The Programmer Salary Taboo(thurn.ca)
thurn.ca
The Programmer Salary Taboo
http://www.thurn.ca/the_programmer_salary_taboo
330 comments
$175/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $350,000/year, for anyone else (like me) who can't immediately estimate equivalent yearly rates.
But remember that there is non-billable work (accounting, etc.) and a 15.3% self-employment tax. And also remember that there are probably not 50 weeks of 40 hours/week at this company but rather short-term or part-time work. And you are paying for your own benefits.
I've found a good (albeit a bit conservative) rule-of-thumb is to convert the hourly wage into the yearly salary. Working as a consultant for $175/hour is similar to being employed at $175K/year.
EDIT: The U.S. federal self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% (15.3% was for 2010).
I've found a good (albeit a bit conservative) rule-of-thumb is to convert the hourly wage into the yearly salary. Working as a consultant for $175/hour is similar to being employed at $175K/year.
EDIT: The U.S. federal self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% (15.3% was for 2010).
A minor correction: it's not as bad as 15.3%. The self-employment tax is really just the company share of FICA withholding (6.2%) plus Medicare withholding (1.45%) If you're an employee you pay 6.2%+1.45%=7.65% and your employer pays the same. If someone else (employer) is not paying the 7.65% then you do.
However, for 2011 the FICA rate for employees is 4.2% instead of 6.2%, so the self-employment tax remains effectively 7.65%. But that's only for the first $106,800 in earnings - everything above that is not subject to FICA and Medicare for employer and employee.
However, for 2011 the FICA rate for employees is 4.2% instead of 6.2%, so the self-employment tax remains effectively 7.65%. But that's only for the first $106,800 in earnings - everything above that is not subject to FICA and Medicare for employer and employee.
As "bad" as 15%? Tax is at least 38% here in Au for that wage (was 60% not so long ago).
As other pointed out that is payroll tax, not income tax.
The differences in tax between the US and Australia are not so much in the headline rates as in the deductions.
In the US mortgage interest on a home you live in is tax deductible.
And in the US you get taxed as an economic unit with your spouse and children.
So a home owner with a big mortgage and a spouse at home looking after kids pays much less tax in the US.
The differences in tax between the US and Australia are not so much in the headline rates as in the deductions.
In the US mortgage interest on a home you live in is tax deductible.
And in the US you get taxed as an economic unit with your spouse and children.
So a home owner with a big mortgage and a spouse at home looking after kids pays much less tax in the US.
Well, it's 15% for FICA (employee + employer), but there's also normal income tax, which starts at 10% and gets up to 35%. And then the state and, depending on where you live, the city have income and/or payroll tax as well (usually in the single digits).
That's "only" for social security and medicare. You still pay federal income tax on top of that.
And on top of that the state income taxes in most states, and sales taxes that usually approach 8 or 9%, and property taxes on real estate (and autos where I live). Also if you manage to save anything after all that, you can look forward to paying dividend or capital gains taxes (a form of double taxation).
It is a myth that America is a low tax nation.
It is a myth that America is a low tax nation.
Most other countries have twice that sales tax, as well as having all those other taxes. The best rough estimate of taxation burden might be proportion of government spending of GDP, which IIRC is about 35% for US, and is lower than eg most European countries.
You need to take into account what you get in addition to what you pay.
In American those taxes provide a strong military. Most of the rest of the world are very poorly equipped by comparison. Other countries get health care and education.
In American those taxes provide a strong military. Most of the rest of the world are very poorly equipped by comparison. Other countries get health care and education.
Improving foreign policy would be a cheap way to reduce military costs - relying on a militia was the American tradition up until the Cold War and is indeed one of the reasons you have the right to arms.
Keep in mind that the US is a deficit spender, so effective tax should be even lower than that figure.
Government spending as a percentage of GDP per country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_...
Another (even more) minor correction: there's no limit on the Medicare tax, currently 1.45%.
Keep in mind that there are many tax tricks you can play here too, like paying yourself dividends and writing off a lot of expenses (speak to an accountant before doing so).
Also the overhead of running a corporation (including lawyer, accountant, payroll, and general insurance) is not much if you're making over $100/hr. It is certainly less than 26.7% (ie, $75 of every $175 minus 15.3%) worth. Most of these costs are fixed, not variable.
Also the overhead of running a corporation (including lawyer, accountant, payroll, and general insurance) is not much if you're making over $100/hr. It is certainly less than 26.7% (ie, $75 of every $175 minus 15.3%) worth. Most of these costs are fixed, not variable.
my wife is a cpa/cfp, and this is how i set up my company. i write off most stuff (car, office supplies, computer equip, internet, phone, etc), and pay out yearly dividends on top of a base salary. for a one-man corporation, the overhead can be really minimal. if you can get health benefits from your spouse and keep nearly 40 hrs week in billable hours, you'll never look back.
Even using your conservative numbers, this guy is earning almost 3 times what he was previously, a fantastic effort and do envy him :-)
That's 3+ times what he was making while reducing his hours or 6+ times his salary if he is pulling overtime.
Depending on how many hours you bill, maybe. But if you have a steady client or two, bill 35 hours per week (conservative) and work 48 weeks, that's $294k. Yes there are some additional taxes (but only up to the first $105k or something) and keep in mind salaried employees pay half the "self employment" tax too..
Yep, my accountants rule of thumb is after deducting time for admin and other downtime you will be doing well to sell about 60% of your available billable hours. So that about ties up with what you are saying.
Calling that pay rate $175K/yr is beyond conservative. Maybe if he's taking off 2 months a year for vacation (another benefit of contracting!).
Much shorter, just double the hourly rate for yearly salary in K's.
Eeek, only 2 weeks holidays per year? :(
Yearly revenue = hourly rate * 2 (in thousands)
$40/hr => 80k/y $120/hr => 240k/y
$40/hr => 80k/y $120/hr => 240k/y
$x/hour * 40 hr/wk * 50 wk/yr = 2n1000
The general rule is always "times 2, add 3 zeros" to do it in your head.
The general rule is always "times 2, add 3 zeros" to do it in your head.
That would never work. You'd find some garbage in the output, or even worse, get a core dump due to n being undefined. I think you mean 2x * 1000. .... or I've been refactoring my code for too long.
But yes, this is generally the rule I use as well, take the hourly rate and double it and add a K (eg $30/hr = $60K)
Doesn't include holidays, sick leave or efficiency trade-offs (billable time vs maintenance, research). Personally I use an estimate of about 75% efficiency to get a realistic answer, so then your formula becomes 3/4 * x * 1000
So at $175/hr I'd expect something like 130,000 annually. Given that its said he's quite frugal and doesn't mind hard work, it could well end up being around the 250-300K, but I'd expect he'd end up burning out after a year or 3.
But yes, this is generally the rule I use as well, take the hourly rate and double it and add a K (eg $30/hr = $60K)
Doesn't include holidays, sick leave or efficiency trade-offs (billable time vs maintenance, research). Personally I use an estimate of about 75% efficiency to get a realistic answer, so then your formula becomes 3/4 * x * 1000
So at $175/hr I'd expect something like 130,000 annually. Given that its said he's quite frugal and doesn't mind hard work, it could well end up being around the 250-300K, but I'd expect he'd end up burning out after a year or 3.
For 75% efficiency I assume you mean 3/4 * 2 * $175 * 1000 = $262,500 / year.
3/4 on it's own is less than %40 efficiency. I.e. Taking half the year off.
You also just stated the same thing slashcom did while meaning to correct him?
3/4 on it's own is less than %40 efficiency. I.e. Taking half the year off.
You also just stated the same thing slashcom did while meaning to correct him?
[deleted]
and his bonus nearly matched the new guy's salary, which was an insulting $60K
Is it common to get ~$60k yearly bonus as a programmer? Was this for a finance-industry job? All I've seen (either myself or others) so far is a few hundred dollars to a few thousand.
Is it common to get ~$60k yearly bonus as a programmer? Was this for a finance-industry job? All I've seen (either myself or others) so far is a few hundred dollars to a few thousand.
Large firms will do 'bonus targets' as some % of your base salary. Goals are established based on measurable metrics that you probably won't feel like you can directly do much about, such as average revenue per customer. If the company hits the goals, bonuses pay at some multiple of target. E.g., 10% bonus target, it's a good year so bonuses pay double = you get 20% of your base as a bonus.
Managers will be given both a higher base salary and a higher bonus target.
Small firms are all over the map, from nothing to "finance industry".
Glassdoor suggests that no, this amount is not normal. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ~$10k be normal from a ~10-15% target. And it is certainly possible at a big company that does this sort of thing to get classified as a manager and have a 15% target payout double on a good year for 30% of base = a free car.
Small firms are all over the map, from nothing to "finance industry".
Glassdoor suggests that no, this amount is not normal. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ~$10k be normal from a ~10-15% target. And it is certainly possible at a big company that does this sort of thing to get classified as a manager and have a 15% target payout double on a good year for 30% of base = a free car.
Avoid bonus systems. Bonus systems do not work out well for non-executives. Look at the story again: the kid made out better than anyone because his $175/hr is his for as many hours as he works no matter how the company performs that year. He gets his "bonus" every hour he works. The senior dev has a whopping 30% of his yearly comp tied up in a nebulous bonus that probably gets paid out far enough into the next year that he's already earned about half of his next bonus by the time he actually gets it (i.e. makes leaving expensive).
The bonus system was originally set up for high up executives to tie their comp more exactly to company performance since they are responsible for it. As a dev you are not responsible for company performance. Are you able to sack the sales team if you feel that they're not competent? Are you able to change company direction? You can't be responsible for something you have no ability to change. People saying you do are just manipulating you to their own advantage.
