Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
A Good "Engineer" can still make 125K.
That wasn't an inflation adjusted amount, so technically they're still making less value even if they are making the same amount. Plus if I'm in Silicon Valley or New York or whatever, it's just good enough, but my point was that it was nationally that good, now it's not. I lived in the Bay Area back in the mid-90s and it was out of control back then. You can make a bit more so long as you're living in a place that costs a lot more. So it's meaningless to me how well the jobs there are paying when my point was the loss has been pretty large since then. And @Dashrender already pointed out above there's a general drop of wages, and I even posted about it in News [rhetorical point since you're here].
So what I can get paid the same, possibly a bit more than I did 20 years ago, but because of inflation it's actually still less no matter what and because of the places where I can get it now I'll have to spend almost all of it just trying to live in the area? That sounds like a bad deal to me and all the promises of stock options, profit sharing, etc are just ways to try to make up for the fact they're making more while you're making less.
-
@IRJ said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
California has been driving the middle class and upper middle class away for years. You either need to make a lot of money or be government subsidized to be able to live there in most cases.
That's very true. It's all ultra rich or poverty stricken.
-
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@JaredBusch said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
The stock options idea sounds good as long as the company's value keeps ratching up. That's what makes it a scam in my mind. If it was a sure thing, why wouldn't the company just keep the stock and sell some when it needs cash.
What I don't understand about that whole stock thing - are the employees only allowed to sell it back to the company? If so - well that's still a win for the company - they got to keep the cash while the employee just gets this piece of paper claiming to have value, which it does as long as the company is healthy, but if it hickups or fails, the employee is boned.
Happens to all companies, but that is why you sell at vestment, (or a year later tax vs risk depending). You diversify.
Most SV companies like this last beyond the initial vestment period for their stock options.
I'm not sure if you know that Most do or not - I have a friend who got in bed with a company - paid almost entirely in stock, lost his ass when the company folded 2 years later.
That's pretty common. You only take stock like that if you ...
- Are desperate and are willing to take massive risk just to have a job.
- Really believe in the company and are into being highly at risk.
- Are in a position of serious control and think that you can make a difference.
99% of good people won't consider jobs like that, if the salary itself isn't enough, those "benefits" are considered to be worthless.
Look what happened to the people who took minimum wage and stocks in
.... turns out, they were just minimum wage workers. -
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
The stock options idea sounds good as long as the company's value keeps ratching up.
Stock options are different. Stock Options are generally given for private companies (like Uber, or Slack) and while there are secondary markets to sell these (or the company will generally buy them back at a valuation rate by a 3rd party, this is typically a LOT lower value than publically traded stock that has access to more investors and the liquidity of the HFT bots etc). Options requires some "risk" on the employee, as he can pay taxes on their current value (which is a lot lower) in advance so he doesn't have to pay the full tax value later (It's actually a bit more complicated and in theory you can do this for RSU's but given RSU's are a lot less likely to shoot up this is a lot it's 100x less common). Yes, in this case you could end up paying taxes on stock that never has a real value (the IRS always wins).
What I'm talking about are Restricted Share Units (RSU's). These are stock that is given at zero cost to the employee, and at vestment, if sold can be sold on the open market (I sell mine on E-Trade). If sold on the day that the shares are released they carry the same tax liability as regular income tax (In fact ESPP sold this way will show up on your W-2 and your 1099-C from your brokerage so if you are not careful you can end up paying double taxes).
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
If it was a sure thing, why wouldn't the company just keep the stock and sell some when it needs cash.
First off for Options only a Qualified Investor (Someone with over xxx income, or xxx assets) is allowed to invest in a private company's funding rounds. Typically this is done with Venture Capital rounds (or early on with Angel Investors). If you want to see how these deals can go crazy Watch Shark Tank, and read up on what a "Ratchet Clause" is.
If it's a public company the RSU is a PROMISE of future shares assuming the employee stays. It does a few things that are better than paying straight line cash...
