Big salaries in the bay area, specifically silicon valley, myth? truth? (Stanford: renting, houses)

[Zembonez]

Google average wages and you'll see that the valley pays better than most places... but the COL is higher.

[gnomatic]

Originally Posted by jaypee

In my experience, switching companies every 3-5 years has helped advance my salary much faster than if I had stuck with just one company. It's pretty rare for someone to be at the same company for 10+ years here in the valley unless they already have a pretty cushy job.

Agree..the fastest way to increase salary, is to jump ship. I know several people who stayed at the same place for a long time..and many who intend to. But they have their own personal reason (financial stability, scare to move out of their comfort zone, etc.), or what they do is so specialized, they are already at the best place to do what they want to do.

There is no argument that you can be well paid in high tech in the bay area, but the point is, not EVERYONE makes the high salary, much less right off the bat out of school..which is what many (including the media) claims. Way too many people decided to studied "IT" or "Programming" thinking that will get them those in demand high salary jobs. It isn't as simple or clear cut as that.

And from my experience, if you are single, with no deductions...making the higher salary really doesn't mean or make much of a difference. Much of it goes to taxes anyways.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by syborg

Yes, the guys im speaking of are in their mid 20s. Im sure if one survives in SV for 20 years, they should pull a solid 6 figure salary

They probably can get a little over $100k as an engineer, but there is a glass ceiling there. Sure, some people are making $200k+ as a distinguished engineer, but that's pretty rare. Typically speaking, you can leverage your engineering degree/technical skills and do a part time MBA at Santa Clara or Berkeley. Once you develop the business acumen to accompany your technical skills, you are more marketable and you are more likely to see your career advance further into a management role.

[mdwstrnkid]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I should have listed age... all fall between 35 and 50.

Don't know if it makes a difference.

I'm an exception too. In that age range and making in the low-$200s after 12 years of service with employer, although I've effectively had three different roles in my career at my company.

[mdwstrnkid]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

They probably can get a little over $100k as an engineer, but there is a glass ceiling there. Sure, some people are making $200k+ as a distinguished engineer, but that's pretty rare. Typically speaking, you can leverage your engineering degree/technical skills and do a part time MBA at Santa Clara or Berkeley. Once you develop the business acumen to accompany your technical skills, you are more marketable and you are more likely to see your career advance further into a management role.

I completely agree. There's going to be a ceiling to your salary progression as you move from job to job, unless you are able to break through the senior individual contributor role.

[syborg]

I agree on the level of skills making the big difference...many people can get the piece of paper, but not everyone is talented or has exceptional experience to command the bigger salaries.

[FrenchKissed]

Originally Posted by Zembonez

Google average wages and you'll see that the valley pays better than most places... but the COL is higher.

Agreed. A senior engineer here starts maybe 20% higher salary than the nationwide average for the same job but the average house costs 3 times as much with a lot less square footage.

[hsw]

Do the arithmetic; data is fairly public
SV is a Darwinian place, not unlike Manhattan's top investment banks or hedge funds

As a prior Goldman CEO admitted (Paulson in ?'02) perhaps 20% of Goldman employees are responsible for 80% of profits, even at a notoriously productive shop like GS, thus dramatic pay asymmetries are economically rational, whether on a trading desk...or within top engineering gps at even more profitable (per capita) cos. like AAPL

