back
4 comments
And that range is likely a shade low -- not because Netflix treats H-1Bs as cheap labor (I work at Netflix and we don't, we treat visa workers very well) -- but because I would guess that the more senior visa workers who are paid more are more likely to be on green cards by now, and are no longer part of the public H-1B disclosures.

As for the parent comment: I do wonder... I'd hazard a guess that sometimes recruiters have dropped the ball, and not discussed salary ranges with the Netflix employee (and maybe they aren't allowed to), leading to an offer that's 1/2 or 1/4 what they are making.

And as for the parent topic... I couldn't bring myself to go interview _just_ to get salary intel, knowing I didn't want the job. And I can't see many of my coworkers doing it either. There would have to be a chance that I'd take the job.

For senior software engineers, they pay ~$400k. Source: friend works there.
Yep, their H1B applications confirm that.

http://www.jobsintech.io/immigration_companies/netflix/salar...

500k for Research Engineer Manager.

That's a jaw dropping amount.
$400k is not even the top 1% for California: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/1-percent-in-each-s...
It's not. Netflix has a revenue per employee figure in the $2m+ range. That's investment bank levels of revenue, and $400k is about what you make at an investment bank 5-7 years out.
It is. Software developers are not investment bankers. Software development jobs offering $400K are... not normal.
Software companies are making investment bank levels of money these days, so why should it be surprising when software developers are getting paid like investment bankers? What should be more surprising is software companies making $1m+ per employee where developers aren't paid like that.
I'm not talking about ideals, I'm talking about typical practices.
You can easily get 300K after a couple of years at a big company (e.g. AmaGoogAppBookSoft as patio11 likes to put it). You do not need to be an especially talented engineer at such places to draw those salaries.
Yet value-creation in the range of $1MM/year is not that uncommon for a company in financial services or streaming media.
I certainly wouldn't turn down a higher salary, but it's one thing to say that higher salaries ought to be normal, and quite another thing to say that $400k "is not a jaw dropping amount" - based not on software industry practices, but on one's expectations about what software salaries ought to be, coming from practices in some other, unrelated industry.

In the software industry, no matter what one thinks the situation ought to be, the current fact of the matter is that a salary of $400K would be very unusually high, and so I am taking issue with rayiner's assertion that "it's not jaw dropping". It might be reasonable to say "it shouldn't be jaw dropping", based on the principle you're describing above, but that would be a different claim.

But $400k of $2m calls for 20% profit margin for salaries alone. So unless the average (accounted for C level compensations) is much lower, we are easily looking at 50% profit margins when business costs are added. I would not call that competitive
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous, out of touch things I have ever read on HN.

You can't on one hand go on about market forces etc etc and say that because Netflix's RPE is high its employees should be paid for. RPE has absolutely no bearing on the value individual employees bring to Netflix.

I have no doubt that there are developers at Netflix making $400k+. To imply that it's not a jaw droppingly large amount of money for a software developer to make is borderline insanity.

As a software developer, I find your comment to be the most ridiculous.

Yes, it's on a higher end compared to what you would normally see but I would say that the regular salaries are too low. As a software developer, we have the capability to generate tremendous amount of value. Currently, most of the value is captured by C level executives (getting paid millions). Why should software developers not getting more in proportion to the value they add?

Compensation is based on competition for the limited supply of top developers. High RPE businesses are, by definition, ones that can make a lot of money with a limited number of people. More importantly, they are businesses in fields where their competitors can do the same. Accordingly, it is totally unsurprising that high RPE businesses pay their employees lots of money, whether we are talking about software companies or investment banks.
For a statement to be logical it must be universally applicable. So you feel the same way about executive compensation at large firms I presume?
Edit: deleting my comment since it was replied to the wrong one. Moved here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11869653
GP here: that doesn't explain it then. We've made offers to candidates that have been very comparable to that, but only if you include stock, which it looks like Netflix doesn't offer.

I wasn't involved in the salary negotiations of the Netflix candidates so I can't tell for sure whether they had similar offers, but I would have no reason to believe otherwise, because since then I've been involved with other candidates and I now know what our guidance is.

But this was a year ago. This was a guy that was at Netflix for a while, so my guess is his salary hasn't grown to keep pace with the "new hire salary inflation" the whole industry has been experiencing, so he went to his manager and asked for a raise, which is when this quasi-policy of theirs starts to kick in: "go interview some places, bring us your offers and we'll match it!" And that's what happened. In all likelihood we gave him an offer higher than he made (new-hire salary inflation and all that), he took that back to Netflix and lived happily ever after.

But after a couple times more of that happening, and you read stuff like this, you no longer take Netflix candidates seriously.

I think it's obvious you've won that argument, but I just wanted to chime in so you hear it from someone else.

1) Netflix has confirmed they recommend this "non-serious interview" approach, and

2) The candidates are just going silent after an offer. If you were simply not offering enough, or the wrong kind of compensation, you would expect to hear back something from some of them.

Really scummy of Netflix to encourage this. Why not just ask an internal recruiter about expected compensation packages? There seem to be a lot better options than just burning up their time like that.

>We've made offers to candidates that have been very comparable to that, but only if you include stock

I don't.

Totally agree. If the salary offered at the end of a successful interview is not going to be high enough, a lot of time has been wasted on both sides. But it seems to me that a salary discussion at the beginning of the process is quite rare.
That is why I like companies like Hired.com where you can see what salary is being offered by various companies. It gets that step very early in the process.