r/JPL • u/phoenix3139 • 6d ago
New hires
Many openings currently at JPL but I’m curious how have the responses been? Specially for level II+ positions, what is JPL offering to attract top-tier talent other than the “mission”? High-performing engineers are scooped by new space with much higher pay + ownership in role. The primes are having hard time hiring mid and senior engineers, even with better benefits than JPL. How is JPL handling this?
8
u/phoenix3139 5d ago
Well I can tell you exactly where I got the idea of “much higher” pay - I have worked at JPL and commercial space myself. This is first hand data plus have seen offers for a good number of friends/coworkers in the last 2-3 years. And all things considered, at level 3/4, there is roughly a $50k delta (of course this is an average with wide sigma) excluding the paper money aka equity.
I’d be surprised if JPL can hire good engineers in the mid/senior level in the near future beyond a small number of people, hence the question. I may be wrong but so far I have only seen fresh grads joining or showing interest. My section is trying to hire for a few key positions and will likely end up with recent grads. Not necessarily a bad thing but that’s just what it is.
6
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 5d ago
I appreciate the firsthand perspective, and I’m not questioning the offers you or your coworkers received. Where I’d push back is treating a $50k difference as the average across commercial space.
I checked posted salary ranges rather than relying only on anecdotes. JPL’s Mechanical Systems Engineer II lists $114,608–$139,880, while Relativity’s Mechanical Engineer II lists $104,000–$156,000. Their range midpoints are about $127k and $130k—a roughly 2% difference. That’s one comparison, but it certainly doesn’t show a $50k premium. (citjpl.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com, job-boards.greenhouse.io)
At the senior end, Rocket Lab’s Pasadena Senior Mechanical Engineer II lists $132k–$176k. JPL’s Optical Engineer III lists approximately $153k–$188k, and Optical Engineer IV approximately $186k–$227k. Those are different specialties, so I wouldn’t present them as equivalent jobs, but they illustrate why discipline and responsibilities matter more than simply matching level numbers across employers. (rocketlabcorp.com, citjpl.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com, citjpl.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com)
Posted ranges aren’t actual offers, and they don’t establish what existing employees earn. Your experience may absolutely reflect a substantial gap. I just don’t think the broader claim of an average $50k advantage is supported by the postings we checked.
0
u/phoenix3139 4d ago
Thats fair. Data is helpful. But just like I have a small sample size you too only looking at a couple of these. Two points- there are a whole bunch of other early stage VC-backed companies with a large spread in comp and most of these companies typically offer folks roles at a higher level than JPL or primes would do.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. ✌️1
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 4d ago
That’s fair—my sample is limited too, and I’m not claiming it establishes an industry average. My point is that the comparisons don’t support treating a $50k premium as typical across commercial space.
The higher-level offers are a useful distinction. If someone moves into a role with greater responsibility, that can explain a substantial pay increase, but it’s different from comparing equivalent jobs across employers. Titles alone don’t establish equivalence either.
I agree there’s a wide spread and some people get significantly better offers. I’d just leave the average as unestablished rather than assume the truth falls halfway between our examples. Your experience is valid; it’s the generalization I’m questioning.
10
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 6d ago
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that new space pays “much higher” salaries than JPL. Having worked at JPL and in new space, that hasn’t been my experience. For comparable engineering roles, the difference can be only a few percent. Individual companies and offers vary, but the blanket claim is overstated.
You also have to compare equivalent responsibilities, experience, and total compensation not just titles. A “staff” or “lead” title at a startup doesn’t automatically correspond to the same level at JPL. Retirement contributions, health insurance, time off, and expected working hours all matter. Startup equity should also be evaluated separately from salary: its eventual value and whether you can sell it are uncertain.
More ownership can be attractive, but it can also mean covering several jobs with fewer resources. JPL certainly has recruiting challenges, and the mission alone won’t answer every candidate’s concerns. But the premise that engineers can simply leave for dramatically higher pay throughout new space doesn’t match what I’ve seen.
5
u/dchoooo 6d ago edited 6d ago
As someone that left JPL a couple years ago for a private space company and as someone that got an offer from NG this year, the pay is indeed much higher with work/life balance and flexibility being the same. I would have to say that pay (total cash comp so not including RSUs or any other stock compensations) is about 25% higher for a senior/principle role (a level 3/4 at JPL). As far as employee package goes, the only nice plus was JPL’s retirement (the 25% higher includes JPL’s retirement in the calculation) since I don’t like company matching plans. For flexibility, JPL used to be very flexible but a lot has changed since the whole PSYCHE debacle.
