (Score:3)
that has made the USA the most successful company in the history of the planet.
Your hatred of America is showing (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure, that's Japan, actually...
Re: (Score:3)
"rugged individualism"
Those are mutually exclusive. There's nothing ruggedly individualistic about swindling money from VCs, and corporations are incredibly dependent on some degree of collectivism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But, that's not at all true. WWII is what made America the most successful country in the history of the planet. Nearly all of the competitors were destroyed during the war as all their production capacity was targeted during fighting. The result was that we had a period of a couple decades where we had virtually no competition to ward off.
But, that's also a period where the nation was far less capitalist than it is now. Employees were actually being paid for the work they were doing. They were able to save
Re: (Score:2)
Who had the production capacity that the US had prior to the war???
Re: (Score:2)
The British, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians had extraordinary production capacity before WWII. All those countries also suffered tremendous damage to their industrial infrastructure, which cleared the playing field for the US to dominate manufacturing and trade while the heavily-damaged countries caught up.
This is just another reason why war is basically a bad idea. Honestly, if industrialists wanted to get their way, they should work stuff out around a negotiating table, not suborn governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Really? They had the massive assembly lines like that of the American automotive industry? I'm not here to argue your other point about war being bad, just that I'm doubting that anyone had anywhere close to the production capacity that America had pre-war.
Re: (Score:2)
Who had the production capacity that the US had prior to the war???
Before or after they had slaves?
Nice. You are aware that slavery was not unique to the US, right?
Re: (Score:3)
At the top of the food chain were the big iron companies that made UNIX workstations and servers (Sun, SGI, HP, Dec, Digital, Apple, Fujitsu), chip makers (MIPS, Intel), high-speed networks (Cisco) and databases (Oracle). At the far end of the peninsula were Pixar and ILM. Microsoft crushed big iron UNIX with Windows NT. They got companies to abandon their own OS variants and use Windows NT instead.
If you look around the internet for "Silicon Valley wall posters", you'll find cartoon style maps of all the c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, it would be in Playa Vista down in Los Angeles
http://www.hdcco.com/hbos-fict... [hdcco.com]
Actually Linux destroyed traditional *nix (Score:3)
Microsoft crushed big iron UNIX with Windows NT. They got companies to abandon their own OS variants and use Windows NT instead.
Actually that was Linux. People running *nix tended to stay with *nix. Microsoft's OS was brand named "workstation" but it was not displacing traditional *nix workstations. *nix never really made it to the desktop of average workers, *nix users tended to be high end and specialized and remained so. DOS, OS/2 and Windows 3.x were what Windows NT displaced on the desktop.
Servers were a similar story. traditional *nix servers were largely displaced by Linux or FreeBSD. Windows server users tended to be thos
Re: (Score:2)
NT was kind of a gateway drug, I think, insofar as it taught bean counters that licensing costs could be driven down lower than Big Iron vendors were demanding, and *then* Linux came in at either Opex-only subscription costs (Red Hat etc) or entirely Opex-free (CentOS, etc). Since Linux had command compatibility with lots of big iron Unixes, the technical teams took to it and the bean counters took note, and that was the end of paying for OSes (for the most part).
It was interesting to watch some of the sp
Re: (Score:2)
I started noting Linux displacing traditional *nix at the university. Professors who could not explain why they had to have a Sun/SGI box got a commodity PC running Linux. Student labs also got PCs running Linux, however an interesting thing happened there. Linux was the gateway to Windows for the student labs. Linux re
Re: (Score:2)
There are also no distribution centers in Seattle
Does this [goo.gl] count? (in Kent, just south of Seattle)
Might be time to leave... (Score:5, Insightful)
...the sillycon valley. It's always going to be the center of tech, but there's a large hunk of america that costs a tiny fraction where anyone can live like a king on $100k/yr.
It's a nice place, I spent the past week there, but I am glad to have left too. Paying 33% more in gas, 50% more in food, 30% more in groceries and the crowding and density didn't really endear it to me. To get an equivalent size house there to what I own would have cost almost 20x the price, and I know damn well I'm not going to get 20x the salary.
I'm just not convinced that in the digital era that the silicon valley created that we all need to pile in there anymore. Video conferencing works well, email works well, networks work well. Let's spread out some.
Re:Might be time to leave... (Score:5, Interesting)
People have realized that if they go and earn big bucks for a few years and then bail to somewhere cheaper, that mega salary will help them get above the going rate anywhere. Recruiters don't look at a $200k salary and think "oh but that was Silicon Valley, this person will take $50k out here and maintain the same lifestyle", they think "well I had better offer at least 100k to get someone like that!"
