I read this here and there and don't doubt it, but then again I've never seen/met anyone IRL (outside of C-level) making this much money as an employee.
Are they just extremely rare cases or am I just not aware of the valley and their customs?
No this is not rare at all. Meta offers E5 ("senior" level) new hires a 400-500k total package in the US (given that you negotiate, I know the levels.fyi numbers are a bit lower), and this isn't some exception. If your performance is good and/or stock appreciation happens, then that number goes even higher.
I'm a very average engineer (probably way below average amongst the HN crowd) and I'm in that range.
I think there's a few other factors that impact visibility.
* The Bay Area is a place where you can make $100k a year and be classified as low-income [1].
* Tech employees tend to live low-key lifestyles that don't really show how much they're making. I know people who make $500k and still live with roommates.
* Income inequality and progressive politics combine to make people less reluctant to talk about their TC packages, unless you're also at a similar socio-economic level.
> Are they just extremely rare cases or am I just not aware of the valley and their customs?
Not aware. That's not unusual compensation for key contributors. Especially in AI or other niche fields. Even outside the valley.
We acquired something a while back in Montreal, Canada and it sure wasn't cheap. Salaries were in the same ballpark as our positions in the valley. We actually got most of the team to relocate to California on O-1s but still have some guys over there.
You are not aware. I have many personal friends, Engineers, making 600K+. These are old friends who have no reason to lie. I know a senior engineer who manages a small team who had a lucky take-home of over a million in a good year.
To be realistic ... 300K in the bay is barely livable if you're targeting a middle class life with kids and targeting retiring at 65.
First, ~46% of it is gone in taxes including federal tax (~25%), state tax (~8%), FICA (~4%), and sales tax on everything you eventually use the money for (~9%).
So that's 162K left. Not a lot to pay sky-high rents, car payments, insane medical bills despite insurance, lawyers to fight said bills, save up money for parental elderly care, save up money for yourself for retirement, etc.
And yeah, having kids on that money? Very difficult.
If you're not in the bay area, different story, it's a very nice income. But they probably won't give you that package if you're remote.
And if you're in the bay and not planning on having kids, it's an okay salary.
I get what you're saying, but the median income for SFO is way below what tech people get paid. "barely livable" is perhaps a bridge too far for the $300k+ crowd. :)
Maybe. But I had a big house in the “good school system” in the Atlanta burbs built in 2016 for $335K. Even today that would cost around $550K. It would take more than $300K to duplicate our lifestyle in the Bay Area.
I’ll take my former $150K in the burbs of Atlanta over $300k in the burbs any day.
And before the usual responses implying I’m disdaining what I can’t have, I current work for BigTech remotely.
Yes, it's a huge problem. There are greedy people buying more houses than they can use as investment vehicles, renting them out to everyone else who can't afford housing at unaffordable prices, and that ultimately increases prices across the board on everything because local businesses and service industry also need to rent commercial space and personal space -- and that ultimately comes from greedy landlords who keep lobbying against building more housing.
Most of SF is NOT living a life that I would call "livable". Having roommates in late 30s out of necessity rather than choice, and working out of a bedroom with no sunlight and not retrofitted for earthquake and fire safety and removed of mold spores isn't even ethical IMO, but that's the reality that lots of people live in.
To be realistic, even in the Bay, 300k is more than livable if you're targeting a middle class lifestyle with kids and retiring at 65.
If you can't retire at 65 on 300k a year, you're not living a middle class lifestyle. Not even close.
Rent: 4k/month = 48k. Car payments 750/month = $9k. Using your post-tax numbers (which are wrong) that leaves over $100k per year for all the other random stuff you've listed, which is more than most people in the Bay Area make in a year.
(Also, you're math is wrong on the taxes; the rates you use are the statutory progressive rates, not the effective rates (so, for example, the effective rate on $300k would be approx 22% at the federal level assuming standard deduction but no retirement contributions or child credits). FICA is capped at the first $160k of income (meaning you don't pay more if you make more).)