-
It lets them spend cash today on expansion (Again, Hypergrowth!) as Time Value of Money means a lot to a company growing triple or double digits YoY. Remember the first 1/4 of that 4 year grand isn't due until one year in.
-
If the Employee leaves the stock is absorbed back to the company. It's a form of "Golden Handcuff".
-
It costs them less than cash. Given my companies stock has gone from a low of ~43 to 149 (today's close) if I had RSU's issued at that dip (or near it) The company can basically have to pay 1/3 today to keep me because it made promises 3 years ago.
-
If you want to get uber machiavellian the company can easily track how much outstanding I have and use it to manipulate who stays and goes. The stock gets cut from 80 to 43? and we want to keep Bob? Let's give him some more shares on a two-year vestment to keep him around until it recovers. Want to get rid of Tom? Stop paying him a variable bonus, and stop re-arming RSU's. He'll leave on his own and not ding your unemployment. This actually makes it safer to "make it rain" for key rainmakers because you are not having to spend as much money, and if it turns out you don't need their skills in 4 years, cutting back on RSU's will claw back that ridiculous compensation package.
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
but if it hickups or fails, the employee is boned
True, but if the alternative is 120K vs 100K + [0 to the Moon!] smart employees who can see the momentum of a company are going to bite on the roll of the dice.
-
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Work for a Silicon Valley company, but do it while remote in a low-cost state. The ultimate scam.
That's what everyone who is worth their salt does. Only lower end people not able to qualify for remote work get stuck physically in SV all of the time (for IT/SD folks, investors and such have to be there in person.)
I did this for my time in a SV firm. Worked from Spain and Panama while on a SV salary.
-
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
The stock options idea sounds good as long as the company's value keeps ratching up. That's what makes it a scam in my mind. If it was a sure thing, why wouldn't the company just keep the stock and sell some when it needs cash.
It's not really a scam. It's like saying "we aren't going to pay you", there's no secret here. The stock in lieu of salary is because they have no money and no confidence and are hoping you are desperate and the long shot pay off is better than no change at all. It's not a scam, but rather a developer hoping to get lucky to make much more than he is worth normally, while the company is hoping to get more development than their budget allows. Both parties are hoping to get lucky, while both take a huge risk. But there is no secret, no scam.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
That's pretty common. You only take stock like that if you ...
Are desperate and are willing to take massive risk just to have a job.
Really believe in the company and are into being highly at risk.
Are in a position of serious control and think that you can make a difference.99% of good people won't consider jobs like that, if the salary itself isn't enough, those "benefits" are considered to be worthless.
Look what happened to the people who took minimum wage and stocks in .... turns out, they were just minimum wage workers.I'll agree with you mostly on Startups. I think the game is really rigged against the little guy more than ever in that regard.
Publically traded companies where the stock is liquid and risk is a 50x less? That's a different game. Personally, when I evaluated my offer letter I considered the stock compensation and variable bonus at 50% of face value. Now I got lucky and things went the other way but I was still well "in the money" as my new base was still bigger than my old base, but the stock stuff was a fun side gamble that paid off. Note, I also didn't spend more than 5K of my stock comp (vacation), and hoarded it all, diversified it and then used a good chunk of it to buy my new house. The key to variable income is live like you don't need it, and use it for capital purchases that the opex can be controlled.
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@scottalanmiller said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
That's pretty common. You only take stock like that if you ...
Are desperate and are willing to take massive risk just to have a job.
Really believe in the company and are into being highly at risk.
Are in a position of serious control and think that you can make a difference.99% of good people won't consider jobs like that, if the salary itself isn't enough, those "benefits" are considered to be worthless.
Look what happened to the people who took minimum wage and stocks in .... turns out, they were just minimum wage workers.I'll agree with you mostly on Startups. I think the game is really rigged against the little guy more than ever in that regard.
