>Actually, Google pays under the average of top companies, because as a top tier company, they can afford. Most people I know who went to work for Google took a pay cut but don't have a single regret about it.
Compared to who? They pay more than AMZN/MS/FB/AAPL/etc. for equal level, but are stingier with levels. You might be correct that certain other companies pay more than Google (Netflix maybe?), but they're certainly above average.
> They pay more than AMZN/MS/FB/AAPL/etc. for equal level, but are stingier with levels.
Google is more generous to good performers via bonuses once you are working there, but if you have two offers in hand, you are going to find Google highly resistant to negotiating. The notion of people taking a pay cut to work at Google sounds plausible to me.
If one's goal is to maximize compensation (particularly in the short term), a Google offer is better used to get a higher paying offer at one of their competitors.
> Google is more generous to good performers via bonuses once you are working there, but if you have two offers in hand, you are going to find Google highly resistant to negotiating. The notion of people taking a pay cut to work at Google sounds plausible to me.
I don't think that's true. While google is by all accounts (including in my personal experience) unwilling to move significantly on base salary, they'll happily match pretty much any offer with stock from my experience (and the experience of others I've talked to).
What they will not do is adjust for cost of living or differences in taxation when comparing an offer in Mountain View with one in a cheaper locale such as Seattle (which is where two of the companies you listed above are headquartered).
Perhaps I dealt with a particularly nasty Google recruiter. I felt like the recruiter had misrepresented the health benefits and relocation package once I got the actual offer letter and related paperwork.
Ah, you're correct, I was specifically told "we don't take cost of living into account when deciding compensation" or similar language. (which isn't strictly true either)
That said, from what I've seen, compensation growth at Google from everything I've seen is faster than at the other companies, which means that for someone coming in at L>3, they will likely be given greater compensation at google than elsewhere.
I'm curious as to how they misrepresented things. I was actually pleasantly surprised once I got here by how extensive the benefits were, but I'm always interested in learning more, since while I actually think that 4 google interviews is a decent way to judge someone for google, I really hate their interview/negotiation process.
Compared to who? They pay more than AMZN/MS/FB/AAPL/etc. for equal level, but are stingier with levels. You might be correct that certain other companies pay more than Google (Netflix maybe?), but they're certainly above average.