So what's the actual number for S1?
134277/(1.25)^4 = 54999.8592 (exactly) so I assume S1 = $55,000.
It's kind of strange to phrase things in terms of this S1 value when they say nobody makes below S2. I guess the idea is that if they introduce lower levels they didn't want to force themselves into negative numbers.
The other baseline number they mention is E3 (the baseline equity) which is approximately equal to S3 = S1 * (1.25)^2 ~ $86k.
The junior engineer posistion would be ~$86k. That seems extremely high to me. I think you forget how many people live in poverty in the USA. I expect some people who run their own companies aren't even seeing that a year.
Tech wages in the US are hugely inflated compared to the rest of the world too.
FWIW, I work in public healthcare in Appalachia. In any event, I have no idea what the relevance of this statement is.
I made a statement of fact.. market wages for engineer/software types were in the 50s in the low COL areas 20 years ago - this can be verified - if they're not in the high 80s now then real wages have not grown.
Honestly, the OP comp might not be too too awful. Of course even then it shows wages haven't really skyrocketed either outside of FAANG. 86k - if that's base? - if that is $55k + "equity" then no - especially, they're not public and an 8 year vesting period! The longer vesting period is especially troublesome when you're not paying amazing wages to begin with - that's just how it is. Also, the problem with the bimodal distribution of wages in the US, if you're in that lower mode, you are kidding yourself if you can really maintain any realistic retention - there are too many opportunities for people to jump ship and it doesn't take much to make it worth their while. Another thing not covered by this post - how is their promotion structure? Sure the pay is transparent - but the vast majority of cases if you want a raise at the employer you're at - the best way to maximize it usually to quit and come back later.
Edit: looking at that table in the post and doing the math, looks like ~68k. Where do you get 86k from?
> Tech wages in the US are hugely inflated compared to the rest of the world too.
Sure, everyone knows this - well inflated not so sure - the market wages are higher. What's your point?
Edit: by low COL i mean, like Rust Belt, midwest.. as far removed from the coasts and SV as possible.
Base Stocks Total
1 $55,000 $32,746 $87,746
2 $68,750 $53,048 $121,798
3 $85,938 $85,938 $171,875
4 $107,422 $139,219 $246,641
5 $134,277 $225,534 $359,812
6 $167,847 $365,366 $533,212
7 $209,808 $591,892 $801,701
8 $262,260 $958,866 $1,221,126
9 $327,826 $1,553,362 $1,881,188I know this is ycombinator but I think SV salaries really have gone to people's heads. I've seen discussion on heere where people getting offered $125k straight out of university is considered low pay...
I make slightly over $200k and I cannot afford to buy an average house ($1.3M) where currently live (Santa Barbara). I've considered moving to San Diego, but the prices are about the same there. So clearly my income is inadequate, and I'm not even talking about Silicon Volley. I don't see why I should be lowering my salary expectations.
Take-home pay for a single earner pulling down 200k is ~10.5k/month (let's ignore for the sake of argument any insurance premiums or retirement plan contributions you make - strictly speaking the second are optional and the first aren't likely to swing the numbers that much).
A mortgage in today's interest rate environment, after putting down 20% on 1.3m, is maybe a hair over 4.5k/month.
Even if you're maxing out your 401k and have remarkably expensive insurance premiums after your employer's contribution, that's still ~4k/month left over. Unless you have an unusually expensive chronic medical condition, that seems like it should be more than enough to get by (considering people do in fact get by on that much pre-tax, not even deducting their own housing expenses).
And this is basically the worst-case scenario where you're trying to buy an "average" house as a single person, rather than a condo or even a cheaper house (there are homes listed under 1m in SB). If you're married, your spouse is likely earning an income as well; if they aren't, at least you benefit from a lower tax burden to the tune of ~1100/month, which maybe doesn't quite compensate for their "cost of living" but certainly gets you a fair bit of the way there.
And, as always, I forgot to calculate the tax benefits of paying a mortgage, which can be substantial and improve the numbers further.
I have talked to multiple loan specialists, and they all recommended I stay below 1.3M prices. I agree with them, because $1.3M house means ~$6k monthly payments (including property tax, HOA, and insurance, and assuming 3% interest rate). This is more than half of my paycheck, and I'm not comfortable spending more than half of my paycheck on mortgage.
Sure, I can buy a cheaper home - a small condo, or a house in a poor neighborhood. I can definitely afford a very nice house if I'm willing to commute for 1 hour (one way). But why should I? Why should I settle for a less than average home? We are talking average quality here (median, to be more precise), so those 1.3M houses are nothing amazing. They are just regular homes for middle class. I suspect a significant fraction of homeowners in SB wouldn't be able to afford their houses if they were to buy them today.
To be perfectly clear I agree, given the facts I have available to me, that purchasing a 1.3m house on just that income would not be the most prudent financial decision; it's just not one I would regard as "totally catastrophic" - obviously there's the tail risk of both the real estate & SWE job markets going bust at the same time, but for reasons that are too long to go into here I don't think we'll see anything structurally similar to the dot-com crash ~ever again (though there may be other more localized bubbles that pop). I myself haven't purchased any sort of real estate despite pressure from family because I also live in SoCal and I'd be paying a significant premium over renting for basically no benefit, given my current lifestyle. But I also don't _want_ to own property, so it's mostly just convenient that renting makes more financial sense.
I don't think you should "settle", just wanted to clarify that it seemed like you could actually "afford" it in both the most literal sense and in the "how likely does this cause life-ruining financial catastrophe" sense. I don't want to own property myself so I don't totally understand the impulse, but often what someone calls impossible is possible, just not with whatever trade-offs they're currently making.