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.