The bonus system was originally set up for high up executives to tie their comp more exactly to company performance since they are responsible for it. As a dev you are not responsible for company performance. Are you able to sack the sales team if you feel that they're not competent? Are you able to change company direction? You can't be responsible for something you have no ability to change. People saying you do are just manipulating you to their own advantage.
"The bonus system was originally set up for high up executives to tie their comp more exactly to company performance since they are responsible for it. As a dev you are not responsible for company performance."
As a dev, we might not be "responsible", but we sure as hell have an impact on the performance of the company.
So many people overlook the fact that we design, build, implement, enhance and support the products that earn the company revenue. The products might not be our idea, but we are the ones executing them. And in true HN fashion, we all know an idea is nothing without the execution.
As a dev, we might not be "responsible", but we sure as hell have an impact on the performance of the company.
So many people overlook the fact that we design, build, implement, enhance and support the products that earn the company revenue. The products might not be our idea, but we are the ones executing them. And in true HN fashion, we all know an idea is nothing without the execution.
You can affect it, but that's not what the bonus system is about. It it were you would "deserve" a bonus for simply not destroying the place, since this is the only thing really somewhat under your control.
Everyone, down to the cleaning service, has some effect on the company. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Should a big chunk of everyone's compensation be based on company performance? If you do that then we're all suddenly big risk takers, and therefor vastly underpaid.
Everyone, down to the cleaning service, has some effect on the company. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Should a big chunk of everyone's compensation be based on company performance? If you do that then we're all suddenly big risk takers, and therefor vastly underpaid.
Can someone please shed some light on what would be a good strategy to follow if you were in his position talking to HR, manager, CTO?
What's the best way to save yourself once you've realized you're worth nearly double, triple, or quad your current comp pkg?
What's the best way to save yourself once you've realized you're worth nearly double, triple, or quad your current comp pkg?
Honestly, the best way to obtain your newly-discovered market worth is to leave and find another job. In almost every job your only chance of negotiating a competitive salary is before you start.
Sure, you can talk to HR and your manager and perhaps see some form of bump in salary, but if you're significantly underpaid then a) it's likely other people are too and they won't want to rock the boat, b) there's a decent chance you wouldn't leave anyway, and c) even if you do chances are they can fill your position for what they're paying you now.
Sure, you can talk to HR and your manager and perhaps see some form of bump in salary, but if you're significantly underpaid then a) it's likely other people are too and they won't want to rock the boat, b) there's a decent chance you wouldn't leave anyway, and c) even if you do chances are they can fill your position for what they're paying you now.
Agreed. Not only that, but the less people pay for your services, the less they respect those services (it doesn't feel as earned as the next guy billing twice as much).
So you pretty much have to jump. Which is likely anyways since if you were being paid less than half than everyone else around you and doing the same or better work, you'd probably be more than a little annoyed.
So you pretty much have to jump. Which is likely anyways since if you were being paid less than half than everyone else around you and doing the same or better work, you'd probably be more than a little annoyed.
This is a sad fact. There are huge (irrational?) barriers for giving employees big raises or bonuses. Take Borland for example - they'd rather sue Microsoft for brain-drain (i.e. paying the employees more) than match the offers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-279561.html
> There are huge (irrational?) barriers for giving employees big raises or bonuses.
Since they exist at almost every company, I think it seems probable that it's rational. Here's a simple possible argument for their rationality:
Creating big barriers to large raises/bonuses discourages employees from sharing salary info, since there's little they can do about it. Furthermore, the more your employees are worrying about their salary, the less they're working.
Since they exist at almost every company, I think it seems probable that it's rational. Here's a simple possible argument for their rationality:
Creating big barriers to large raises/bonuses discourages employees from sharing salary info, since there's little they can do about it. Furthermore, the more your employees are worrying about their salary, the less they're working.
> ...I think it seems probable that it's rational.
It's an example of bounded rationality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
The decisions seem rational given the perspective and limitations of the decision-makers.
It's an example of bounded rationality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
The decisions seem rational given the perspective and limitations of the decision-makers.
The easiest way is to just find another offer from another company. You're not "worth" double your current comp if you can't find it somewhere. Then you let them know that you have another offer but would prefer to stay if they can match the other offer.
Keep in mind that this happens all the time and is standard procedure in most American and European companies. As long as you act honestly, your boss will probably not hate your forever or start looking for your replacement. If your employer can't deal with negotiating over salary, you should probably just take that other offer . . .
The other option is to say that you're going to leave to go consulting. This is a harder sell because they'll think you're bluffing. You have to be ready to actually do it.
Keep in mind that this happens all the time and is standard procedure in most American and European companies. As long as you act honestly, your boss will probably not hate your forever or start looking for your replacement. If your employer can't deal with negotiating over salary, you should probably just take that other offer . . .
The other option is to say that you're going to leave to go consulting. This is a harder sell because they'll think you're bluffing. You have to be ready to actually do it.
I think that it works better if you don't say you would prefer to stay. If they want you to stay, they will make the offer anyway.
You can also use the approach suggested in "Up the Organization" where you put in your two weeks and then re-apply for your position. It's good to have, as you suggest, a best alternative to a negotiated agreement on hand (BATNA), such as a job offer from some place paying the same or more than you're getting now.
Never take the counter offer.
If you're going to go, go. If you're going to play employers to get more compensation, play prospective employers.
If you take a counter-offer from your current employer, they'll just put you on the shit list. First to go in any sort of rough terrain. First to get thrown under the bus if they need a body. And most importantly: you'll have set a new normal for salary discussions. That is, they'll feel they can simply say 'no' to every request until you're ready to leave again and then just match the offer.
They get to continue paying you X for however many months you give them; however many months it takes to find a job worth leaving for. Then they coast in and match someone else's 1.2X offer, having enjoyed months and months of paying your old salary and playing all that stress and frustration and work of getting another offer against you.
And you can be certain they'll be playing every social/moral game to make you think you shouldn't get it along the way [1].
Further, you'll have damaged the nascent relationship with the would-be hiring company. They invested nontrivial time and energy vetting and planning for you and will be miffed to find they were a pawn in a raise-play. Sure, it's a valid business decision to change your mind and turn down an offer. But those individuals will remember and give you less preference in the future [2]. Taking a counter offer from your current employer just isn't seen the same way as taking a competing offer from a third firm.
By all means, use a counter-offer to negotiate for more from would-be new employers [3]. But don't take the counter offer and stay put. Unless you really love searching for jobs and can dispassionately go through the "I'm going to quit." stage and that doesn't negatively impact your co-workers [4].
[1] "it's not a good time right now". "the economy has everyone really tightening down". "no-one's getting a raise this year". "i had to really push to get you guys a bonus, there's nothing left for salary". etc.
[2] They'll also see you as one of those "threatening to quit to get the best possible raise" people. Which is a negative for any manager who'd rather not go through that drama.
[3] Keep in mind that asking for a bid against a counter-offer can blow up if you have no intention of taking the counter. If you push for them to bid and they decline, accepting that job marks you as a certain type of negotiator, which isn't helpful for you. So if you really want to take this route, be prepared for the case where you need to actually accept the counter-offer, but continue your job search anyway.
[4] Remember that in any group-work situations, your co-workers will catch nontrivial shit when you move into the negotiating/quitting stage and they have to adjust and plan around your possibly not being there next month. Which they'll be forced to do, because management will ensure they can most-effectively bargain against you.
If you're going to go, go. If you're going to play employers to get more compensation, play prospective employers.
If you take a counter-offer from your current employer, they'll just put you on the shit list. First to go in any sort of rough terrain. First to get thrown under the bus if they need a body. And most importantly: you'll have set a new normal for salary discussions. That is, they'll feel they can simply say 'no' to every request until you're ready to leave again and then just match the offer.
They get to continue paying you X for however many months you give them; however many months it takes to find a job worth leaving for. Then they coast in and match someone else's 1.2X offer, having enjoyed months and months of paying your old salary and playing all that stress and frustration and work of getting another offer against you.
And you can be certain they'll be playing every social/moral game to make you think you shouldn't get it along the way [1].
Further, you'll have damaged the nascent relationship with the would-be hiring company. They invested nontrivial time and energy vetting and planning for you and will be miffed to find they were a pawn in a raise-play. Sure, it's a valid business decision to change your mind and turn down an offer. But those individuals will remember and give you less preference in the future [2]. Taking a counter offer from your current employer just isn't seen the same way as taking a competing offer from a third firm.
By all means, use a counter-offer to negotiate for more from would-be new employers [3]. But don't take the counter offer and stay put. Unless you really love searching for jobs and can dispassionately go through the "I'm going to quit." stage and that doesn't negatively impact your co-workers [4].
[1] "it's not a good time right now". "the economy has everyone really tightening down". "no-one's getting a raise this year". "i had to really push to get you guys a bonus, there's nothing left for salary". etc.
[2] They'll also see you as one of those "threatening to quit to get the best possible raise" people. Which is a negative for any manager who'd rather not go through that drama.
[3] Keep in mind that asking for a bid against a counter-offer can blow up if you have no intention of taking the counter. If you push for them to bid and they decline, accepting that job marks you as a certain type of negotiator, which isn't helpful for you. So if you really want to take this route, be prepared for the case where you need to actually accept the counter-offer, but continue your job search anyway.
[4] Remember that in any group-work situations, your co-workers will catch nontrivial shit when you move into the negotiating/quitting stage and they have to adjust and plan around your possibly not being there next month. Which they'll be forced to do, because management will ensure they can most-effectively bargain against you.
Apply for other jobs while at your current job. When you have an offer that you would like, go to your current employer and say "I have been offered a job for X". That's all.
They'll either decide they want to keep you on at Xish or not.
They'll either decide they want to keep you on at Xish or not.
Now the current employer will say sure we are happy to give a raise. You decline the good job offer. One week later your manager fires you....
