stoptothink wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:15 am
edudad wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:39 am
On the other, I get a feeling that I should look for FAAMGT type of companies to boost my pay, with higher workload.
How does one land a $250k job in these companies? I don't see any posting or even Glassdoor/LinkedIn (expected pay range in job posting) numbers that corroborates $250k, for titles like architects, solutions expert, PM etc.
It's about RSUs, not base salary.
To add context - I don't think there are many non-Director level W2 jobs that pay > $250k in "salary" (I'm sure there are some - but I can't imagine there are a ton)...
Its usually a combination of a base salary (which
might not be much more - in some cases less - than what you make now) - combined with "bonus" (or other "incentive pay" - either based on personal and/or company results) as well as "stock" of some sort (or some other form of "profit sharing"). And its
usually the "stock" portion that makes the biggest impact...
My employer provides RSU's which vest over a number of years. As an example, let's say its a 5 year vest schedule - and each grant was worth $50k (I wish). Conceptually, in year 1 you get $0 (nothing has vested yet), in year 2 you get 1/5 of Year 1 = $10k, in year 3 you get 1/5 of Year 1 + 1/5 of Year 2 = $20k, until you get to years 5+ where you are getting 1/5 of each of the prior years = $50k (sort of - see below).
The
other - bigger part of that is the "vested" amount is the "then current" stock value - not the value when the RSU was "granted". So let's say that the stock when granted 5 years ago had a market value of $100 (so $50k RSU / $100 share = 500 shares which will vest over 5 years). Let's say the stock grew at 14.9% per year, after 5 years those shares are worth $200 each. Each year the actual "vest" amount would be > than the "grant" amount (as the stock price was going up). And in the 5th year, when the last 1/5 of the shares (100) vest - they'll be worth roughly $20k (14.9% would basically double the stock over 5 years, so now $200/share = $20k instead of the $10k they were worth when they were granted). Combined with the other year's vests (in our hypothetical scenario of an even 14.9% growth per year), that would be closer to $80k "vesting" (than the $50k "granted").
And if the stock was growing by say > 30% a year... Well you get the idea...
So
if you can land a job which includes "stock" as part of compensation at a company with a fast growing stock - you can potentially have significantly higher income - even if the "base" pay isn't much different... But those are obviously "high demand" jobs - lots of competition to get in (so you need to stand out as a candidate) - and in many organizations - lots of "stress/risk" in keeping the jobs (as the company knows they can find someone
else willing to do the job).
And this is perhaps where part of "ageism" comes in... Why keep around an older employee - who is likely getting paid at a higher rate - and [especially in tech or fast changing fields] who's skills may not be as 'up-to-date' as a recent college grad that is willing to work for a lot less? I don't like it - but I understand it for what it is...
Is it worth it?
I'll probably "make" more money than you - if I can keep my job long enough (or find another)... But I don't get any pension - so I
effectively* need to fund my retirement accounts - and hope I don't outlive them - meaning I
needed to make more money than you. You can work - likely as long as you want - and
you will likely have a very sizable pension that may well cover all (or majority) of your retirement needs for life (combined with social security) - so anything you save is likely "gravy on top" (or helping you retire early). And your pension is
effectively guaranteed regardless of what the economy does whereas mine is subject to the economy not crashing... You might be "envious" of my higher pay - but I'm
very envious of your guaranteed retirement income... IMHO that is worth a lot more than you are giving it credit...
To add an interesting historical context... Many, many years ago when I was in college (before the tech bubble burst - aka before 2000), others I knew in what (at least back then) was "computer science" courses shared with me that nearly every instructor complained about Microsoft. Eventually they learned that pretty much every one of the instructors had at at least one of the following occur:
- They turned down a job with low pay - just stock - back when they were a "start-up" company...
- A friend/acquaintance/former co-worker/former student/etc. had accepted a job, and had retired as millionaires after a few years...
- They were never "offered" a job...