Indeed versus Levelsfyi salary scale is a handy shorthand for what GergelyOrosz described as the trimodal nature of software engineering salaries. There’s a big leap from “being in IT” to working in big tech.
That depends on where company is. If it’s local to SF competing against local companies yields higher benchmarks than global
The Hungarian influencer guy is unbearable..
I also don't understand the reasons of posting layoff news etc. Don't understand what does he achieve by his posts.
@thoughtworks I think the guy was a bit cringe when the twitter drama took place , catering to his audience I guess . And then he instantly bought the blue checkmark 😂as soon as it was released 🤷♂️.
In europe its even worse than in the US. In a tier 3 company ull make 40-50k$ in a tier 2 maybe a senior can reach 100k$ and tier 1 between 100-200
This is accurate. I have no idea how one is meant to support a family of 4 on $50k per year
You probably don't have an idea of salary diversity in India. A 5 years experience in service companies like TCS earns around 8/9 LPA (max). In tier 1 or startups can earn UpTo 7 to 8 times of that.
This is just bimodal. The first two curves if added would create a single mode, not two.
This is just unimodal. The 3 curves, if added, would create a single mode.
This is just non-modal. If you subtract the single curves generated from the tri-mode and bi-mode, would create zero mode(s).
It's also why it's better for a software engineer who wants to stay a software engineer to jump to tech. Sure there are positions in the #1 and #2 group companies that make as much as SWEs in tech, but they are management and business development positions and there aren't that many of them.
Explained here... https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-salaries-in-the-netherlands-and-europe/amp/
While this page has the 3 categories correct, the reasoning and label of the category is incorrect imo. The 3 categories really should be: 1.) Non-tech, startups, lifestyle businesses and/or no-name companies that need engineers - they pay the lowest because the tech is a tool, not the product. They don't value the work of their engineers because that's not what makes them money. 2.) Regular and average tech companies, former big tech companies past their prime, slow/little growth/blue chip (IBM, MS, etc) - companies that value engineers but not desiring top talent. Average talent is good enough and the average pay comes with it. 3.) FAANG, almost-FAANG, and Big Tech companies looking to compete for top talent. They're willing to pay the most because they want the best. Usually are amongst the most successful tech companies.
Copied from here ?
Wf is this ?
"most engineers don't know" "not many of you know" "not many people know" and on and on... The article is full of generalizations and language fallacies to make it seem more authoritative than what it is. I don't disagree with some of the stuff he mentions, but the way it is written to make it more meaningful than what it is, is just bullshit to sell his website which is "better than all the other websites"
I am sorry I didn’t understand the pic very well. Can you explain in short? I am not from SW btw
There are three level of salaries in the market, typically set by different companies. The difference in salaries come from how they were set: benchmark against local competitors, all local companies, and all global companies.
Indeed usually has salaries in first two levels, and levelsfyi is a good reminder what the third level can look like.