That's what actually happened with one guy in my previous job.
He actually came to an office party in the new company but then his previous manager asked him to come back with higher salary offer. He came back and was fired . He was very lucky that our company agreed to re-offer and accept him back
That's why you get the new job conditions in writing, i.e. a new employment contract. If your old employeer fired you, you report them to the Labour Relation Commission (or whatever body is in your juristiction (assuming you're not in the USA, who's employement law is about as good as China's democracy laws))
Visit www.paynegotiation.com (disclosure this is my friends site!)
Sounds like a Google story.
But regardless, some people define 'winning' as getting more out of you than you get out of them. Sometimes those people get into management positions, and when they do their groups seem to develop really wide pay ranges for the same amount of work. If you're a senior manager and one of your managers is trying to get points because "I can convince him to join for half what the last guy cost." then you need to jump on that problem right away.
Managers have the challenge when they pay someone $X but they aren't doing the same level or quality of work of someone making $X - $Y. As a manager you have three choices: 1) Bring the lower paid person up to an equivalent level 2) Fire the guy making "too much" and replace with someone who is more calibrated to your organization. 3) Engage in a potentially unsuccessful campaign to bring the contribution up of the under performer.
Of the three #1 is the "easy" one (giving people raises is always pretty easy), #2 is the "quick" one (especially if you're in a place where turn over is expected) and #3 is perhaps the biggest gamble (both the opportunity cost of not having the guy perform and the possibility he may never get there). It's one of those things that is different about being a manager vs being an individual contributor.
Things are weirder in pre-IPO + post-IPO worlds where people assume that if they are throwing around a bunch of money its because they got it from stock or something. It can be psychologically difficult on someone who has a lot of money due to an IPO but is doing the same "level" of work as someone who joined later and got post IPO stock. Harder to manage and harder to deal with morale issues if they start 'resting and vesting'.
Google was famous for having a 'personal multiplier' which would adjust your bonus and a 'median salary' for your pay grade but they wouldn't tell you either of those numbers (they made it a policy not too) so it was impossible to back check to see whether or not your bonus reflected your work or was just a beauty contest. When the company won't tell you what the median salary is for your pay grade that should be a red flag. But not sharing individual points across the spectrum I can see the argument for that.
But regardless, some people define 'winning' as getting more out of you than you get out of them. Sometimes those people get into management positions, and when they do their groups seem to develop really wide pay ranges for the same amount of work. If you're a senior manager and one of your managers is trying to get points because "I can convince him to join for half what the last guy cost." then you need to jump on that problem right away.
Managers have the challenge when they pay someone $X but they aren't doing the same level or quality of work of someone making $X - $Y. As a manager you have three choices: 1) Bring the lower paid person up to an equivalent level 2) Fire the guy making "too much" and replace with someone who is more calibrated to your organization. 3) Engage in a potentially unsuccessful campaign to bring the contribution up of the under performer.
Of the three #1 is the "easy" one (giving people raises is always pretty easy), #2 is the "quick" one (especially if you're in a place where turn over is expected) and #3 is perhaps the biggest gamble (both the opportunity cost of not having the guy perform and the possibility he may never get there). It's one of those things that is different about being a manager vs being an individual contributor.
Things are weirder in pre-IPO + post-IPO worlds where people assume that if they are throwing around a bunch of money its because they got it from stock or something. It can be psychologically difficult on someone who has a lot of money due to an IPO but is doing the same "level" of work as someone who joined later and got post IPO stock. Harder to manage and harder to deal with morale issues if they start 'resting and vesting'.
Google was famous for having a 'personal multiplier' which would adjust your bonus and a 'median salary' for your pay grade but they wouldn't tell you either of those numbers (they made it a policy not too) so it was impossible to back check to see whether or not your bonus reflected your work or was just a beauty contest. When the company won't tell you what the median salary is for your pay grade that should be a red flag. But not sharing individual points across the spectrum I can see the argument for that.
That guy could have been me. Modest upbringing, lean living, doormat at negotiations, accepting absurdly low compensation because it seemed like the thing to do at the time, check check check. I'm glad he is doing better now.
That said, mission effing accomplished for the company: they're well north of a million dollars richer because good little kids don't drop their drawers or talk salary numbers. This topic makes me feel positively Marxist: we're willingly participating in a system designed and perpetuated to exploit us because to do otherwise would be impolite.
That said, mission effing accomplished for the company: they're well north of a million dollars richer because good little kids don't drop their drawers or talk salary numbers. This topic makes me feel positively Marxist: we're willingly participating in a system designed and perpetuated to exploit us because to do otherwise would be impolite.
Ah yes. The old bit where social/moral obligations and judgments are only applied to normal citizens and never corporate citizens.
When a private individual walks away from an underwater mortgage because the deal suddenly sucks, they're seen as a scum-bag leech whose word isn't worth dirt. Get the economic-justice crowd in on the discussion and they start bandying about "debtor's prisons" and erecting straw-men for the dead-beat bonfire.
But when a bank walks away from an underwater property because the deal suddenly sucks, they're seen as smart. Shrewd. Walking might even be a bonus-worthy decision.
Not that private individuals are incapable of screwing one another over and somehow dodging social judgment [1]. It's just far, far less common. And the best treatment they get is a polite look in the other direction. No-one's printing an Op-Ed celebrating those decisions and castigating any attempts at socio-moral critique.
[1] For some reason we all look the other way when it comes to immigrant au-pairs. And that's horrible.
When a private individual walks away from an underwater mortgage because the deal suddenly sucks, they're seen as a scum-bag leech whose word isn't worth dirt. Get the economic-justice crowd in on the discussion and they start bandying about "debtor's prisons" and erecting straw-men for the dead-beat bonfire.
But when a bank walks away from an underwater property because the deal suddenly sucks, they're seen as smart. Shrewd. Walking might even be a bonus-worthy decision.
Not that private individuals are incapable of screwing one another over and somehow dodging social judgment [1]. It's just far, far less common. And the best treatment they get is a polite look in the other direction. No-one's printing an Op-Ed celebrating those decisions and castigating any attempts at socio-moral critique.
[1] For some reason we all look the other way when it comes to immigrant au-pairs. And that's horrible.
Loved your tweets on salary negotiations from last night, pity I haven't properly followed through on them in recent times.
I've learned an interesting relation regarding salaries myself. It's not about the amount that you can live with, or what you think you need but about appreciation. I was such an idiot earlier: this whole angle was anything but clear to me.
Early in my career I never asked much and I was quite happy with what I got because I didn't spend that much. All my salaries were big enough compared to the previous salary that I didn't even think much about the fairness of it all. Given also that as a programmer I was still enjoying better than the average national salary and still better than my dad.
But eventually I realized that the only tangible way a company can truly appreciate a good employee is biting the bullet and by paying him a bigger compensation.
Even if he doesn't need it.
In the previous job I stayed for five years. Year by year I started to wonder when will they give me a raise: I still liked the job and I was considered a good programmer. I was already approaching the senior status earlier, but they reworked their career plan and bumped seniority forward into the future. Of course, seniority would have meant some standard increase in the salary. It took me those five years to determine my own value and at the end of it, I left at the brink of my five-year review that turned into an exit interview in promptu.
It wasn't about me physically needing more money: it was about me deserving being paid more money for my skills and experience, about my employer actually acknowledging their appreciation towards my contributions.
These days, I enjoy about the double of the average salary in my country. Quite a considerable increase! I still don't need all that money which has allowed me both to voluntarily work part-time and to also invest part of my earnings monthly. But now I feel like finally receiving each month the appreciation I never got in the previous job. Given my skills and experience, I'm being paid much closer to my market value now and that is what matters, eventhough I still live a small life and could easily live on my old salary.
Job markets are like any other markets: the correct price is not the cost of production plus some profit (or employee's cost of living + some more) but an arbitrary agreement between the smallest amount an employee will accept and the highest amount the employer will pay, an agreement that makes both equally happy.
The next time I'll negotiate a salary, I will have a request ready for an amount that is high enough that I won't be in a hurry to get a raise, but which is hopefully within reasonable limits depending on the job. In the case it's too high for the company, I'm willing to scale back the salary along with my monthly hours, linearly.
But my value per hour remains the same. I know my worth now.
Early in my career I never asked much and I was quite happy with what I got because I didn't spend that much. All my salaries were big enough compared to the previous salary that I didn't even think much about the fairness of it all. Given also that as a programmer I was still enjoying better than the average national salary and still better than my dad.
But eventually I realized that the only tangible way a company can truly appreciate a good employee is biting the bullet and by paying him a bigger compensation.
Even if he doesn't need it.
In the previous job I stayed for five years. Year by year I started to wonder when will they give me a raise: I still liked the job and I was considered a good programmer. I was already approaching the senior status earlier, but they reworked their career plan and bumped seniority forward into the future. Of course, seniority would have meant some standard increase in the salary. It took me those five years to determine my own value and at the end of it, I left at the brink of my five-year review that turned into an exit interview in promptu.
It wasn't about me physically needing more money: it was about me deserving being paid more money for my skills and experience, about my employer actually acknowledging their appreciation towards my contributions.
These days, I enjoy about the double of the average salary in my country. Quite a considerable increase! I still don't need all that money which has allowed me both to voluntarily work part-time and to also invest part of my earnings monthly. But now I feel like finally receiving each month the appreciation I never got in the previous job. Given my skills and experience, I'm being paid much closer to my market value now and that is what matters, eventhough I still live a small life and could easily live on my old salary.
Job markets are like any other markets: the correct price is not the cost of production plus some profit (or employee's cost of living + some more) but an arbitrary agreement between the smallest amount an employee will accept and the highest amount the employer will pay, an agreement that makes both equally happy.
