You're focused on a different angle than on what I posted.
There are so many factors that affect compensation for each individual employee, comparison of pay is useless. Geographical region also has big bearing on the discussion, and it really makes no sense to compare compensation online with a public audience in that manner. I won't discuss specific details and employers online for obvious reasons.
I reside on the East Coast, West Coast is a completely different labor market, and the cost of living in silicon valley is higher, another reason why comparison is futile. Jobs also rely on skill and experience, to which each person ranks differently, so individual salary comparison online is ultimately not accurate, why even try?
That being said, 6 months of work at $200k or 1 year of work at $100k is the same amount of money, but one job costs the employee a lot more time out of their life. Work is meant to supplement our lives, not the other way around. We're either marketable as employees or not, small companies that want to compete and grow within a workspace often pay more for highly skilled employees for shorter work terms overall, because they have vital work to do in order to be competitive...
Sure small and medium (non-public) companies don't offer RSUs and other things that large (FAANG) companies do, but if you really take a look at how long it takes to be vested in those huge companies, and how most people don't last long enough to vest, and how much big company culture changes employees to the point that when they're laid off or quit after bad experiences they suffer in readjusting to the regular working world... The compensation can be a lot better in small/medium sized companies.
I think you have some misunderstanding, because it takes approximately one month to start vesting at Google (and Facebook) and at Google your equity is frontloaded.
I'll happily tell you what the approximate compensation is by Google in Atlanta or NYC, because there's really no reason not to discuss those things.
Idk, the rest of your post isn't any truer. The (major) companies don't use potential hires for free labor, they give them toy problems, and nobody reputable "catalogue[s] personal info and data from you interview to build an internal profile on you".
There are so many factors that affect compensation for each individual employee, comparison of pay is useless. Geographical region also has big bearing on the discussion, and it really makes no sense to compare compensation online with a public audience in that manner. I won't discuss specific details and employers online for obvious reasons.
I reside on the East Coast, West Coast is a completely different labor market, and the cost of living in silicon valley is higher, another reason why comparison is futile. Jobs also rely on skill and experience, to which each person ranks differently, so individual salary comparison online is ultimately not accurate, why even try?
That being said, 6 months of work at $200k or 1 year of work at $100k is the same amount of money, but one job costs the employee a lot more time out of their life. Work is meant to supplement our lives, not the other way around. We're either marketable as employees or not, small companies that want to compete and grow within a workspace often pay more for highly skilled employees for shorter work terms overall, because they have vital work to do in order to be competitive...
Sure small and medium (non-public) companies don't offer RSUs and other things that large (FAANG) companies do, but if you really take a look at how long it takes to be vested in those huge companies, and how most people don't last long enough to vest, and how much big company culture changes employees to the point that when they're laid off or quit after bad experiences they suffer in readjusting to the regular working world... The compensation can be a lot better in small/medium sized companies.