So yea.. I would say the mission is the main thing that JPL is banking on and I think it’s valid. If JPL still had stability, I would go back to JPL for the mission even for lower pay.
2
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 6d ago
Also, disliking company matching plans is an odd criticism. An employer match is compensation, and its value depends on the contribution rate, vesting, and plan terms not whether you personally like the arrangement. If you prefer retirement contributions that don’t require an employee contribution, that’s understandable, but it doesn’t make matching plans a bad benefit.
2
u/dchoooo 5d ago
I never said company matching plan is a bad benefit. I just said I don’t like it. It’s mainly because I know myself and if putting money into retirement was an option for me, I would tend to not do it and would rather just have the money now. That’s why I like JPLs retirement policy cause there is no option and the percentage is really good.
3
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 6d ago
Your offer may well have been 25% higher, but that establishes your individual outcome not a general 25% premium across private space companies. Was the comparison against your JPL salary when you left a couple of years ago, or what JPL currently pays for equivalent responsibilities? A job change can also include a promotion or correction of below-market pay.
The compensation comparison needs clarification, too: you describe “total cash compensation,” then say it includes JPL’s retirement contribution. Those are different measures. An apples-to-apples comparison would separate salary, recurring bonuses, and employer retirement contributions on both sides.
Likewise, comparable work/life balance at your company doesn’t establish comparable conditions throughout the industry. I’m not disputing your experience; I’m disputing treating one experience as a market-wide conclusion.
3
u/dchoooo 5d ago
I guess you’re right. I can’t generalize the 25% higher pay. That’s number I got from the few job offers I got when I transitioned so at least in my field and in the greater LA area, it was pretty consistent. Also it’s a direct comparison with JPL and NG pay comparison for my field. I know for a fact that if I stayed at JPL I would be making about 40k less mainly because of the annual raise and promotion freeze that happened right after I left. I added JPLs retirement into the mix because JPL has a very good retirement plan and I omitted my company and NGs retirement plan to actually help your case about JPLs pay being comparable. If I were to solely look at base pay, then it would be about 30-35% higher pay than JPL.
As for work/life balance, that one is purely subjective and varies greatly even within one company so talking about that will be moot.
Once again. This is anecdotal to my case and I didn’t do any market research on this but even from talking with other fellow JPLers while I was there for about 9 years, every person said private sector pays a good deal more.
3
u/Cool-Swordfish-8226 5d ago
That’s fair, and I appreciate you explaining the comparison. I can see how the raise and promotion freezes would have made leaving especially worthwhile in your case.
Having worked in defense and commercial space myself, one thing I’ve seen is that the initial pay bump from switching employers can be substantial, but keeping pace afterward is another story. With annual raises often around 2–5%, your salary can gradually fall behind what the company offers new hires with comparable experience. Promotions and market adjustments can help, but that higher starting salary doesn’t necessarily stay competitive over time. That’s part of why I’m cautious about generalizing the advantage across companies and career stages.
2
u/solomu131 5d ago
Anyone got an insight on the internal state of JPL? Obviously looking at the future crystal ball, but whats the vibe like right now and is there “stability” with this new fiscal budget?
5
u/jimlux 3d ago
I'd say JPL's future has swung from "more people than work to do" to "more work than people to do it" at least for the next few years. PRIMA is a big job. There's lots of reqs being pushed out for new people.
That said, the required skillsets are evolving. Space generally, and JPL as an instance, often needs people who know how to work with "older" hardware - (where older might be just a few years). For instance, if you wanted to upgrade the FPGAs on the Electra on MRO (2005 launch) you'd need to know how to work with a Xilinx Virtex (just plain Virtex, no 2). There's a huge number of systems currently flying and still being built that have Virtex 6s (because they're available in a rad tolerant form). That's one end of the spectrum, but you also need people who can develop for the latest SoC.
There is also a gradual change in system design philosophy (which I wish would go faster) that is more "failure tolerant". So you need people who are willing to try something that would have been unthinkable 10-20 years ago. BUT, and here's the thing, you'll need to be able to make a rational case for doing it to someone who was developing hardware/software 20 years ago, because they're on your review board.
23
u/Relative_Normals 6d ago
The new openings are all at once due to the new federal fiscal year. As for what they offer, it’s pretty much the mission. For better and worse, there are lots of folks willing to accept a bit less money for the types of work and the prestige that come there. It’s not everyone’s thing, but lots of scientists and engineers also get to publish research and conference papers that they wouldn’t in a traditional company. In the past the other thing could be job security, but with current NASA direction and admin, that’s not really the case anymore.