The next time I'll negotiate a salary, I will have a request ready for an amount that is high enough that I won't be in a hurry to get a raise, but which is hopefully within reasonable limits depending on the job. In the case it's too high for the company, I'm willing to scale back the salary along with my monthly hours, linearly.
But my value per hour remains the same. I know my worth now.
the only tangible way a company can truly appreciate a good employee is biting the bullet and by paying him a bigger compensation
Exactly! A lot of people say what they really want at work is to be appreciated by their boss. Well he will appreciate you a hell of a lot if the money that should be in YOUR salary is in his instead!
Exactly! A lot of people say what they really want at work is to be appreciated by their boss. Well he will appreciate you a hell of a lot if the money that should be in YOUR salary is in his instead!
Here's a trick I once heard to share salary with your coworkers without the uncomfortableness of finding out you are over or under-paid.
Over beers with several of your coworkers, each write down your salary on a piece of paper and then mix them up. Randomly draw them out of a hat and then read them to each other.
If you're all roughly peers, then you get all the benefit of knowing the salary range of the group, with none of the downside of feeling embarrassed about making much more or less than your peers.
Over beers with several of your coworkers, each write down your salary on a piece of paper and then mix them up. Randomly draw them out of a hat and then read them to each other.
If you're all roughly peers, then you get all the benefit of knowing the salary range of the group, with none of the downside of feeling embarrassed about making much more or less than your peers.
Good idea! Although for the most part if you don't work with people you consider friends this subject would never come up.
[deleted]
Another method I've heard: person 1 picks a large random number, adds their salary to it, writes down the resulting number, and passes it on to person 2. Person 2 adds their salary to the number, writes down the new sum, and passes it on to person 3. This continues until the result gets back to person 1. You end up with the large random number plus the sum of everyone's salary. Person 1 then subtracts the large random number and reports the sum of all the salaries.
This depends on people being able to do arithmetic after a few beers, though.
This depends on people being able to do arithmetic after a few beers, though.
That reminds me of a technique for randomly selecting someone in a small group. Suppose that there are 6 people. On the count of 3 everyone has to hold out 0-5 fingers. Add the numbers mod 6, and that selects the person.
The funny thing about it is that as long as anyone picks randomly, the answer is perfectly random. But everyone can feel some sense of control.
The funny thing about it is that as long as anyone picks randomly, the answer is perfectly random. But everyone can feel some sense of control.
Well, everyone can feel some sense of chaos, since anyone can randomize the result but no one can force the result.
This is better because it determines the average but not distribution. Imagine what would happen if there were five $70k salaries and one $165k salary for six people doing the same work. People would suddenly get very uncomfortable.
One technical gripe: you forgot that the arithmetic needs to be modular to guarantee anonymity. Let's just say the large random number is chosen between 0 and 9,999,999. (You need a range because there's no such thing as a "random uniform" integer.) Now let's say that Person 1's salary is 100,000 and that large random number is 9,999,935. Now Person 2 gets handed 10,099,935 and knows that Person 1 makes at least $99,936, because the "large random number" couldn't have been any higher than 9,999,999. If modular arithmetic is used, with the modulus being the upper bound on the "large random number", then nothing like this is ever given away. Person 2 gets handed 99,935... which could be 9,999,935 + 100,000, or 4,935 + 95,000, or 9,099,935 + 1,000,000, or 99,934 + 1. (Of course, the modulus needs to be big enough that there's no doubt that it's going to be larger than the sum of the salaries.)
One technical gripe: you forgot that the arithmetic needs to be modular to guarantee anonymity. Let's just say the large random number is chosen between 0 and 9,999,999. (You need a range because there's no such thing as a "random uniform" integer.) Now let's say that Person 1's salary is 100,000 and that large random number is 9,999,935. Now Person 2 gets handed 10,099,935 and knows that Person 1 makes at least $99,936, because the "large random number" couldn't have been any higher than 9,999,999. If modular arithmetic is used, with the modulus being the upper bound on the "large random number", then nothing like this is ever given away. Person 2 gets handed 99,935... which could be 9,999,935 + 100,000, or 4,935 + 95,000, or 9,099,935 + 1,000,000, or 99,934 + 1. (Of course, the modulus needs to be big enough that there's no doubt that it's going to be larger than the sum of the salaries.)
>Imagine what would happen if there were five $70k salaries and one $165k salary for six people doing the same work. People would suddenly get very uncomfortable.
Isn't that the entire point of the first exercise however? If the 165k salary isn't completely obvious, then it should make people feel uncomfortable - they are being shafted.
Isn't that the entire point of the first exercise however? If the 165k salary isn't completely obvious, then it should make people feel uncomfortable - they are being shafted.
If you're getting the $165k, you're not going to be very enthusiastic about this exercise.
The modular-arithmetic alternative is better, at least in terms of political stability: they figure out that there's an average of $86k. Then the people making $70k all negotiate up to $90k and, even if getting shafted, people are happier.
The modular-arithmetic alternative is better, at least in terms of political stability: they figure out that there's an average of $86k. Then the people making $70k all negotiate up to $90k and, even if getting shafted, people are happier.
> If you're getting the $165k, you're not going to be very enthusiastic about this exercise.
Why not? I'd be completely fine being the odd one out, especially if it helped to encourage my lower-paid co-workers to renegotiate their salaries.
The whole point of this exercise, IMO, is to determine if there's inequity, and how much. I'd want to know the full salary range, not just the average. Companies rely on you knowing very little about your peers' salaries; more information can only help you, even if it might make you feel a little bad.
Why not? I'd be completely fine being the odd one out, especially if it helped to encourage my lower-paid co-workers to renegotiate their salaries.
The whole point of this exercise, IMO, is to determine if there's inequity, and how much. I'd want to know the full salary range, not just the average. Companies rely on you knowing very little about your peers' salaries; more information can only help you, even if it might make you feel a little bad.
Why would you, as an employee, care about "political stability"?
Because you have to actually work with those other people?
Of course other employees should aim angst about unfairness at management. But they won't. Not entirely. And that overflow can be enough to nudge relationships from friendly to strained/tense-professional, or not-particularly-friendly-but-professional relationships straight into unproductive-leaning-towards-toxic territory.
I was in a group of developers who had the hat method essentially performed for them [1]. Relationships changed [2]. Even after the discrepancies were largely corrected, the relationships remained strained.
[1] The short version goes: the comptroller's office was compiling stats on salary ranges for comparison to regional averages (back during the bubble, when management was paranoid about being behind the curve on pay and losing talent). Someone either needed help with a formula from, or just directly leaked the data to, a developer friend. That developer, upon seeing the wide variance, shared with the group.
And let's just say it was surprisingly trivial to map the outlying data points to names.
[2] Which is why I'd recommend the calculated average method over the hat method. It's better to see your position relative to the group, than to see the raw data that can impact interpersonal relationships.
Of course other employees should aim angst about unfairness at management. But they won't. Not entirely. And that overflow can be enough to nudge relationships from friendly to strained/tense-professional, or not-particularly-friendly-but-professional relationships straight into unproductive-leaning-towards-toxic territory.
I was in a group of developers who had the hat method essentially performed for them [1]. Relationships changed [2]. Even after the discrepancies were largely corrected, the relationships remained strained.
[1] The short version goes: the comptroller's office was compiling stats on salary ranges for comparison to regional averages (back during the bubble, when management was paranoid about being behind the curve on pay and losing talent). Someone either needed help with a formula from, or just directly leaked the data to, a developer friend. That developer, upon seeing the wide variance, shared with the group.
And let's just say it was surprisingly trivial to map the outlying data points to names.
[2] Which is why I'd recommend the calculated average method over the hat method. It's better to see your position relative to the group, than to see the raw data that can impact interpersonal relationships.
You could get the same effect just by not defining an upper bound for the number, or if he really wants it to be secret, the first person could just not choose a number that close to the upper bound. It's not like this is something so out of the participants' control that we need to overcomplicate the math.
Umm...what? The first person just picks a number, there's no RNG involved, no need to tell anyone a range. I know we're taught to plan for edge cases, but I find this pretty silly.
edit: Nevermind the second point, I basically echoed what run4yourlives said - I think the averaging somewhat defeats the purpose. "Political stability" is the whole reason they ask not to disclose salaries in the first place.
edit: Nevermind the second point, I basically echoed what run4yourlives said - I think the averaging somewhat defeats the purpose. "Political stability" is the whole reason they ask not to disclose salaries in the first place.
I'd be more comfortable with a real random (at least pseudorandom) number. Humans are terrible at generating random numbers and information could be given away on account of this. For example, people tend to favor 5s and 6s when generating "random" large numbers.
Ok, I picked a fake random number with my terrible human random number generator. I added my salary and got 65419563.
It's easier to guess someones salary than it is to guess the random number they generated (in order to figure out their salary).
It's easier to guess someones salary than it is to guess the random number they generated (in order to figure out their salary).
I didn't worry about the technical details because I just figured that people would write down random strings of digits. But this is all true.
Very nice idea, but wouldn't the handwriting give away who owns what? Maybe everyone should print their salary in Arial 12 Bold on a 1" by 2" piece of paper, so that there will be no clues to who made what note. OTOH, this might be a bit complicated in a pub setting ('over beers').
Time to knock up salaryshare.com?
(oh look, it's already registered)
(oh look, it's already registered)
I just registered salaryshare.me. Let me see if I can get something going tonight.
Done and done! http://salaryshare.me
I also submitted it to HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2441888
I also submitted it to HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2441888
Whoah, that's quick! The result looks nice. Is the code open source? I'm curious how you did it.
We did this amongst ten of us, but as the beers flowed everybody kept asking about the numbers (one person was significantly higher than the others) and by the end everyone knew what each other was getting.
The bottom two people had left within a year... go figure!!
The bottom two people had left within a year... go figure!!
