Even inside of Google, Amazon and others it's a huge mistake to not go into management if you want to maximize your power and compensation at the company. Don't fall for the trap of "parallel careers" even the highest level technical person can't hold a candle to the power or compensation of a VP or SVP.
Roles like Principle engineer or distinguished engineer and such are just a sucker's share of the bag and make me question, why isn't this dude an SVP or VP? Why did they have to carve out a special role for him? He's probably a good engineer and good at his job, but hard to work with? Maybe he has dirt on the CTO? Those are the questions that go through my head.
It also looks like that Principle/Staff engineers have to justify everything they do to get their compensation whereas VPs/directors have a lot of great excuses to brush off failures while keeping power.
The power dynamics are absolutely not the same, the VP can fire you or make your life hell. You can’t fire the VP.
At any major tech company the total compensation is, in fact, parallel between both tracks. Most Staff/Principal+ engineers I have seen enjoy CONSIDERABLY better WLB compared to their management-track peers. In addition, they don't have to deal with random people drama nearly as much. If you want to get particular about it, that would mean that they are earning significantly more per-hour of work. How is this the "sucker's share of the bag"?
I really don't mean to nitpick but your misspelling of "principal" (as well as the commenter in thread) makes me suspect you are new to the industry.
Roles like Principle engineer or distinguished engineer and such are just a sucker's share of the bag and make me question, why isn't this dude an SVP or VP? Why did they have to carve out a special role for him? He's probably a good engineer and good at his job, but hard to work with? Maybe he has dirt on the CTO? Those are the questions that go through my head.