Re: Might be time to leave... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. Years ago I worked in the Midwest and weâ(TM)d laugh at the people coming from California demanding similar inflated salaries.
The "Golden Handcuffs". . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's the flip side of it: The so-called "Golden Handcuffs". We have it, to a lesser extent, in Metro DC as well. The pay is significantly higher, and you adjust your lifestyle to it. And then. . . .companies outside "the bubble" cannot offer that level, even if the cost of living is low enough that it's a defacto lifestyle IMPROVEMENT. . .
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how much a lifestyle improvement a $200,000 a year salary would be when you're losing half of that to taxes and paying $4,000 a month for a friggin one bedroom apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of 200k is more than 3/4 of 100k. But realistically, 200k is just salary. Compensation involves much more than that so you're talking about possibly *saving* 200k/year in equity+cash.
Do that for 5 years and you can go live without worry elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much a lifestyle improvement a $200,000 a year salary would be when you're losing half of that to taxes and paying $4,000 a month for a friggin one bedroom apartment.
Even if there is some lifestyle cuts between location and payroll, the main takeaway is that the amount you save for retirement will probably be a similar percentage of salary. So after retirement, those with lower saleries in lower cost areas can essentially stay where they are. Those with hire salaries could stay where they are or retire to the lowercost areas in style.
Re: (Score:2)
$200,000/yr puts you in the 33% tax bracket. Adding up all your tax brackets at $200,000 will yield an effective tax rate of 24.7%, leaving you with more than $150,000 after taxes. Factor in your $4000/month, and you're sitting at $100,000 of spending money.
I'm not sure about how much of a lifestyle improvement this is either, but it seems to me that having a disposable income that is 25% higher than the base salary for the average programmer ($82k per BLS) probably makes you more better off than not...
California will take 9%, plus some city, muni bonds, association fees. etc. It will add up to around half when all is accounted for.
Re: (Score:2)
California will take 9%, plus some city, muni bonds, association fees. etc. It will add up to around half when all is accounted for.
No way that is going to add up to another $50K
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget sales tax, gas tax, property tax, car registration, etc... all those things are expensive in California.
Re: (Score:2)
They call it "Golden Jail" in Los Angeles as well. You've bought a house there, want to trade up to a bigger home, but can't really afford the prices. But you certainly don't want to move to a smaller home or somewhere further out. So you're trapped in a Golden Jail.
Similar thing in the UK. Salaries tend to be higher down South especially close to and in London. People in the North of the country would always go "down South" to advance their careers or when there were layoffs. Then they get a payrise. But t
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly we make the same or close to the same inflated salary outside of Ca, and actually do live like kings. Maybe it depends on industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I never left the midwest and worked up to $140k. Having never had to deal with any housing crises or the congestion that comes with a metro area.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the assertion that some places would only offer $50k underestimates the state of affairs in the rest of the market. Sure, having a *median* of over $200k is unlikely outside of California, but 100k isn't too outrageous, regardless of whether the person came from one of the "big names" or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The context matters, a post said "starting in SV will net you $100k when you leave SV versus $50k/y if you don't start from SV", then someone said "No, you won't get $100k/yr just by being from SV" and I was replying that you could probably get $100k/yr, regardless of SV or not.
But in answer to your question, yes, $100k/year is a lot of money. US median *household* income is $60k (including a lot of multi-income households). One salary being nearly double the median is a lot of money, relatively speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
"A lot of money" is relative to costs in a given area.
Costs in (certain parts of) CA are higher than average, and consequently the salary doesn't go as far.
OTOH, if you're careful and not wasteful, it's possible to build up a decent nest egg by leveraging 401k and opening brokerage accounts. Even if you stay with safe instruments, you'll still manage to put away some good cash, which is the chief benefit. I don't even count options - I've had many, and they are generally worthless, which is why SV compani
Re: (Score:2)
> they think "well I had better offer at least 100k to get someone like that!"
No, they think "get a load of this guy, who the hell does he think we are? Google?" The reason a lot of tech people don't move elsewhere to live cheaper is that the salaries are also smaller. Live in Silicon Valley and put away even 5% of your salary for retirement will set you up for success more than a job in the midwest and setting aside 15% of that salary. Plus the relative ease of job mobility, if that's your thing.
Re: (Score:2)
> Live in Silicon Valley and put away even 5% of your salary for retirement will set you up for success more than a job in the midwest and setting aside 15% of that salary.
^^^
What he said. Figure out how much you can afford to save and then save like crazy. It makes for an exit strategy by or before 60 that's entirely acceptable.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no ?