If the bottom two people were people that the company didn't want to lose, sounds like management wasn't doing their job.
If they were people you wanted to lose, good job!
If they were people you wanted to lose, good job!
Consider a hypothetical scenario for the person on the other side of the table:
You are hiring up an engineering team and hope to hire up a team of 10 engineers paying 100k/yr each. So far you've hired 9 people at 100k and are working on filling that last slot. You find someone perfect but he has a competing job offer and is asking for 110k/yr instead of just 100. He's no better than the other 9 people you have already hired.
In a situation with relatively secret salaries it might make sense to go ahead and pay the 110k. It's only a 1% increase in your yearly budget which probably isn't a deal breaker.
But in a situation with relatively public salaries you're in a bad spot. You can either not hire him thus prolonging your search, or you can hire him and face potential moral/teamwork problems. Maybe you can hire him and bump everyone else's salaries up to 110k but a 10% budget increase might not be feasible. So the company is a bit screwed in this situation. And to the extent that the companies success is also the success of individual employees the individual employees might be a little screwed too.
I've made this scenario simpler than what reality would generally look like but the same principal holds.
In nearly every situation in which I've had insight into engineer's compensation I know for a fact that fairness has always been a top priority. But it's worthwhile to see that it sometimes can't be the only priority and to understand how the salary taboo fits into this.
You are hiring up an engineering team and hope to hire up a team of 10 engineers paying 100k/yr each. So far you've hired 9 people at 100k and are working on filling that last slot. You find someone perfect but he has a competing job offer and is asking for 110k/yr instead of just 100. He's no better than the other 9 people you have already hired.
In a situation with relatively secret salaries it might make sense to go ahead and pay the 110k. It's only a 1% increase in your yearly budget which probably isn't a deal breaker.
But in a situation with relatively public salaries you're in a bad spot. You can either not hire him thus prolonging your search, or you can hire him and face potential moral/teamwork problems. Maybe you can hire him and bump everyone else's salaries up to 110k but a 10% budget increase might not be feasible. So the company is a bit screwed in this situation. And to the extent that the companies success is also the success of individual employees the individual employees might be a little screwed too.
I've made this scenario simpler than what reality would generally look like but the same principal holds.
In nearly every situation in which I've had insight into engineer's compensation I know for a fact that fairness has always been a top priority. But it's worthwhile to see that it sometimes can't be the only priority and to understand how the salary taboo fits into this.
Keep the offer at 100K. If he's no better than the others, you can find another one. If you keep missing out on hiring because other companies pay more, then you need to raise your standard salary, because all your other engineers will jump ship within a year or two.
But what if it had already cost $10k in resources to recruit him and get him this far? What if it costs $10k to find the next person who will accept $100k? Then it's a wash, and all you've done is lost time.
It's only a wash if your only gauge is money. If you hire him, you've potentially sacrificed moral. Sure, it isn't immediately meassurable in dollars, but it is still an important price to pay.
Well these engineers weren't savvy enough to figure out that they could make 110K right now. Who's to say they will in two years? Or maybe you just give them a raise to 110K in two years and they'll be happy with that and never figure out they're worth 125K now.
The parent said "if you're having problems filling the position". If you're having problems filling the position because other companies are paying more that's going to come out sooner or later.
Several strategies exist:
1. Bump everyone to $105k and ask if he's willing to take that number. If he's going to turn the job down over $5,000, do you really want him?
2. Offer him a $10,000 signing bonus and the same salary as everyone else.
3. Hire him at $110k but give him more responsibility-- including tasks that the other developers don't want to do, such as responsibility for 3:00 am phone calls when the database dies. How many people are going to complain about someone else making 10% more than they are when that "someone else" is taking on the worst projects with a smile and giving them more time to work on the good projects?
4. Discuss it with the team. Are they willing to hire this person at a higher salary than they are themselves going to get? Maybe they think he's quite good and want to work with him. Maybe they think he's not worth it. There's a lot of valuable information that can come out of this discussion.
1. Bump everyone to $105k and ask if he's willing to take that number. If he's going to turn the job down over $5,000, do you really want him?
2. Offer him a $10,000 signing bonus and the same salary as everyone else.
3. Hire him at $110k but give him more responsibility-- including tasks that the other developers don't want to do, such as responsibility for 3:00 am phone calls when the database dies. How many people are going to complain about someone else making 10% more than they are when that "someone else" is taking on the worst projects with a smile and giving them more time to work on the good projects?
4. Discuss it with the team. Are they willing to hire this person at a higher salary than they are themselves going to get? Maybe they think he's quite good and want to work with him. Maybe they think he's not worth it. There's a lot of valuable information that can come out of this discussion.
Re: "If he's going to turn the job down over $5,000, do you really want him?"
Couldn't the same be said from the applicant's perspective? If a prospective employer is going to nickel and dime you over 5k, do you really want to work for them?
Couldn't the same be said from the applicant's perspective? If a prospective employer is going to nickel and dime you over 5k, do you really want to work for them?
A good work place environment is easily worth $10k in salary. If a manager were up front with me - "Hey we pay everyone the same rate, and everyone else makes this much. Still interested?" - I would consider that to be a good sign.
I am not sure I agree with this idea. Does that mean we all stay the same forever? What if I work extra hard and others are slacking? Are they all really the same skill level to begin with?
Sounds great that we all make the same until someone is working harder or less hard than someone else, then it will be a sore spot.
Sounds great that we all make the same until someone is working harder or less hard than someone else, then it will be a sore spot.
There is no way I would ever take a job at such a joint, even if the original offer was fantastic.
If I create a lot of value, I want to be able to capture a portion of it in my salary. I don't want to capture some average wage determined by a manager who doesn't have the guts to admit, even privately, that some people create more value than others.
If I create a lot of value, I want to be able to capture a portion of it in my salary. I don't want to capture some average wage determined by a manager who doesn't have the guts to admit, even privately, that some people create more value than others.
I wouldn't simply because I wouldn't trust the boss not to cheat me.
With this article and the one yesterday I am going to assume that in any salary negotiation the other guy is trying to cheat me, so I would just ignore that.
With this article and the one yesterday I am going to assume that in any salary negotiation the other guy is trying to cheat me, so I would just ignore that.
At that point, you ask the team. Tell them, you've found someone perfect, but they're asking for 110, and you can't afford it for everyone. They should have been on the interviews, so they'll know if it's worth it.
[deleted](1)
Here's what I though you were going to say:
You're hiring up an engineering team. You have five slots. Four are filled at market salaries. The four people range in productivity from marginal to good-at-stuff-no-one-else-likes, but none of them are that great. You almost have to keep the four folks, because they're entrenched in deliverables and plus, they've shown their dedication to the company.
In walks a candidate who's got the skills to single handedly deliver a major component of a product you have committed to make. You don't have but 50-60K left in the salary budget and the hires you've made so far don't exactly make you look like a genius.
The kid has no idea what he's worth, which is north of $130K, and asks for $55K. What do you do?
Ask the board for more money to give him what he's worth?
Fire someone else to give him what he's worth?
Or, hire him for $55K?
You're hiring up an engineering team. You have five slots. Four are filled at market salaries. The four people range in productivity from marginal to good-at-stuff-no-one-else-likes, but none of them are that great. You almost have to keep the four folks, because they're entrenched in deliverables and plus, they've shown their dedication to the company.
In walks a candidate who's got the skills to single handedly deliver a major component of a product you have committed to make. You don't have but 50-60K left in the salary budget and the hires you've made so far don't exactly make you look like a genius.
The kid has no idea what he's worth, which is north of $130K, and asks for $55K. What do you do?
Ask the board for more money to give him what he's worth?
Fire someone else to give him what he's worth?
Or, hire him for $55K?
The first step should be giving some disclosure to the candidate. Say, "55k? You're so silly. We'd hire you for much more than that, we only pay fair salaries here. Let me talk to my people and see what we can make available."
If the other people aren't providing a value commensurate with their compensation, you should fire them whether you have an expensive replacement on tap or not. If they are providing such a value, it's probably better to keep them in place. Too often people overestimate new hires and underestimate the value of institutional knowledge. But if you have people that need to be fired anyway, that'd be a good opportunity to do it.
If your bosses think you're an idiot, you should leave. If you ask the board for more money and they have more money to give, they'll probably give it, unless they think you're an idiot, and then you should quit.
If there's no way you can get the additional allocation, just tell the candidate that you'll hire him at 55k for now if he's still interested and give him a bump when the money for a raise materializes.
If you're upfront with people, life is much easier, and you'll find yourself looking over your shoulder much less. :)
If the other people aren't providing a value commensurate with their compensation, you should fire them whether you have an expensive replacement on tap or not. If they are providing such a value, it's probably better to keep them in place. Too often people overestimate new hires and underestimate the value of institutional knowledge. But if you have people that need to be fired anyway, that'd be a good opportunity to do it.
If your bosses think you're an idiot, you should leave. If you ask the board for more money and they have more money to give, they'll probably give it, unless they think you're an idiot, and then you should quit.
If there's no way you can get the additional allocation, just tell the candidate that you'll hire him at 55k for now if he's still interested and give him a bump when the money for a raise materializes.
If you're upfront with people, life is much easier, and you'll find yourself looking over your shoulder much less. :)
I think the "surplus effect" here would also be nice. If he was willing to accept $55k and you say, "tell you what, let's make that $75k because we really like you," you're going to get a very happy employee, because he perceives that you just gave him $20k he wasn't expecting. Whereas if he just threw out $75k and you said "fine," it doesn't feel like a gift.
You could get a similar, cheaper surplus effect with all your employees by throwing in perks. "Now that we've agreed on salary, we also want to give you an extra personal day each month," or a laptop, or a trip to a conference, or a weekly lunch, or something else that's nice but not incredibly expensive.
