Robinhood salaries: Robinhood Software Engineer Salary | $199K-$572K+

Robinhood Software Engineer Salary | $199K-$572K+

← Companies

Robinhood

• Salaries
• Software Engineer

Average Compensation By Level

Add Your Compensation

View 1 More LevelsAdd Your Compensation

Get Paid, Not Played

We’ve negotiated thousands of offers and regularly achieve $30k+ (sometimes $300k+) increases. Get your salary negotiated or your resume reviewed by the real experts – recruiters who do it daily.

Latest Salary Submissions

Add Compensation

Export DataView All Compensation

Vesting Schedule

25%

YR 1

25%

YR 2

25%

YR 3

25%

YR 4

Stock Type

RSU

At Robinhood, Main RSUs are subject to a 4-year vesting schedule:

• 25% vests in the 1st-year (6. 25% quarterly)

• 25% vests in the 2nd-year (6.25% quarterly)

• 25% vests in the 3rd-year (6.25% quarterly)

• 25% vests in the 4th-year (6.25% quarterly)

Subscribe to verified Software Engineer offers. You’ll get the breakdown of compensation details by email. Learn More →

Enter Your Email

Enter Your Email

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

FAQ

What is the highest Software Engineer salary at Robinhood?

The highest paying salary package for a Software Engineer at Robinhood sits at a yearly total compensation of $576,750. This includes base salary as well as any potential stock compensation and bonuses.

How much do Robinhood Software Engineer employees get paid?

The median yearly total compensation at Robinhood for the Software Engineer role is $374,500.

Robinhood Salary In Washington, DC

Zippia Score 4. 7

Claim This Company

Updated September 9, 2022

$116,752yearly

To create our salary estimates, Zippia starts with data published in publicly available sources such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Foreign Labor Certification Data Center (FLC) Show More

$56.13 hourly

Entry level Salary

$75,000

yearly

$75,000

10 %

$116,752

Median

$181,000

90 %

How Much Does Robinhood Pay In Washington, DC?

Robinhood pays $56 per hour or $116,752 per year on average in Washington, DC.
Salaries at Robinhood range from an average of $75,000 to $181,000 a year.

Highest Paying Robinhood Jobs In Washington, DC

Robinhood’s highest-paying job in Washington, DC is Senior Program Operations Manager, with an average salary of $182,408. In second place is Portfolio Manager, which makes $165,901 annually in Washington, DC.

Highest Paying Jobs At Robinhood In Washington, DC

Robinhood Salaries In Washington, DC By Department

Salaries By Department At Robinhood In Washington, DC

How Much Does Robinhood Pay By City

The cities where Robinhood pays the highest salary are Menlo Park ($138,337), Kirkland ($132,863), New York ($122,796), Tempe ($106,598) And Chicago ($104,692).

Highest Paying Cities At Robinhood Across the US

Highest-Paying Robinhood Competitors In Washington, DC

The company that stands out for having the highest pay in Washington, DC is Independent Means, which pays its workers an average salary of $182,408 Good Life Networks is the company that pays the least, paying an average salary of $75,351 in Washington, DC.

Frequently asked questions about Robinhood Pay In Washington, DC

What Is The Starting Pay At Robinhood In Washington?

The starting pay at Robinhood in Washington is around $75,000 per year, or $36 per hour.

How Much Does Robinhood Pay Hourly In Washington?

Robinhood pays $56 hourly in Washington, which is 3% above the national average.

How Much Does Robinhood Pay Senior Program Operations Managers In Washington?

Robinhood pays senior program operations managers in Washington around $88 per hour, or $182,408 per year.

Have more questions? See all answers to common company questions.

Search For Jobs

Updated September 9, 2022

Robin Hood and the economy | khvostik

I believe that everyone has heard of Robin Hood – let them not read the ballads about the “noble robber”, but watch at least one of the many films about him. In popular culture, Robin Hood is portrayed as a hero who takes from the rich to give to the poor.

Surprisingly few in the English-speaking world consider the hero to be some kind of proto-Marxist, some only suspect libertarian sympathies, and some simply believe he is libertarian

I recently mentioned one of the biggest and most important books by one of the biggest thinkers of our time – Thomas Sowell – “ Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy “ I will allow myself once again on the basis of the same approach to understand the problem.

Sowell defines economics as “the study of alternative uses for scarce resources.” This means that we need to consider not only how 10 workers can create 5 chairs and 2 tables in 1 day, but also how much bread they could bake, weave linens, forge metal, build houses, write programs if they were not busy furniture production. You also need to imagine how wood, metal or plastic could be used differently, which in one of the options went to tables and chairs. We have limits on the number of employees, hours of work, materials, equipment, skills and knowledge, and so on.

If, for some reason, wood is extremely expensive at some point in time, it may be possible to make wicker furniture or furniture from metal, plastic. Or if it might be more profitable on some day to send all the workers to cut hay or harvest, and not to be engaged in the production of furniture, because. the harvest may be lost, and the chairs can be made in a day / week / month and, most likely, nothing will change.