Top 10% of CS grads from top 5 schools is maybe 200 kids/yr (How many monkeys do allegedly elite AAPL or GOOG hire per yr? How many are engineers vs salesguys?)
Those top kids can choose to become a software engineer at a GOOG or fb or a bond trader at Goldman NYC
Even 15yrs ago (at dawn of last tech bubble), 20yo kids in tech investment banking earned $150+K/yr in Menlo; and increased their pay in $100+K/yr increments each yr post-college and moved to 7-fig ranks well before age 30
Saw a recent datapoint that elderly MSFT has more 7-fig/yr employees (despite its anemic share price) than does Goldman, one of world's most lucrative major employers
VCs today know that any savings in cheap cloud computing are more than offset by historically high cost of young engineering talent; perhaps 5yrs ago young bond traders at GS were paid as much as top young engineers at GOOG; post-'08, pay at leading tech cos. and start-ups in SV has outgunned that of GS or hedge funds in Manhattan for comparable quality/expce talent
Today, most top CS undergrads who are shrewd may choose engineering careers over bond trading as starting pay is higher in SV; have greater potential equity upside esp if start-up is bought by some BigTech; and overall COL in SV/SF (esp housing and income taxes) is arguably 50% lower than in Manhattan (w/immensely greater QOL)
Career paths of top 5% of Stanford CS (and pay of top 5% of GOOG engineers) reveal far more than any media stories or corporate spin either exaggerating or downplaying pay (for all kinds of self-serving reasons in an anti-wealth climate in which community organizers or shareholders may revolt vs perceived excesses in employee pay)
Community organizers resent that any productive tech co. needs very few smart engineers to generate enormous profits...and any clever tech co. will set up tax-efficient offshore structures to minimize taxes paid to commies in DC
And shareholders will be angry if share price doesn't perform but co. has bloated headcount and rapidly increasing pay...

[Jink]

Originally Posted by hsw

Do the arithmetic; data is fairly public
SV is a Darwinian place, not unlike Manhattan's top investment banks or hedge funds

As a prior Goldman CEO admitted (Paulson in ?'02) perhaps 20% of Goldman employees are responsible for 80% of profits, even at a notoriously productive shop like GS, thus dramatic pay asymmetries are economically rational, whether on a trading desk...or within top engineering gps at even more profitable (per capita) cos. like AAPL

Top 10% of CS grads from top 5 schools is maybe 200 kids/yr (How many monkeys do allegedly elite AAPL or GOOG hire per yr? How many are engineers vs salesguys?)
Those top kids can choose to become a software engineer at a GOOG or fb or a bond trader at Goldman NYC
Even 15yrs ago (at dawn of last tech bubble), 20yo kids in tech investment banking earned $150+K/yr in Menlo; and increased their pay in $100+K/yr increments each yr post-college and moved to 7-fig ranks well before age 30
Saw a recent datapoint that elderly MSFT has more 7-fig/yr employees (despite its anemic share price) than does Goldman, one of world's most lucrative major employers
VCs today know that any savings in cheap cloud computing are more than offset by historically high cost of young engineering talent; perhaps 5yrs ago young bond traders at GS were paid as much as top young engineers at GOOG; post-'08, pay at leading tech cos. and start-ups in SV has outgunned that of GS or hedge funds in Manhattan for comparable quality/expce talent
Today, most top CS undergrads who are shrewd may choose engineering careers over bond trading as starting pay is higher in SV; have greater potential equity upside esp if start-up is bought by some BigTech; and overall COL in SV/SF (esp housing and income taxes) is arguably 50% lower than in Manhattan (w/immensely greater QOL)
Career paths of top 5% of Stanford CS (and pay of top 5% of GOOG engineers) reveal far more than any media stories or corporate spin either exaggerating or downplaying pay (for all kinds of self-serving reasons in an anti-wealth climate in which community organizers or shareholders may revolt vs perceived excesses in employee pay)
Community organizers resent that any productive tech co. needs very few smart engineers to generate enormous profits...and any clever tech co. will set up tax-efficient offshore structures to minimize taxes paid to commies in DC
And shareholders will be angry if share price doesn't perform but co. has bloated headcount and rapidly increasing pay...

I know who my trading partner is going to be... Great post.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by hsw

media stories or corporate spin either exaggerating or downplaying pay (for all kinds of self-serving reasons in an anti-wealth climate in which community organizers or shareholders may revolt vs perceived excesses in employee pay)
Community organizers resent that any productive tech co. needs very few smart engineers to generate enormous profits...and any clever tech co. will set up tax-efficient offshore structures to minimize taxes paid to commies in DC

Awww...you were doing so well until you got to this part. Just couldn't resist torpedoing the cred even after putting forth some otherwise useful info, eh?

Excessive executive is a REALITY kiddo, and funneling all that "earned" wealth offshore is the stuff of pure unadulterated greedy bastards, and has much to do with the crap economy we now find ourselves in.