Publically traded companies where the stock is liquid and risk is a 50x less? That's a different game. Personally, when I evaluated my offer letter I considered the stock compensation and variable bonus at 50% of face value. Now I got lucky and things went the other way but I was still well "in the money" as my new base was still bigger than my old base, but the stock stuff was a fun side gamble that paid off. Note, I also didn't spend more than 5K of my stock comp (vacation), and hoarded it all, diversified it and then used a good chunk of it to buy my new house. The key to variable income is live like you don't need it, and use it for capital purchases that the opex can be controlled.
It's rare to find established companies not paying "anything" and giving all stock. Heavy stock, maybe, but it's above a baseline.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
It's rare to find established companies not paying "anything" and giving all stock. Heavy stock, maybe, but it's above a baseline.
Finance can get crazy on variable bonus, or "skin in the game" (I-Bankers, Private Equity).
Public companies only do it for CEO's as a gimmick "CEO makes $1"
-
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
A Good "Engineer" can still make 125K.
We pay H1B's 130K base is what I'm seeing for federal stats. A good engineer working for FAANG, or one of the other big players can break 300K TC. You want to see some crazy high offer letters go look on Blind in the spring when offers start going out to graduates.
Back to my original point, TC isn't Wages.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
I did this for my time in a SV firm. Worked from Spain and Panama while on a SV salary.
The real fun is getting them to pay for the travel
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
A Good "Engineer" can still make 125K.
We pay H1B's 130K base is what I'm seeing for federal stats. A good engineer working for FAANG, or one of the other big players can break 300K TC. You want to see some crazy high offer letters go look on Blind in the spring when offers start going out to graduates.
Except, again, I'm talking pre-inflation since then. Let me know when they're paying engineers $190K+ because that's what it would be now. It sounds like a lot now because they've kept wages down against inflation.
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
The key to variable income is live like you don't need it, and use it for capital purchases that the opex can be controlled.
This is really a giant - duh!
Live like it's never going to happen, when you bank 2-5 years worth of it, then maybe up your living style - or as you mentioned, use it on some huge capital transaction.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Except, again, I'm talking pre-inflation since then. Let me know when they're paying engineers $190K+ because that's what it would be now. It sounds like a lot now because they've kept wages down against inflation.
and again, I'm not talking base wages. The plans are so stock and bonus heavy now that TC is the number that should be compared not wages. Also, I don't know if H1B wages are a good indicator of a "good" median career engineer (Just looking for public data). Now I'd argue the bigger thing is inflation adjustment's kind of a mess because the real estate market there and tax climate has gotten so ridiculous that's the bigger reason TC has to be as high as it is. It's not about wages being held down, it's about local real COL going to the moon.
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Except, again, I'm talking pre-inflation since then. Let me know when they're paying engineers $190K+ because that's what it would be now. It sounds like a lot now because they've kept wages down against inflation.
and again, I'm not talking base wages. The plans are so stock and bonus heavy now that TC is the number that should be compared not wages. Also, I don't know if H1B wages are a good indicator of a "good" median career engineer (Just looking for public data). Now I'd argue the bigger thing is inflation adjustment's kind of a mess because the real estate market there and tax climate has gotten so ridiculous that's the bigger reason TC has to be as high as it is. It's not about wages being held down, it's about local real COL going to the moon.
Definitely have a point - but waiting 3 years or more to get your hands on some cash seems boardline crazy risky to me. Those options ideas are likely only for those who can afford to wait on those funds in many cases.
But as mentioned - the tax issue and living expense issue has driven these small wages into a real problem.
-
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Live like it's never going to happen when you bank 2-5 years worth of it, then maybe up your living style - or as you mentioned, use it on some huge capital transaction.
One of my local friend's whos a Sales Rep closed a big deal and I was doing the back of the napkin math to realize he was going to net 70K from the deal. I looked at him and said "Boat?" and he responded "boat house".
The other attitude is some guys in Finance who believe "If you don't live beyond your means a little bit, you'll not stay hungry". Then again, that attitude leads to idiots like this guy who decided naked OTM options on natural gas when winter was coming.