You could get a similar, cheaper surplus effect with all your employees by throwing in perks. "Now that we've agreed on salary, we also want to give you an extra personal day each month," or a laptop, or a trip to a conference, or a weekly lunch, or something else that's nice but not incredibly expensive.
Couldn't agree more!
Hiring him for $55k is, in all likelihood, going to result in him quitting when he realizes that he's been unfairly exploited. It's just a matter of time until he discovers his true worth.
Why are you even interviewing if you can't afford to hire someone who asks for a reasonable salary comparable to your existing developers?
I just want to say that I think that most of the replies to this question are silly. Just hire the guy, small variances in salary shouldn't be a problem and you don't want to have people who are so petty about compensation. You don't have to "ask the team"; just don't hire people whose feelings get hurt over 10k.
The point of transparent salary is to provide a general gauge of salary fairness, not to allow people to obsess about equality, money, and why someone does or doesn't deserve a little bit more than someone (or everyone) else.
Personally, I don't think a "posted salary" policy is a great idea; it would just cause a feeling of pettiness and entitlement and divert the employees' focus. I think you should just hire people at fair rates, and then it's no skin off your back if the numbers get out. If the person undervalues himself, you should offer a rate commensurate with the value and income he'll generate on behalf of the company instead of doing the immoral thing and leveraging his ignorance for financial or political benefit.
The point of transparent salary is to provide a general gauge of salary fairness, not to allow people to obsess about equality, money, and why someone does or doesn't deserve a little bit more than someone (or everyone) else.
Personally, I don't think a "posted salary" policy is a great idea; it would just cause a feeling of pettiness and entitlement and divert the employees' focus. I think you should just hire people at fair rates, and then it's no skin off your back if the numbers get out. If the person undervalues himself, you should offer a rate commensurate with the value and income he'll generate on behalf of the company instead of doing the immoral thing and leveraging his ignorance for financial or political benefit.
> So the company is a bit screwed in this situation.
Yes, and the problem is the company is passing on (externalizing) that screwedness onto their employees.
Yes, and the problem is the company is passing on (externalizing) that screwedness onto their employees.
He's no better than the other 9 people you have already hired.
Except, for the purpose of salary, he is better than the other 9 people you have already hired, in that he has a competing offer and the others didn't. Unfortunately, it's not just about programming skill, it's about marketability.
Except, for the purpose of salary, he is better than the other 9 people you have already hired, in that he has a competing offer and the others didn't. Unfortunately, it's not just about programming skill, it's about marketability.
>You find someone perfect but he has a competing job offer and is asking for 110k/yr instead of just 100. He's no better than the other 9 people you have already hired.
If he's not better than any of the other people working for you, these people can also presumably get a $110k job. Otherwise, if they can't, he is better; the market deems it so, and the solution is to publicly give the guy $110k. Is it fair? Well, it's not biased -- it certainly isn't egalitarian, but were I an employee making $100k in this situation I'd much prefer transparency to shadiness!
If he's not better than any of the other people working for you, these people can also presumably get a $110k job. Otherwise, if they can't, he is better; the market deems it so, and the solution is to publicly give the guy $110k. Is it fair? Well, it's not biased -- it certainly isn't egalitarian, but were I an employee making $100k in this situation I'd much prefer transparency to shadiness!
As a developer who, admittedly, has never had trouble finding a salary I'm satisfied with, and who is comfortable negotiating, I'm not a fan of transparency. It seems like it would cause more problems than it solves.
If salaries are private, then salary is purely a function of negotiation between employer and employee. Presumably both are happy, or at least happy enough not to terminate the relationship.
If salaries are public, however, then a ton of other variables get thrown into the mix. For example, it's possible to end up in a situation where I'd be happy to stay for a certain salary, and my employer would be happy to give me that salary to keep me, but because they can't offer all my peers the same salary, it doesn't work out, and nobody is happy.
And that doesn't even take into account all the extra interpersonal conflict and rivalry that transparent salaries could cause.
The mitigation for both of these issues is, of course, is to base compensation on objective performance rankings. But that's a nontrivial problem. How do you compare a sales guy to a developer to a DBA? Even if you did come up with a mostly fair solution, it would still invite endless discussion and dissatisfaction from people who feel the system wasn't evaluating them properly.
If salaries are private, then salary is purely a function of negotiation between employer and employee. Presumably both are happy, or at least happy enough not to terminate the relationship.
If salaries are public, however, then a ton of other variables get thrown into the mix. For example, it's possible to end up in a situation where I'd be happy to stay for a certain salary, and my employer would be happy to give me that salary to keep me, but because they can't offer all my peers the same salary, it doesn't work out, and nobody is happy.
And that doesn't even take into account all the extra interpersonal conflict and rivalry that transparent salaries could cause.
The mitigation for both of these issues is, of course, is to base compensation on objective performance rankings. But that's a nontrivial problem. How do you compare a sales guy to a developer to a DBA? Even if you did come up with a mostly fair solution, it would still invite endless discussion and dissatisfaction from people who feel the system wasn't evaluating them properly.
I can't upvote this enough.
Most people can (and shoul) say NO to salary history questions, and only provide salary requirements. I just finished working on a group to hire someone for a state job. One candidate came from another state job and so his salary history was visible. It immediately put him at a disadvantage.
If I was to move to the private sector, I'd be at a disadvantage too - my salary history and benefits package is public info too.
When someone else besides you and your current employer knows your salary information, you lose.
Most people can (and shoul) say NO to salary history questions, and only provide salary requirements. I just finished working on a group to hire someone for a state job. One candidate came from another state job and so his salary history was visible. It immediately put him at a disadvantage.
If I was to move to the private sector, I'd be at a disadvantage too - my salary history and benefits package is public info too.
When someone else besides you and your current employer knows your salary information, you lose.
I disagree. First of all, workplace social conflicts develop very fast and are often irrational in nature. If salaries are public knowledge, then people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it. It's mildly annoying, but as long as people are happy with what they're making and with their own job security, they aren't going to risk their jobs or reputations over it. It's when secrets are discovered that people become irrational, angry, and vindictive. Othello teaches this lesson. Dude discovers a scarf in the wrong place and loses all sense of reason, and kills his innocent wife in the process.
People would get angry and leave in a public-salary system. My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system.
Annual performance bonuses should probably be secret. The ranges or "buckets" for each year/class/job description should be public; who fell into what bucket should be private.
People would get angry and leave in a public-salary system. My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system.
Annual performance bonuses should probably be secret. The ranges or "buckets" for each year/class/job description should be public; who fell into what bucket should be private.
>people have time to accept that there's just that one incompetent guy making 20% more than he should and within a few hours they forget about it.
Really? I'm not sure about that.
>My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system.
I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary.
I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.)
All in all, transparent salaries don't really work that well for the government. What makes you think the corporate sector could do better?
Really? I'm not sure about that.
>My contention is that people discover a lot of this information anyway and get more angry in a private-salary system.
I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary.
I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.)
All in all, transparent salaries don't really work that well for the government. What makes you think the corporate sector could do better?
I've never personally heard of a person getting upset upon discovering someone else's private salary.
I have, on several occasions. I've been that upset person once, even.
I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.)
And that's exactly how it should be. If you're far more valuable than a peer but are being paid the same or less, you should be dissatisfied. Ignorance may be bliss, but I'd rather know I'm getting shafted so I can either renegotiate or look for a better opportunity.
I have, on several occasions. I've been that upset person once, even.
I know lots of people who are dissatisfied because they're obviously far more valuable than a peer at the same level, and lots of people who are resented because of their parasitism at a higher-level job. (This is in the government system, where salaries are pretty transparent.)
And that's exactly how it should be. If you're far more valuable than a peer but are being paid the same or less, you should be dissatisfied. Ignorance may be bliss, but I'd rather know I'm getting shafted so I can either renegotiate or look for a better opportunity.
If you're far more valuable than a peer but are being paid the same or less, you should be dissatisfied.
Value is not only completely subjective, but almost always biased. Most people think they are more valuable than their peers, and most are wrong.
Value is not only completely subjective, but almost always biased. Most people think they are more valuable than their peers, and most are wrong.
I didn't say "peers" (plural). I said "peer." It's one thing to take your peers as a whole and say you're better than them (and I'd agree that, by definition, if most people make that determination, they're wrong), but a very different thing to take a single peer and believe that you're better. You may still be wrong, but it's easier to semi-objectively evaluate differences between your skills and a single other person's.
Of course everyone is biased to some extent, but the bottom line is that some people will correctly assess as skills difference. If you have 10 people of varying ability (even only slightly varying), all making the same amount, 5 of them will be equal or better than the average of all of them.
Of course everyone is biased to some extent, but the bottom line is that some people will correctly assess as skills difference. If you have 10 people of varying ability (even only slightly varying), all making the same amount, 5 of them will be equal or better than the average of all of them.
Then they should get unhappy, they should test the market and they should find out that they're wrong. Who knows, maybe they'll realize they need to step up their game.
I really hate this "just keep 'em dumb and happy" nonsense. We're not children (and you shouldn't treat children like that either).
I really hate this "just keep 'em dumb and happy" nonsense. We're not children (and you shouldn't treat children like that either).
I'm a state employee and my salary is public so take my experiences for a grain of salt if you work in the private sector.
We do get pissed about people making more money for less work, but we get over it. The people in it until retirement (and their 80% pension) know they're sitting on too sweet a deal to care. Those that know they're temporary either acknowledge it's temporary (e.g. I'm leaving soon after I get my diploma) or couldn't get much of a better deal anyway. In other words, our complaint is less about our situation (cuz if we wanted different, we'd have gone off and gotten it) and more a critique on HR's assessment of value, like armchair quarterbacking for HR or something like that...