The most important thing for Thomas Sowell is the most efficient use of the most limited resource. In any case, it is easier for the manufacturer to either hire additional people, or buy materials, or new equipment, or spend a little more time – something more on the market at a particular moment, something less, because the price of something is relatively higher, and on something relatively lower. Since the demand for goods and services is difficult to predict accurately, there is a constant correction in the market due to price changes.
This is due to the fact that there is constant competition for limited resources: if for one industry the demand for their products has increased, then more workers will be hired in this industry, which means higher wages in this industry, and those industries that cannot compete in terms of wages, will be forced to reduce production, the supply of their goods and services on the market will decrease, which may lead to higher prices. And then wages will also rise slightly in this industry, which will allow hiring more workers, and so on. etc.

Sowell’s approach is not fundamentally different from classical economic theory, he only “emphasized” some important things that are often overlooked for the sake of simplicity.

So, we have a “noble robber” who is busy robbing valuables that are often moved along the roads through Sherwood Forest. Basically, these are either taxes collected from the population, or church tithes. In a popular modern narrative, Robin Hood steals from the rich ( in the libertarian narrative, the emphasis is on requisitioning tax revenues ) and gives to the poor.

From the point of view of the “basic economy” of Thomas Sowell, a choice is made in favor of an alternative use of money – instead of the needs of the Sheriff of Nottingham or the English king, the money is redirected to the needs of small proprietors, from whom these same funds were withdrawn a few days or weeks earlier. Is such a redistribution preferable?

One pro-libertarian economic website took the topic seriously by analyzing the economic situation in 14th century England. After the Black Death, the plague epidemic in Europe, there were noticeably fewer workers, prices and wages rose so much that the king forbade higher wages to workers by decrees, and the latter raised uprisings.

And there is nothing to object to the logic and arguments of the author. Which forces us to admit that since the main limitation of the era was in the number of workers, then the redistribution of financial resources from the ruling class in favor of the producing class did not fit in with Sowell’s assumption about the greatest value of the most limited resource.
Only the economist who wrote this article is B.K. Marcus from “Foundation for Economic Education”, – missed an extremely significant point – the emphasis on redistribution from the rich to the poor appeared in the works about Robin Hood at the very end of the 18th – early 19thcentury, in the ballads of the 14th century – in the era after the plague, when there was a shortage of labor – there were no such motives.

In the era of the “industrial revolution” – in the late 18th and early 19th centuries – life in England was quite difficult for many: child labor meant that parents could not let their children play at home or go to school – families were extremely short of money . You should not believe Karl Marx at all, but you can believe Charles Dickens, who described the difficult life of that era.
And this immediately changes the perspective: in an era where money is the most limited resource, the redistribution of money in favor of those who need it most, i.e. working poor makes economic sense. Especially if we consider a speculative scenario where the poor are agricultural farmers whose activities contribute to the economic development of the country to a much greater extent than the accumulation of wealth by monasteries or the military expeditions of the king. That is why Robin Hood stories have changed so much and become more popular: the personal luck of the robber, which the public liked in the past – everyone could imagine himself in the place of a hero who sought personal enrichment – gave way to a socially more attractive activity – if the latter actually took place! – which was needed by the English society of that time. The hero became more of an altruist, because society felt that it would improve life.

Here we come to a difficult moment: how much would the implementation of the Robin Hood scenario in the reality of the 19th century, when the narrative of the stories about the “noble robber” changed, improve the situation? To what extent were the mentioned “feelings” of society justified and logical? Were the broad masses wrong in their dream of redistribution, or were they potentially right?

People seem to want limited resources to be put to the best use, and more money to go to those who need it most. But let’s not forget that Robin Hood’s actions would have been a distortion of the market reaction during the Industrial Revolution: instead of making high profits, entrepreneurs and inventors would have received less profit, because Robin Hood would steal part of the money from them, and the cost of insurance transported freight would increase, free money that could be invested in new production or the expansion of an existing one would be significantly less. At the same time, an increase in the welfare of employees would lead to demands for even higher wages – after all, workers, thanks to Robin Hood handouts in our speculative scenario, no longer starve and therefore are not obliged to accept any job offer – which would further complicate the life of entrepreneurs and slowed down economic progress.

Since any organized crime tries to use part of the funds to increase the rating among the poor ( or rather, the layer needed by the criminals) of the population in the district, illustrations can be even Hezbollah in modern Lebanon, even the Italian or Jewish mafia in America at the beginning of the 20th century, even if there are black gangs in some urban areas of modern America, we have enough examples of how criminal control affects the economy.

The results are the same everywhere: criminals are relatively wealthy, those who receive handouts from them live much better than if there were no handouts, but in general, that part of society that ended up in the territory controlled by organized crime suffers from a lack of investment – no one wants to invest in factories, shops, roads or schools ( Hezbollah builds schools not only to indoctrinate children, but also to use the schools as so-called. human shield – when a school or hospital is on the second floor, the headquarters of Hezbollah can be completely safely located on the first floor without fear of an Israeli army strike ). The life of the vast majority of people from all attempts to violate the logic of the market ( for any purpose! There are no ideological or cultural preferences here ) is getting worse.