-
@StorageNinja said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Except, again, I'm talking pre-inflation since then. Let me know when they're paying engineers $190K+ because that's what it would be now. It sounds like a lot now because they've kept wages down against inflation.
and again, I'm not talking base wages. The plans are so stock and bonus heavy now that TC is the number that should be compared not wages. Also, I don't know if H1B wages are a good indicator of a "good" median career engineer (Just looking for public data). Now I'd argue the bigger thing is inflation adjustment's kind of a mess because the real estate market there and tax climate has gotten so ridiculous that's the bigger reason TC has to be as high as it is. It's not about wages being held down, it's about local real COL going to the moon.
And there isn't the entire country, even though it likes to think it is. If wages are down nationally against inflation especially, I don't give a damn about extras in the Bay Area, especially if I have to live deep into the East Bay to get by. Prices of living and benefits in Silicon Valley and the Bay are not the end-all-be-all on national wages. If I point out wages are down in Dallas, you can't say "Well, here in San Francisco it's about blah blah blah" and ignore the point I'm not talking about an area so out of control that using at as anything more than a case study is a ridiculous idea.
-
@Dashrender said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
Definitely have a point - but waiting 3 years or more to get your hands on some cash seems boardline crazy risky to me. Those options ideas are likely only for those who can afford to wait on those funds in many cases.
So if you have a 4 year RSU package for 100K, you get 25% of that at 1 year, and each 90 days thereafter 1/12th of it. ESPP ties up your cash for 6 months at a shot and with a lot of plans, you can hit "abort" and get it back with no loss (just time value money loss). Also it's worth noting these type of compensation plans when stacked on even a low six-figure salary that's survivable is what happens. People don't get 400K in RSU's, on a 50K salary.
The only people who have variable compensation plans that look like that are Salespeople who have big OTE (On Target Earnings) salaries that are contingent on hitting thresholds. These sales guys make their real money on accelerators (IE ever $1 past your target of selling your 5 million quota earns you 2x commision, and 3x beyond 200% of quota target). Accelerators can get stupid when sales teams hit "that big one" deal out of the blue (called a bluebird).
But as mentioned - the tax issue and living expense issue has driven these small wages into a real problem.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Nine Out of Every 10 Silicon Valley Jobs Pays Less Than In 1997, Report Finds:
If I point out wages are down in Dallas, you can't say "Well, here in San Francisco it's about blah blah blah" and ignore the point I'm not talking about an area so out of control that using at as anything more than a case study is a ridiculous idea.
I live in Houston (Just bought a house in near the heights. I was a hiring manager for a 3 year period and was locally employed for ~7 years in the industry, and consulted all over the state). Wages went up everywhere but the SMB sector. The SMB sector core IT infrastructure and end user support suffers from...
-
Low barrier to entry.
-
Employers having poor ability to value staff (so even if the staff is good, they don't know it, and they will sometimes hire crap staff because again, without a full department and regular hiring of IT staff it's hard to do).
-
Increasingly lower skill overlap with large enterprises (unless said SMB does development or is a technology-focused firm). If IT services were generic and not strategic wages could actually go lower (even without inflation).
-
MSP's offering economy of scale. SaaS vendors offloading the "keeping core applications lights on" and delegating the local staff to increasingly be End User Support.
There is a real secular change to the IT roles in SMB. Some are becoming more an extension of operations and delivering value by being closer to the business. These guys can get 100K. The guys who actually screw with getting GPO to install a printer are becoming a smaller (quantity) and smaller part of the market
I'll note as a market compensation in Houston is a bit odd is tied to rig counts in operation (not the price of the barrel as many mistakenly assume). Dallas and Austin tended to pay a bit less (was a glut of people wanting to live there) while Houston (in good times) and San Antonio tended to offer a better wage to COL ratio in my anecdotal opinion. It's not the 80's and there are other jobs in Houston besides upstream, but it does swing a bit.
-
-
This whole thing is reminding me of Harold Macmillan: "You've never had it so good."