We do get pissed about people making more money for less work, but we get over it. The people in it until retirement (and their 80% pension) know they're sitting on too sweet a deal to care. Those that know they're temporary either acknowledge it's temporary (e.g. I'm leaving soon after I get my diploma) or couldn't get much of a better deal anyway. In other words, our complaint is less about our situation (cuz if we wanted different, we'd have gone off and gotten it) and more a critique on HR's assessment of value, like armchair quarterbacking for HR or something like that...
For me, what I can't stand is when an incompetent has more power and influence than I do. That will have be quitting on the spot. If he's making slightly more money than I am, but no one takes him seriously and his shitty ideas aren't being imposed on me or the rest of the team, then why do I care? He's not in an enviable position. As a highly-paid incompetent, he'll be the first one let go when there's a need to lay people off.
My corporate-environment programming experience taught me that competence has no weight. Everybody just wants to get along and be friends. People who are buddies with the manager get more pay and advancement than others even if they are far less competent. They also tend to survive layoffs.
The problem is that when you're hiding salaries you can't really evaluate the market. Really by hiding that information you're giving the salary giver most of the power and those shopping around for a higher salary need to do a lot more work to evaluate how much they're worth on the market.
I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss" standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.
I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss" standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.
Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid?
That's ultimately the motivation for my argument - in which system are the greatest number of actors likely to be content?
That's ultimately the motivation for my argument - in which system are the greatest number of actors likely to be content?
Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid?
Sure it does. A portion of your happiness at work is down to the quality of people you work with, no? If your company routinely lowballs, then when the dust settles you are going to find yourself surrounded by people who had no choice but to accept that rate. The market therefore affects you whether you care about it or not.
Also, things change. Plenty of money to live on as a bachelor might leave you a bit short if you want to start a family. If you don't "need" the money right now, stick it in a savings account. Because remember this: someone is getting the value you create. Why shouldn't it be you?
Sure it does. A portion of your happiness at work is down to the quality of people you work with, no? If your company routinely lowballs, then when the dust settles you are going to find yourself surrounded by people who had no choice but to accept that rate. The market therefore affects you whether you care about it or not.
Also, things change. Plenty of money to live on as a bachelor might leave you a bit short if you want to start a family. If you don't "need" the money right now, stick it in a savings account. Because remember this: someone is getting the value you create. Why shouldn't it be you?
I guess this is just a "to each his own" sort of thing. Personally I'm only truly happy when I have all the information (or as much as I can get in practical terms, anyway) and I'm still satisfied with the situation. I suppose others are fine without.
Note that this isn't a competition thing. I wouldn't necessarily be dissatisfied just by the concept of an equal peer making more than me; I'd be disappointed that I could be making more but I'm not.
Note that this isn't a competition thing. I wouldn't necessarily be dissatisfied just by the concept of an equal peer making more than me; I'd be disappointed that I could be making more but I'm not.
I'm personally happy if I don't feel like I'm getting screwed for my time/output. I can't really judge that very well other than gut feeling if I don't know how much other individuals around me are making.
In order to find out if I'm getting boned I've had to go out and interview with other companies to pull offers to gauge the market, this is probably a net negative for all sides.
In order to find out if I'm getting boned I've had to go out and interview with other companies to pull offers to gauge the market, this is probably a net negative for all sides.
To me, this raises the question, "How do I determine whether to be happy with what I'm getting paid?" This is where having open salaries would be beneficial - I could compare my salaries against others with the same skills and experience and determine whether I was being treated fairly or not.
This is my thoughts exactly. I'm happy with my salary because it enables me to live comfortably and purchase the things that I want. What other people make doesn't directly factor into it at all (not withstanding the fact that prices usually follow the average income, which affects my purchasing power).
Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long run.
Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long run.
>Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long run.
I couldn't disagree more. The first career company I worked for, I got transfered up from a less-than-level-one position into a high end dev position through my own sweat [1]. Due to company policies about how much a maximum raise could be I found myself making less than 1/5th of what that position would normally get. For the first year or two I wasn't bothered because I didn't have too much experience. 5 years later when every piece of software we had deployed was my architecture, using my libraries, etc., etc. I started to be bothered seeing other people have all these possessions while being so frugal and getting no where. Even though I had no idea what other people were making, it was totally obvious I was getting screwed but I didn't know how badly. I didn't know what my market rate was.
Now as a contractor I know very closely what my market rate is because I get to test it at least twice a year (as opposed to once every 2-5 years before). I know what other contractors are making, I'm the lowest of my circle of friends or close to it. That doesn't bother me because we all do different things and they've all been contracting longer.
I know exactly where I stand and I see an obvious growth path and target. I have real (or at least the chance of it) feedback into where I stand instead of made up nonsense in some yearly meeting where your raise was set by someone you don't even know weeks ago and the things you have to "improve" on your yearly review are structured to justify it. Did my new contract rate go up, down or stay the same? Based on contacts and job ads, did I follow the market or diverge? If market rates went up and my rate didn't that's a real call to action. "Demonstrates acceptance of company vision - needs work" is not.
[1] Not trying to toot my own horn, others did as well. It was probably an artifact of how awful it was where we were.
I couldn't disagree more. The first career company I worked for, I got transfered up from a less-than-level-one position into a high end dev position through my own sweat [1]. Due to company policies about how much a maximum raise could be I found myself making less than 1/5th of what that position would normally get. For the first year or two I wasn't bothered because I didn't have too much experience. 5 years later when every piece of software we had deployed was my architecture, using my libraries, etc., etc. I started to be bothered seeing other people have all these possessions while being so frugal and getting no where. Even though I had no idea what other people were making, it was totally obvious I was getting screwed but I didn't know how badly. I didn't know what my market rate was.
Now as a contractor I know very closely what my market rate is because I get to test it at least twice a year (as opposed to once every 2-5 years before). I know what other contractors are making, I'm the lowest of my circle of friends or close to it. That doesn't bother me because we all do different things and they've all been contracting longer.
I know exactly where I stand and I see an obvious growth path and target. I have real (or at least the chance of it) feedback into where I stand instead of made up nonsense in some yearly meeting where your raise was set by someone you don't even know weeks ago and the things you have to "improve" on your yearly review are structured to justify it. Did my new contract rate go up, down or stay the same? Based on contacts and job ads, did I follow the market or diverge? If market rates went up and my rate didn't that's a real call to action. "Demonstrates acceptance of company vision - needs work" is not.
[1] Not trying to toot my own horn, others did as well. It was probably an artifact of how awful it was where we were.
I've always wanted to write exactly this blog post. Keeping your salary confidential is great for big companies, but it benefits you in no way. You should be making what your coworkers make. If you make less, you're being fucked, plain and simple. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can remedy the situation. Sadly, some people go their whole careers without doing so.
FWIW, my first programming job only paid $45,000 a year. What a ripoff.
FWIW, my first programming job only paid $45,000 a year. What a ripoff.
So did mine, but that was 1994 so it didn't seem so bad :) (which is another way of saying that context is _very_ important, like year, what part of the country, web programming vs kernel drivers, DBA, etc)
If you're making less, you're possibly being fucked. You're possibly avoiding a layoff.
If you're making more, I'm not sure how showing your salary data can help you personally.
If you're making more, I'm not sure how showing your salary data can help you personally.
If you're making more, I'm not sure how showing your salary data can help you personally.
Status, at least when you transition.
In investment banking, people would quickly discover what the top bonus was for their year and report it when they moved on to jobs in, for example, private equity. The banks saw it as symbiotic and would confirm inflated compensation. It made the ex-analysts get better jobs but it also made the firms look more generous, so it was seen as win-win.
It becomes an issue when next year's class expects the middle bonus to be last year's top bonus.
Status, at least when you transition.
In investment banking, people would quickly discover what the top bonus was for their year and report it when they moved on to jobs in, for example, private equity. The banks saw it as symbiotic and would confirm inflated compensation. It made the ex-analysts get better jobs but it also made the firms look more generous, so it was seen as win-win.
It becomes an issue when next year's class expects the middle bonus to be last year's top bonus.
> only paid $45,000 a year
Reading this kind of thing on HN makes me feel ill; my W-2 says $47k. Maybe I need to make some changes.
Reading this kind of thing on HN makes me feel ill; my W-2 says $47k. Maybe I need to make some changes.
Really depends on where you work. There are some managers that make $47k in some parts of the US and live very comfortably.
Aside from that, contracting can help get bump your salary up. Fresh out of college I was making less than $47k and then easily tripled my salary within a year of contracting (although I was working insane hours and basically used all of my allotted overtime hours). It isn't always great for mental health or work/life balance, but it can be a great shot in the arm in terms of providing needed work experience and money.
Aside from that, contracting can help get bump your salary up. Fresh out of college I was making less than $47k and then easily tripled my salary within a year of contracting (although I was working insane hours and basically used all of my allotted overtime hours). It isn't always great for mental health or work/life balance, but it can be a great shot in the arm in terms of providing needed work experience and money.
Thanks -- I've toyed with the idea in the past, and I think it might be time to just dive in.
So if anyone has resources for a web developer in Portland looking to break into contracting, I'd love to hear from you.
So if anyone has resources for a web developer in Portland looking to break into contracting, I'd love to hear from you.
Do keep in mind that "most" programming jobs are in areas with high costs of living: San Francisco, San Jose, and New York.
That said, take a look at this: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Portland-OR/Sal... The median salary for an SE in Portland is $67k.
So, yeah, it's negotiating time.
That said, take a look at this: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Portland-OR/Sal... The median salary for an SE in Portland is $67k.
So, yeah, it's negotiating time.
Try contracting. Seriously. Go to a local user group and talk with people who contract and see what the going rate is in your area. Its probably 2x to 2.5x of what you're getting now.
Though you have to pay your own taxes -- probably 30%, in the end -- and your own medical.