What SF family with children are paying 4K a month on "rent" and what exactly do you envision this rented abode to be that is even remotely liveable with children? Are you living in anything close to reality?
Yeah, take home of $13.5k a month can get a little tight if you're looking at an $8k mortgage on a crappy little shithole condo
You surprisingly (considering you're making 5x the median household income for the US) end up having to lightly adhere to some sort of budget. With car payments, sending money to your family, and local inflated prices, it's easy to find yourself not saving enough for early retirement
I think if you just don't buy new cars or first class international plane tickets you can get by pretty comfortably though. I saved $100k a year with a pre-tax total comp of $350k for a few years in the Bay Area
And I on the other hand had a 3200 square foot house, two cars, in the good school system and my wife and I had date nights and the occasional vacation with a household income of $170K in north metro Atlanta in 2020…
How do you find yourself not saving enough for early retirement when you are saving $8k per month? Only a a tiny fraction of your condo is being consumed within a month. Far less than 8k.
A few years ago, I bought a 3-bedroom house in East Bay area, with a nice backyard (which looks distinctly less nice now, but hey, programming is a time-consuming job), and a decent public high school in walking distance for my two kids, all the while getting a whooping <$250K salary. Still had enough money left to invest in mutual funds and enjoy trips to Hawaii every other year or so.
I honestly don't know what to say. If you really think 300K/year is barely livable then I hope someone in your family has a sit down with you and ask blunt questions about what the fuck you're doing with all that money.
You're getting mercilessly downvoted by people suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance. Even the very idea of trying to save money for future medical catastrophes that are statistically bound to happen (parents, etc) are financial ticking time bombs.
You might want to check what the difference between mean and marginal tax rate is. For somebody with a lifestyle in which $162k a year is considered "barey livable" that should be sth very easy to understand.
>save up money for parental elderly care
Sorry, what? Your parents? I can see that paying for 3 generations on one income can be hard.
- mean is 24.74% federal and 8.06% state, 4.79% FICA.
> I can see that paying for 3 generations on one income can be hard.
Yes, most working class people have to care for 3 generations. Parents being wealthy enough to take care of their own retirement expenses is a small, small number. Working class people in their middle ages choosing to not have kids is also a small number.
Or by sharing one-bedroom apartments to split rent, and eating as little as possible, to afford closer housing and reduce commuting costs: https://www.reimaginerpe.org/20-2/Goldman
They don't; it's like a whole big thing in city planning and urban development where people who work in the city don't actually live there and have to commute huge distances each day, and how that has a profound negative impact on the spaces where that happens.
That person could probably be making 500k+ at a FANG with less variance in the stock component.
I read this here and there and don't doubt it, but then again I've never seen/met anyone IRL (outside of C-level) making this much money as an employee.
Are they just extremely rare cases or am I just not aware of the valley and their customs?
I believe you are just not aware.
C-Level folks make many millions a year, either liquid or paper.
I am at FAANG and virtually everyone at L6 (staff Eng level, many thousands of people) is paid at least $500k, with monthly liquidity (no cliff).
With a bit of luck stock wise, it’s also not uncommon at all to get to $500k+ at L5 (senior eng level, many dozens of thousands of people).
Everyone in my SF network (hundreds of people) virtually make above $500k.
31 replies →
No this is not rare at all. Meta offers E5 ("senior" level) new hires a 400-500k total package in the US (given that you negotiate, I know the levels.fyi numbers are a bit lower), and this isn't some exception. If your performance is good and/or stock appreciation happens, then that number goes even higher.
I'm a very average engineer (probably way below average amongst the HN crowd) and I'm in that range.
1 reply →
Have you met any IC8+/D1+ working for Meta in the US?
3 replies →
I think there's a few other factors that impact visibility.
* The Bay Area is a place where you can make $100k a year and be classified as low-income [1].