I'm 48, have been working for Apple for the last 14 years or so, and live and work in the Bay Area. Sure, things are expensive, and once I stop being paid we'll bail to the Oregon coast or similar for retirement, but life is pretty good.
My wife is a full-time mum, my kid goes to a nice school (better than I ever had), the mortgage will be paid in 5 years or so, and we've just got a puppy (a Newfie :) I'm intending to stay until retirement. I'm hardly the oldest in my group (R&D) either, and I wo
Re: (Score:2)
I live in San Francisco and am raising a family (three kids) in the City. It's a nice place to raise kids. Lots of educational opportunities, entertainment, playgrounds and the like easily accessible.
The cost of living is high, yes. But if you're in tech (like me) the salaries more than make up for it. Do you know what metro area has the largest disposable income on average? The Bay Area. So, even taking into account the higher cost of living, you STILL end up with more money in your pocket than most other
Re: (Score:2)
...the sillycon valley. It's always going to be the center of tech...
In my experience, any statement that contains "always" that's not based in scientific and repeatable observations, especially those that are speaking of some future state of things, usually turn out to be incorrect. I'm not saying this one is, only that it's very likely wrong.
Detroit used to be the center of automobile manufacturing, but today "motor city" is awash in urban blight and poverty while the manufacture of automobiles has moved away.
Re: (Score:2)
...the sillycon valley. It's always going to be the center of tech, but there's a large hunk of america that costs a tiny fraction where anyone can live like a king on $100k/yr.
Subject to living with a very shallow employer pool. I know people who have taken gigs in the middle of nowhere, relocating family and all, and then they are stuck with 2-3 employers. That's the reason many of us prefer the expense of living in a, no pun intended, expensive metropolitan area. Should shit hit the fan I know I have about 2-3 dozen possible options (some great, some good, most mediocre, but having that many options is much better than just plan A and plan B and shit there is nothing else.)
. Video conferencing works well, email works well, networks work well.
When
Re: (Score:2)
But are any of the places you're talking about the kinds of places that people like the talent in question want to LIVE?
For instance, I wouldn't live in Lawrance Kansas if you gave me a 2300 sqft house for FREE as well as any vehicle I wanted.
There's nothing interesting to DO there. There's no prospects for a relationship I'd be interested in (most girls there are really proud of their church attendance, according to my sister) It's not near anything remotely interesting.
Cost of living varies for REASONS.
Re: (Score:3)
You can have both though. The wage battle is the same, and we know companies can afford to pay $200k/yr, so they can and do continue to do so regardless of location. The difference is the company that can afford to pay me that and live in an area with a fraction of the cost is going to be better than the one who pays just a bit more in silicon valley, unless you are very young and really sold on urban lifestyle at any cost (I was never that young...)
All I know is living here I can have a fast car, a big hou
Re: (Score:2)
Heh everything on amazon costs about the same in seattle as ohio.
Difference is a dollar feels like spending a penny and it's on my doorstep 2 hours later.... and unless the market is taking a dive my 401k earns more than median pay in the city I left.
So, accounting or IT? (Score:2)
We have just recently learned that accounting pays so much better than IT: https://ask.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
So, how big are accountant salaries in Silicon Valley?
Re: (Score:3)
First off- whoever posted that put no evidence in at all. Secondly- the vast majority of people at those companies are not IT. They're programmers. Totally different payscale. The actual IT people are probably paid well, but not anything like the numbers above.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on your definition of "IT". For a lot of companies, if your customer is internal you are IT whether you are changing printer toner or writing applications or keeping servers up.
In my experience, companies that have other product engineering are the only ones who limit the definition of IT to admins and helpdesk people.
Indeed, I am both IT and programmer. I'm an experienced programmer, but because I work internally facing, and we are support to the main operations of the company (not the product itself)- I am considered IT to the rest of the staff.
No, I don't monitor network traffic, or remove people's malware, or tell them not to pour coffee on their keyboards when their keyboards stop working. I write software- but I'm still considered IT here.
Left unsaid in the summary (Score:3)
Is that that average salary includes data scientists, AI researchers, etc. which command higher salaries than typical software engineers. I would be very surprised to find that the median salary of a SWE at Facebook is $240k unless they bring a very impressive resume with them. The SWEs who just build out new user-facing features with Hack and React are likely not anywhere near that.
Re: Left unsaid in the summary (Score:2)
These are almost certainly "total compensation" numbers including salary, bonus and notably equity.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that that average salary includes data scientists, AI researchers, etc. which command higher salaries than typical software engineers. I would be very surprised to find that the median salary of a SWE at Facebook is $240k unless they bring a very impressive resume with them. The SWEs who just build out new user-facing features with Hack and React are likely not anywhere near that.
