> Chris can expect to make $300k at a non-FAANG company, but nearly double that if they’re willing to compromise on that “no-FAANG” stance
Ok but aren't the expectations for a Staff+ way higher at FAANG than at non-FAANG? Or we assume Chris already got the offer from FAANG for a Staff+ role and so it's just a personal choice? Those articles and discussions about salary always assume everybody is able to work at FAANG, or that a title at non-FAANG automatically transfers to the same title at FAANG.
Exactly. Someone saying they are Staff+ because of their current role at an Akron startup and actually getting an offer for Staff+ from Google or Facebook are very different situations.
At many of the large tech companies, most technical employees will reach a title along the lines of "Senior Software Engineer" or "Senior Member of Technical Staff" and struggle to get promoted past that. At those companies, that title is considered an acceptable "terminal" career level, meaning they wouldn't be considered as stalled or be pushed out. They'll still be plenty productive and generally considered as senior developers. However, to get promoted from there requires a slightly expanded set of skills and experience. That next level is often "Staff Software Engineer".
The highest technical titles that exist at most of those companies are "Principal Software Engineer" and "Distinguished Engineer". Typically, much less than 5% of technical staff reach that level (I'd estimate 2%, but unsure). However, ~75% (random, plausible number - not actually sure) are "Senior Software Engineer" or below.
It is a measure of skill. Senior is when you are good enough to lead a team with your technical skills, staff is when you can lead a team of seniors. Typical people reach senior level after 5 years and never reach staff level, so a typical engineer would still be senior even after 20 years.
It is a bit silly to label those senior, but that is how the industry decided to label things. If your company is more strict then it just make their engineers look worse than they are, it is a great way to make engineers less likely to get poached but it isn't great for those engineers since it will look like people with 20 years of experience and great track record stagnated after 5.
Spot on, maybe just an explanation of what "skill" means here: it's not just technical skills, beyond the "lowest terminal level" political skills matter more and more.
I'm a Staff engineer are a small company with about 15 years of experience in Denver. As a full time employee I've never made over $160K base. As a contractor I've made over $250k (but with about $40k of that going to taxes and benefits virtually paid by an employer.)
I have a feeling I'm underpaid but I'm also very happy with where I work and the team I work with and I'm not currently willing to sacrifice that for a higher paying but probably much less enjoyable experience somewhere else. I also making about $30k more than I was when I started 3 years ago.
I have enough to pay my bills, raise a family, and still have some hobbies. Happiness should always be a factor when it comes to compensation.
Happiness should always be a factor, but I will argue that sanity permitting you should always test out new waters. Perhaps you might be satisfied at retirement with what you’ve got, but if you can forge new paths without sacrificing the clearly important parts of your life (sanity and family) then I believe that you owe it to yourself to do so. Not every half a mill job is fun but there are fun ones from what I hear.
That’s the whole problem with this kind of analysis. You can’t just ignore that there is market segmentation (I hate the term “tiers” but that’s really what it is).
The expectations might be higher, but you have access to a very high caliber infrastructure and mentors that increases your productivity. So onboarding might be a big leap during the transition period. But I think that explains more of the difference than a skill gap. Lots of great Staff+ SE decide to work at non-FAANG.
The point they're making is that someone who is "staff" at a random company might not get hired as "staff" at Google. Anecdotally, I know people who have been "principal" or similar at other places and come to Google as L4 or 5 with a raise and interesting work.
Ok but aren't the expectations for a Staff+ way higher at FAANG than at non-FAANG? Or we assume Chris already got the offer from FAANG for a Staff+ role and so it's just a personal choice? Those articles and discussions about salary always assume everybody is able to work at FAANG, or that a title at non-FAANG automatically transfers to the same title at FAANG.