* Tech employees tend to live low-key lifestyles that don't really show how much they're making. I know people who make $500k and still live with roommates.
* Income inequality and progressive politics combine to make people less reluctant to talk about their TC packages, unless you're also at a similar socio-economic level.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...
> Are they just extremely rare cases or am I just not aware of the valley and their customs?
Not aware. That's not unusual compensation for key contributors. Especially in AI or other niche fields. Even outside the valley.
We acquired something a while back in Montreal, Canada and it sure wasn't cheap. Salaries were in the same ballpark as our positions in the valley. We actually got most of the team to relocate to California on O-1s but still have some guys over there.
You are not aware. I have many personal friends, Engineers, making 600K+. These are old friends who have no reason to lie. I know a senior engineer who manages a small team who had a lucky take-home of over a million in a good year.
Before the pay cuts, staff at Lyft was making above 500k
See levels.fyi 500-900k comp For an IC isn’t that unheard of at FANG.
To be realistic ... 300K in the bay is barely livable if you're targeting a middle class life with kids and targeting retiring at 65.
First, ~46% of it is gone in taxes including federal tax (~25%), state tax (~8%), FICA (~4%), and sales tax on everything you eventually use the money for (~9%).
So that's 162K left. Not a lot to pay sky-high rents, car payments, insane medical bills despite insurance, lawyers to fight said bills, save up money for parental elderly care, save up money for yourself for retirement, etc.
And yeah, having kids on that money? Very difficult.
If you're not in the bay area, different story, it's a very nice income. But they probably won't give you that package if you're remote.
And if you're in the bay and not planning on having kids, it's an okay salary.
I get what you're saying, but the median income for SFO is way below what tech people get paid. "barely livable" is perhaps a bridge too far for the $300k+ crowd. :)
Maybe. But I had a big house in the “good school system” in the Atlanta burbs built in 2016 for $335K. Even today that would cost around $550K. It would take more than $300K to duplicate our lifestyle in the Bay Area.
I’ll take my former $150K in the burbs of Atlanta over $300k in the burbs any day.
And before the usual responses implying I’m disdaining what I can’t have, I current work for BigTech remotely.
7 replies →
The median person in SFO lives a way worse life than a median person in Ohio
15 replies →
> but the median income for SFO is way below
Yes, it's a huge problem. There are greedy people buying more houses than they can use as investment vehicles, renting them out to everyone else who can't afford housing at unaffordable prices, and that ultimately increases prices across the board on everything because local businesses and service industry also need to rent commercial space and personal space -- and that ultimately comes from greedy landlords who keep lobbying against building more housing.
Most of SF is NOT living a life that I would call "livable". Having roommates in late 30s out of necessity rather than choice, and working out of a bedroom with no sunlight and not retrofitted for earthquake and fire safety and removed of mold spores isn't even ethical IMO, but that's the reality that lots of people live in.
2 replies →
To be realistic, even in the Bay, 300k is more than livable if you're targeting a middle class lifestyle with kids and retiring at 65.
If you can't retire at 65 on 300k a year, you're not living a middle class lifestyle. Not even close.
Rent: 4k/month = 48k. Car payments 750/month = $9k. Using your post-tax numbers (which are wrong) that leaves over $100k per year for all the other random stuff you've listed, which is more than most people in the Bay Area make in a year.
(Also, you're math is wrong on the taxes; the rates you use are the statutory progressive rates, not the effective rates (so, for example, the effective rate on $300k would be approx 22% at the federal level assuming standard deduction but no retirement contributions or child credits). FICA is capped at the first $160k of income (meaning you don't pay more if you make more).)
What SF family with children are paying 4K a month on "rent" and what exactly do you envision this rented abode to be that is even remotely liveable with children? Are you living in anything close to reality?
3 replies →
Is it realistic though?
If I set "max price" to 4k in Cupertino (random SV place) and 3+ bedrooms (2 kids), there's literally 8 results on Zillow.
