I assume you are being sarcastic. How do you put off $1M in assets with a $200k median salary in four years? $200k x 4 x 65% is just $520k without even any expenses paid such as the ~$72k you would have paid for a room in a shared apartment.
Well, in addition to salary, he would have also gotten a bonus and stock. The bonus might be $50K/year, and then maybe another $100K/year in stock. The number of shares in the stock grant would have been computed at the date he started -- 5 years ago, GOOG was around $440/share, so at today's price, the shares would be worth $245K/year, assuming he held onto them as they vested.
So, that adds up to around $495K/year, or maybe $300K after tax. With $50K/year in expenses, you're left with $250K/year, or $1M over 4 years.
You lose your unvested RSUs when you leave (so divide your RSU calculations by 2 to start with), and the later grants would be at higher prices and thus have experienced less growth, so your envelope math is off by enough to not be good envelope math.
On the other hand, $100k is by no means the largest RSU grant you can get, so, basically, we have no damn idea. Overall it’s pretty silly to speculate about someone’s net worth unless they’re excited to talk about it.
But the larger point that high performing senior engineers at megacorps can make way more than people outside the megacorp world imagine is true and surprisingly contoversial on HN.
those numbers are on the high side, but yes indeed.
Also all those calculations are completely forgetting that money is a time-sensitive value. If invested wisely, the first $ from 4 years ago would be 1.7$ today if invested into a typical low cost SP500
350k isn't uncommon for a senior SWE at Google. In a state with no income tax (such as WA), it's not unreasonable to estimate he takes home 250k (71%). Suppose he spends $60k a year, leaving him $190k/year to bank. Given the performance of the S&P 500 in the last four years, that could be a million today.
I don't know where these numbers come from. I made a gross salary of $140k the year I worked at Google as a senior engineer, and I made some extra money via 401k matching too. $190k would definitely have been more than my entire income, that's for sure. It's hard to imagine that salaries have more than doubled in the six years since then. And... spending only $60k a year, living in Seattle? Yeah, maybe if you live like a monk, or you really enjoy commuting in from distant suburbs.
$5000/month in Seattle is well more than doable. I live off <$4k in regular expenses, live alone in the bay area, and still drive a luxury car. When I was in Seattle, I lived off of $1000/month, lived on my own, and had my own car. That was about 4 years ago.
Google compensation is also incredibly high. $140k is less total comp than what many new grads get at Google.
I was a senior swe in Seattle myself. The total comp range is enormous.
Despite my handle, I didn't exactly live like a monk. 2k a luxury high rise and 3k for everything else felt positively princely (though the city has become more expensive since I left).
Did you forget that you have RSUs? $60K is plenty for a single person. Working for more than 1 years helps, too, if you sold your stock before it appreciated, since 4-year vest forces you to not sell for 1-3 more years.
I made as much money on Google RSUs as I've made on every other form of equity offered as part of a "total comp" package over the course of my career, which is to say, nada. Total comp is bullshit, no matter how enthusiastically the recruiters try to convince you otherwise; salary is all that matters.
Stupid question, but since Google is a public company couldn't you lock in a certain profit on your RSUs with options in a private account? Or are you talking about the restrictions on vesting are meant to make them worthless for most employees because they'll be forfeited on some draconian technicality before exercising?
I remember on Bogleheads people talking about how to reduce the risk of investing in something like an ESPP to avoid an Enron scenario, and the consensus was using options in a private account so that you get a definite payoff.
Ah makes sense now. I thought you were referring to losing money on poor performance of the underlying stock between offer and exercise. "Private account" just meant buying put options in an account you control versus something like employer payroll deductions in an ESPP.