Does the above mean that no Robin Hood actions can, in principle, improve people’s lives? Theoretically, one can imagine the following scenario: when the state or other force interferes with the market so much that limiting the actions of this force will make economic transactions more profitable, increase the efficiency of using limited resources.

In most cases, government intervention in the economy in the West prevents any free agent like the “noble robber” from making better use of limited resources in any way ( I couldn’t come up with such a scenario, so I wrote about “most cases”, if anyone anyone can share such a scenario, I would be extremely grateful! ). But in a criminal, corrupt society, reducing obstacles from bribe-taking officials or especially arrogant bandits should help.
We even have a real example: in the town of Kalach-on-Don, located 80 km from Volgograd, one of the former local bandits began to fight for “justice” – in fact, against the very frank “lawlessness” of the drug mafia and the “roof” of the last authorities. This earned him the gratitude and respect of the population.
Of course, if such a cadre appeared in a Canadian, American, English or German town, his activity would reduce the efficiency of economic activity, but in the Russian situation, when the monstrous fusion between crime and power makes the functioning of the free market almost impossible, any relief from pressure on business – a great blessing. What gives value and economic meaning to the activities of the local, as it were, Robin Hood: it increases the efficiency of the use of limited resources, eliminating the most serious obstacles.

The attentive reader has noticed that the situation of the 12th-13th centuries, to which most of the literary sources attribute the activity of Robin Hood, we have practically ignored. The first sources about Robin Hood appeared at the end of the 14th century, and the hero’s popularity gradually increased as he approached modernity.
Therefore, instead of a historical analysis of the situation of the 12th – early 13th century – the era of Richard the Lionheart, his brother John the Landless, the crusades and the uprising of the barons against the crown – we are offered a vision of the situation through the prism of the mass moods of a later era, in which another work about Robin was composed Gude.
Moreover, today’s Robin Hood, who robs for his own enrichment, is not interesting to us ( although films and books about successful thieves also find their audience, but they do not give any moral lessons ), the broad masses who buy movie tickets like “socially responsible” hero. Although in the modern world, and in the relatively recent past, the actions attributed to the hero would have had a mostly negative impact on people’s lives.

0064

Like Loading. ..

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged history, reflections, economics. Bookmark the permalink.

This is Englaaand! Five reasons to watch a new performance about Robin Hood at the FEST Theater

The Mytishchi Drama and Comedy Theater opens its 35th season. The first premiere is the performance “THIS IS ENGLAAAND! The Story of Robin Hood. Director Dmitry Skotnikov even came up with a new genre – “family medieval adventure.” They say that the performance was an old dream of the whole theater. Five reasons why the story of Robin Hood is not to be missed.

REASON #1: SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF ALL THEATERS

There are too few performances in modern theater for young audiences. Usually they are either very childish or very adult. Theater “FEST” embarked on the path of solving the problem. The story about Robin Hood is primarily aimed at children aged 12-18.

“For a long time we have wanted to make a performance where both children and adults could come,” says Dmitry Skotnikov, author of the staging and director. – Discussed what could be the basis for such material. The performance should be both heroic and magical, and have a plot that will be understandable to different audiences. So, by collective efforts, the choice fell on Robin Hood.

REASON #2. MEM ATTRACTION

Pay attention to the name of the play. Do you know why there are three “A”s in the word “England”?

– If you remember, there was a film called “300 Spartans”, explains Dmitry Skotnikov. – There is such a moment: when King Leonidas throws the Persian ambassador into the well, he shouts: THIS IS SPARTA! (this is Sparta! – translated from English. – Approx. ed.). This is an Internet meme, a phrase that is applied to situations with increased expression. So our name is a game with this meme.

The youth should check it out!

REASON #3. THE IDEAL ARTIST

Igor Setdekov plays the main role.

– He is a heroic guy, – the director explains the choice of the actor. The artist himself does not hide: he always dreamed of playing Robin Hood.

– As a child, I spent a lot of time with friends in the forest, – says Igor. “We built staffs and practiced stick-fighting against imaginary villains. I didn’t like to read books, but one day I got my hands on Walter Scott’s book “Ivanhoe” – I read it to holes. And so began acquaintance with Robin Hood. A hero capable of exploits and sacrifices, kind, fair, charming, witty, able to remain calm – he, so similar to my father, immediately fell into my heart. This is exactly what I want to be, not only on stage, but also in life. So when I don’t know what to do, I ask myself: “What would my father do? Grandfather? Robin Hood?”

REASON No. 4. HISTORICAL FLASHBACK

There are several means of expression in the performance at once: live music performed by the actors, scenes with puppets, plasticity, video clips, an interesting “theater within the theater” technique. Another feature is educational, the viewer will be immersed in a historical context.

– To understand what caused the appearance of such a folklore character as Robin Hood, you need to know the history of England of that period, says the director.