Rent?
Car payments?
This is a weird form of retirement to me.
1 reply →
Yeah, take home of $13.5k a month can get a little tight if you're looking at an $8k mortgage on a crappy little shithole condo
You surprisingly (considering you're making 5x the median household income for the US) end up having to lightly adhere to some sort of budget. With car payments, sending money to your family, and local inflated prices, it's easy to find yourself not saving enough for early retirement
I think if you just don't buy new cars or first class international plane tickets you can get by pretty comfortably though. I saved $100k a year with a pre-tax total comp of $350k for a few years in the Bay Area
And I on the other hand had a 3200 square foot house, two cars, in the good school system and my wife and I had date nights and the occasional vacation with a household income of $170K in north metro Atlanta in 2020…
How do you find yourself not saving enough for early retirement when you are saving $8k per month? Only a a tiny fraction of your condo is being consumed within a month. Far less than 8k.
1 reply →
A few years ago, I bought a 3-bedroom house in East Bay area, with a nice backyard (which looks distinctly less nice now, but hey, programming is a time-consuming job), and a decent public high school in walking distance for my two kids, all the while getting a whooping <$250K salary. Still had enough money left to invest in mutual funds and enjoy trips to Hawaii every other year or so.
I honestly don't know what to say. If you really think 300K/year is barely livable then I hope someone in your family has a sit down with you and ask blunt questions about what the fuck you're doing with all that money.
You're getting mercilessly downvoted by people suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance. Even the very idea of trying to save money for future medical catastrophes that are statistically bound to happen (parents, etc) are financial ticking time bombs.
Taxes aren't that high even if you are under the standard deduction. Assuming you are married here as you are taking about kids.
Fed + fica is 21% combined. State is 6%. Imputing sales tax doesn't make sense either - rent isn't subject to it.
Take home is a bit north of $200k. Yeah, that's affluent here. Not upper class, but solidly upper middle.
This "middle class life" really isn't middle class if a top 10% income can't afford it.
You might want to check what the difference between mean and marginal tax rate is. For somebody with a lifestyle in which $162k a year is considered "barey livable" that should be sth very easy to understand.
>save up money for parental elderly care
Sorry, what? Your parents? I can see that paying for 3 generations on one income can be hard.
> difference between mean and marginal
I was writing mean rates, not marignal.
For 300K in CA:
- marginal is 35% federal, 9.3% state, 2.35% FICA
- mean is 24.74% federal and 8.06% state, 4.79% FICA.
> I can see that paying for 3 generations on one income can be hard.
Yes, most working class people have to care for 3 generations. Parents being wealthy enough to take care of their own retirement expenses is a small, small number. Working class people in their middle ages choosing to not have kids is also a small number.
1 reply →
> To be realistic ... 300K in the bay is barely livable if you're targeting a middle class life with kids and targeting retiring at 65.
LOL. Do you live in Mars?
If 300k is "barely livable", then how does a Starbucks barista make a living in SV?
By instead living in the northern or eastern East Bay (exhibit 12): https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20170404-service...
Or by living in someone's backyard shed: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/05/04/revealing-complexities-...
Or by sharing one-bedroom apartments to split rent, and eating as little as possible, to afford closer housing and reduce commuting costs: https://www.reimaginerpe.org/20-2/Goldman
They don't; it's like a whole big thing in city planning and urban development where people who work in the city don't actually live there and have to commute huge distances each day, and how that has a profound negative impact on the spaces where that happens.
You know you can just look up income stats for SF right?
Unless you have a tax write off, then you don't have to pay that much tax.
You can get legal insurance as well and get all that nonsense done for $20.
Elderly people can go retire in Mexico and have a better life than whatever is possible in the US, in towns full of other retired people.
What are you writing off against W2 salary?
5 replies →
[irony] Yeah, for less than 2 million a year you can't raise a family [/irony]
interesting pov. not sure if serious thou