Why would I work in person for less money when I can work remote? For in person work on critical applications like satellites, I'd expect (spitballing here) a staff eng to be making 300k base with substantial bonus/espp on top. Consider that most midsize tech companies are going to pay staff level 200k or above and ask how the company in question compares, before pricing in the crushing inflexibility of in person work.
> I'd expect (spitballing here) a staff eng to be making 300k base with substantial bonus/espp on top
This is a fairytale in DoD work and while I think there's room for us to improve our compensation I'm not sure this is a reasonable number at the moment. Please don't flame me for this, just sharing my opinion. I work on a critical DoD new-work project.
The only way to achieve that number in this sector would be private consulting with a very strong network. I will say that it's a very easy world to network in, at least in my experience. I also find the work and location I'm in very meaningful and interesting compared to most of the private sector work accessible to me at this point in my career.
I don't think as many people love remote work as HN suggests. We have an extremely flexible hybrid and PTO policy here, and we're in a great midsize city that people love living in.
This is just a random jumble of thoughts in response. Cheers
I appreciate your insider perspective and insight here. I realize that most industries don't pay their engineers like tech companies do. I just wish that we as workers instead of accepting less would instead agitate for better wages across the board. I previously left a very engaging pharmaceutical research job to work in finance because the money I was leaving on the table got to be too much for me to justify, regardless of how much I enjoyed the work.
That's the line they gave all my peers who went into public interest and non-profits. Most of them left from burnout or because the low pay and high demands were exploitative.
Here's the trick these mission-oriented employers don't want you to know: you can use the freedom that money affords in order to build meaningful and fulfilling aspects into your life outside of work.
That’s what they want you to believe so they can pay you less than Google. Meanwhile the googlers got rich and are doing fulfilling and meaningful work on their own pace once they quit.
I assume people find meaning in different ways (perhaps I was being unfair to the tech-advertising business). I've always thought the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, NASA, or the National Park Service might potentially be amazing places to work, depending on the role. Looking at a full list of federal government agencies it doesn't seem crazy to me that people could find meaningful work in some of the others.
Nothing as meaningful as maintenance programming at Google, of course. At least the paychecks wouldn't be as meaningful.