It's not clear what "salary" means in the Wall Street Journal article. Is that base salary, or does that include stocks and other bonuses? Certainly the sampling of salaries on glassdoor and payscale are not consistent with the numbers in the WSJ article. From my experience, the glassdoor and payscale numbers are more believable than the WSJ article. For example, payscale says that the median age and tenure at Google are 29 years old and 1.1 years, respectively. If the median salary is $197k, that mean
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they're talking median salaries, as is mentioned in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ide like to see more numbers. Im sure there are some WAAAY HIGH outliers pushing that number up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
No shit. (Score:2)
Captain Obvious strikes again!
All that glitters (Score:2)
isn't always gold as the saying goes.
Those salaries look pretty decent, until you factor in the cost of living out there. I get a good laugh from folks who are paying $1M+ for homes and need four room-mates just to make it work. I would love to see someone track / post their expenses for a few months just to compare how outrageous things really are.
I would post mine, but don't want all the California types moving here as they tend to bring all the silly ideas that caused them to move away in the first pla
Typo alert (Score:2)
> Employees at Google's parent company Alphabet earned "a median pay package of more than $197,000" in 2017, around 18% lower than Facebook's median salary of $240,000, the Wall Street Journal reports. Per the Journal, this illustrates the competitive "talent war in Silicon Valley, where talented engineers are in limited supply." These two salaries were more than $100,000 above Amazon's median pay, which sat at $28,446.
Typo alert. Amazon's median salary is probably $128,446, based on context .. and reali
It's all about the options (Score:2)
Amazon's salaries are notoriously low because the majority of their compensation is in the form of stock. So you could get 2/3rds of your "total comp value" in the form of stock instead of a cash bonus/salary like in other companies.
Wars cost money (Score:2)
But in Silicon Valley, War earns a salary, a fat one on top.
Re:Outsource it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Outsource it all to Africa as even India’s too expensive now.
Outsource it to pretty much any state east of California, it is still going to be cheaper than hiring someone local.
Re:Outsource it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Outsource it all to Africa as even India’s too expensive now.
Outsource it to pretty much any state east of California, it is still going to be cheaper than hiring someone local.
But, but, those people east of California might occasionally think unapproved thoughts!
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can't. The issue is finding talent that can do the job that is required. It's not that there aren't competent engineers in other states, it's just that engineers that are competent at the specific needs of something like Facebook are very, very hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can't. The issue is finding talent that can do the job that is required. It's not that there aren't competent engineers in other states, it's just that engineers that are competent at the specific needs of something like Facebook are very, very hard to find.
Honestly curious, what are the specific needs of Facebook beyond being able to develop web apps? I know a lot of data gathering and correlation is also involved, but I've learned about the same level of those skills in college as what college taught me for my current jobs. I only got to the level where I am by learning on the job, not sure how Facebook would be much different from that since I don't think there is any college that specifically teaches courses targeted at Facebook, in California or otherwi
Re: (Score:2)
Why do that though? If you hire remote, why pay soneone in rural America a fair wage (or even an inflated wage) when you can pay someone in India less than minimum wage?
I had a few good years reworking the crap that came back from a company in India. The US company that out sourced would have spent less by keeping it in country in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
But then you wouldn't have had a job. :(
Probably not, yay outsourcing for producing US jobs? I is confuse :)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the blue-collar workers live in their cars, tents, and RVs, live several workers to a small apartment, or they live 2 hours away and drive in in carpools. Most are paid to well to collect many means-tested programs (section 8 housing, welfare, SNAP, Aid for Women with dependent children, etc.).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we did not do the welfare madness one of two things would happen. The servant class would be forced to flea the city for green pastures, property values would collapse because obtaining a cup of coffee or getting your lawn mowed; the property otherwise maintained, you kids tutored would be impossible; or wages would rise, until those workers could afford to live.
Where exactly are the "servant class" going to flee to, and how are they going to finance said move and secure housing and employment in said destination? They aren't going anywhere. The people that stayed aren't there because they love working menial jobs and subsisting on welfare living in government housing. The ones that can leave have already left. Cut off the welfare for those left behind and you'll just have more homeless, more hungry people. And that leads to more crime. What those making six-
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of homeless there. They would at least be as well off bring homeless elsewhere - at least their prospects would improve.
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned "lawn mowers" twice. Which is to say clearly you don't actually live in a city which you speak as if you "know so much about".
Re: (Score:2)