That was not what I meant at all. I mean if you aren't particular about the technology stack you are working with and/or hoping for a high salary, then odds are more in your favor in SD, vs. being picky.
It's not that working in automotive industry is a lit more exciting than working for adtech. Also taking in the account that not only the compensation, but also the culture in SV companies is more developer-friendly.
Hiring technical people is one of the hardest problems in technology and you're just going to blithely assume that a software company will do no better at it than a non-technical business with an IT department? Even setting aside the difficulties of screening and interviewing, more top-tier technical workers will prefer to work for a software or SaaS company in SF that pampers its employees than for a paper company in Duluth, Michigan.
A lot of things that may be sound career advice in SF tech scene would make terrible advice for other fields and other places. One example is frequent job hops. SF software companies may not judge you negatively because of it, but Zurich architecture firms (as a random example) might.
I also recommend interviewing for SV tech companies that are not FAANG. A bunch are not leetcode heavy and pay just as well and most offer completely remote roles.
You don't have to be in Silicon Valley. Some companies have a premium for working there, but not always, especially at the high end. The more important detail is working for a large company that has stock/RSUs, a bonus program, a robust technical job ladder, and a regular review process.
If your company doesn't do stock/RSUs, you're missing out on that aspect (though a small number of companies make up for that with large cash bonuses).
I also prefer the second. Tech specifics aren’t anywhere near as important as the ability to be part of a team that finds value.
If you are a perfect fit tech skills-wise and can’t think/talk about the business side, you can make progress on our ticket backlog (and so we can still hire you), but if you’re moderately skilled at software in general but can connect that to the business problems, we can definitely use in a variety of spots.
I think that is the trade off for higher than average salaries and one heck of a foot in the (tech) door. I do have a friend working there now, he seems mostly content with it. I doubt he’ll be switching anytime soon.
Backing this up with more anecdata, I have had zero problems finding excellent offers at firms where technology is "the product" not just a cost to be cut, and far from the valley at that!
How important is your pedigree in getting a (good) tech job? If you've worked as a SWE in some capacity, it seems like most companies (even top ones) consider you good enough to at least interview you.
My pedigree is average at best. I've worked my entire career at non-tech companies (banks, hedge funds) doing decidedly unsexy work. I'm still able to attract enough attention that FAANG and many other top tech company recruiters contact me first.
Interestingly enough, it's the top companies in my current sector (finance) that refuse to even have an internal recruiter casually speak with me. i.e. Citadel, Two Sigma, Jane Street, etc.
There's also stories I see occasionally on LinkedIn, etc. of people from completely non-technical backgrounds getting hired as SWEs at top tech companies. Taxi drivers, ex-felons, aestheticians, etc. getting hired as SWEs at FAANG and unicorns.
It isn’t like that everywhere but it’s quite common, especially in companies where development is not the primary focus of the company. You’re more likely to end up in that kind of company than not unless you are in a place like the Bay Area or similar tech hub.
Funny enough you learn on a percentage basis their turnover rates are greatly exaggerated, and some years are lower than a “healthy organization” of their size would like.
No job is the best job, but you will learn a lot about tech and software engineering at these places. Doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone. But it is worth having an unbiased view on this.
It's a good point - FWIW, the jobs I was looking at were strictly software positions, but it stands to reason that the corporate hiring culture would be based on the needs of hardware people.
reply