You pay your own taxes now.
In the US, there's a Social Security payroll tax (previously 12.4%, now 10.4%) that's split between employer and employee. Self-employed people pay it themselves; their clients don't.
I think what he meant was that you have to consider a hefty tax burden come April 15 because, as a contractor, you don't get taxes taken out of your paycheck. This is where having a good accountant and knowing what expenses you can deduct comes in (to reduce your taxable income).
If for nothing else, you should have a business just so you can claim more expenses and reduce the amount you have to pay Uncle Sam (from my understanding, all you need to have is a profit motive -- not necessarily profits).
If for nothing else, you should have a business just so you can claim more expenses and reduce the amount you have to pay Uncle Sam (from my understanding, all you need to have is a profit motive -- not necessarily profits).
My tax guy always tells me: the US hates employees. There are more loopholes if you contract or (even better) have your own business (which could be a contracting business).
Plus you don't get taxed at source so you can take that extra 30%+ you get each paycheck to pay a tax person to figure this all out for you in time to save up for the tax hit at the end of the year.
Plus you don't get taxed at source so you can take that extra 30%+ you get each paycheck to pay a tax person to figure this all out for you in time to save up for the tax hit at the end of the year.
renegotiate/find a new job? With 1.5 years of 'starving freelance' experience I got my first programming job at 55k and was able to negotiate to 70k within 6 months.
They offered me more ($55k) on my internship. I really think you should earn more.
>FWIW, my first programming job only paid $45,000 a year. What a ripoff.
How is that a ripoff? That seems right at about average for starting salary programming.
How is that a ripoff? That seems right at about average for starting salary programming.
My first programming job paid $75k in 2007. It was not at some big name firm but a run-of-the-mill ad agency and I was doing PHP web dev. It was in SF and I had just graduated from UC Berkeley about six months prior to hire.
Unless he (or she) is working as a game dev, he is grossly underpaid. (Even if he is doing game dev he'd be underpaid, just the standard for pay would be much lower for his industry.)
Unless he (or she) is working as a game dev, he is grossly underpaid. (Even if he is doing game dev he'd be underpaid, just the standard for pay would be much lower for his industry.)
To be absolutely fair, SF/NY have much higher starting rates than other places.
If people are getting $100,000 right out of college, then $45,000 is not very good.
Well, we'd need to know when that was. $45k in 1980 would be pretty awesome.
I'm 25, so this was probably 4 years ago at the most.
(Fun fact: jrockway was once a PHP programmer. And, we did not use source control there. And a web developer did a "push" and overwrote my weeks worth of programming. Then I knew it was time to find a new job :)
(Fun fact: jrockway was once a PHP programmer. And, we did not use source control there. And a web developer did a "push" and overwrote my weeks worth of programming. Then I knew it was time to find a new job :)
But it does benefit you, personally: by not having your information out there in public, you can claim whatever you want when you go into salary negotiations, and the hiring company has no way of knowing that you'd be perfectly happy with a significantly lower salary. Generally, whichever side has less information public about them is at an advantage in negotiations.
Unfortunately, this leads to a prisoner's dilemma situation where each individual worker would be better off if everyone shared their salaries, but each individual worker is slightly better off if they don't share their salaries.
FWIW, my first programming job only paid me $32k a year. But I was straight out of high school (no college), and I thought it was a princely sum because I was getting paid more than my Ivy-League grad high school teachers were getting.
Unfortunately, this leads to a prisoner's dilemma situation where each individual worker would be better off if everyone shared their salaries, but each individual worker is slightly better off if they don't share their salaries.
FWIW, my first programming job only paid me $32k a year. But I was straight out of high school (no college), and I thought it was a princely sum because I was getting paid more than my Ivy-League grad high school teachers were getting.
When salary information is private, the employee has advantage while negotiating a new job, whereas, if the salary information is public, he has advantage while he is within the company.
This argument is circular: "Keeping your salary private benefits you when negotiating a new salary"... which is difficult mainly because everyone's salary is private.
...which is the case with most game theoretical situations.
You don't get to choose the world you live in, you only get to choose the choices you make. If you want to move from one world to another, you have to figure out how to get the rest of the world to make those choices.
You don't get to choose the world you live in, you only get to choose the choices you make. If you want to move from one world to another, you have to figure out how to get the rest of the world to make those choices.
Start your own company, and use a radically open compensation system, perhaps?
That's my plan, at least.
That's my plan, at least.
My first year programming job I made ~50k though I was a contractor, and did a bunch of overtime so it was likely quite a bit more.
I think it was pretty good considering I had not graduated college... so I was getting paid to learn.
I started at $25 an hour. I quickly learned the business, and realized I could make it better. So i spent my nights building an app to do it better. They loved it, became the new thing we used. 6 months later my contract ended. I asked for more... and oh yeah did I mention I was a junior programmer (the code was exactly what you would expect, so I had some good leverage) to me $27 an hour was pretty good. I was 19, and making more than my Dad (he always said this is the benchmark I'm supposed to pass).
about 4 years later I'm now making $77k with about 5k or 6k bonus. I moved to Boston, so I think without a degree, its reasonable but I would definitely be making quite a bit more had I finished college.
I'm Hoping to quit my job soon, and start off on my own. The project I did for a $2/hr raise after 6 months could've been worth millions... and I'm sure I could do it again, seeing better ways to do things is kind of my thing.
I think it was pretty good considering I had not graduated college... so I was getting paid to learn.
I started at $25 an hour. I quickly learned the business, and realized I could make it better. So i spent my nights building an app to do it better. They loved it, became the new thing we used. 6 months later my contract ended. I asked for more... and oh yeah did I mention I was a junior programmer (the code was exactly what you would expect, so I had some good leverage) to me $27 an hour was pretty good. I was 19, and making more than my Dad (he always said this is the benchmark I'm supposed to pass).
about 4 years later I'm now making $77k with about 5k or 6k bonus. I moved to Boston, so I think without a degree, its reasonable but I would definitely be making quite a bit more had I finished college.
I'm Hoping to quit my job soon, and start off on my own. The project I did for a $2/hr raise after 6 months could've been worth millions... and I'm sure I could do it again, seeing better ways to do things is kind of my thing.
Hmmm... when I graduate I'd definitely take a £18000 p/a job. I mean it seems at this age getting your foot in the door, getting started and putting some 'commercial experience' on your CV is far more important than the actual salary.
On the other hand, if I could make a living doing freelance web development, then I could build that up until I have an income that employers would need to match (rather than just throwing me the low end of the offered salary-range).
On the other hand, if I could make a living doing freelance web development, then I could build that up until I have an income that employers would need to match (rather than just throwing me the low end of the offered salary-range).
As of 2011-04-13, 18000 pounds sterling is 29421 US dollars. Despite what you say about "getting your foot in the door", I would hesitate before taking a job that paid so poorly. For the record, my internship paid $25 per hour. That translates to $42000 per year [1]. I'm not an exceptional programmer, and my grades in school weren't that stellar either. I would strongly encourage you to negotiate before selling your services for so low a price.
1. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2425+per+hour+
1. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2425+per+hour+
I see ads for 'Senior developers' that want to pay £25-33k. Granted there also ones paying better but the highest advertised I've seen is £40-45k p/a. Obviously it will be higher in London though, and there are lots of ads for contractors at £300 per day.
Meanwhile I know people who finished their CS degree and never got a programming job. I know one guy who's a decent programmer, only got a couple of interviews, one only because he offered to work for 14k, but ended up working in a bank admin job for 13k for years before finally getting a secondment to an SQL/Excel position at 18k or so.
I don't know, man. Just seems there's a disconnection between the salaries you guys talk about on HN and the salaries that are realistic for me. Bearing in mind if it's a graduate job then there's going to be many gaps in your knowledge (unless you're exceptional), so it seems you should bite the hand off the first place that offers you a job and the chance to become a more complete developer (after which you'll have a much stronger negotiating position, but until then, as an unproven dev companies can justifiably look at you as a liability).
Meanwhile I know people who finished their CS degree and never got a programming job. I know one guy who's a decent programmer, only got a couple of interviews, one only because he offered to work for 14k, but ended up working in a bank admin job for 13k for years before finally getting a secondment to an SQL/Excel position at 18k or so.
I don't know, man. Just seems there's a disconnection between the salaries you guys talk about on HN and the salaries that are realistic for me. Bearing in mind if it's a graduate job then there's going to be many gaps in your knowledge (unless you're exceptional), so it seems you should bite the hand off the first place that offers you a job and the chance to become a more complete developer (after which you'll have a much stronger negotiating position, but until then, as an unproven dev companies can justifiably look at you as a liability).
You need to find positions where they don't look at you as cost-center, and instead as someone providing value to the bottom line. 300 pounds a day is ridiculous. Most contractors make double that in day.
1. Move
2. Go contracting
If no one would put up with these low wages they would be forced upward.
2. Go contracting
If no one would put up with these low wages they would be forced upward.
But what if I don't want to move, or don't want to spend anytime in unemployment? £1500 per month is pretty appealing when you have rent to pay. Also, while £18000 might be a joke in the respect that you're only slightly better off than the average admin job, despite the vastly different knowledge and problem solving requirements, what about the whole 'majority of developer applicants can't solve FizzBuzz in ten minutes' thing? Or the belief that programming ability is like compound interest - the more you learn, the faster you get better? Or the outsourcing to India (where I bet they get a whole lot less than 18k per head)? Those things would seem to make low starting salaries natural.
But I do like the idea of selling your skills on a freelance/contracting basis, and foregoing all the noise of the industry hiring practices. I'd definitely give that a shot before taking a 18k-24k job. Seriously doubt £25+k for a first, junior dev role is on the cards though.
But I do like the idea of selling your skills on a freelance/contracting basis, and foregoing all the noise of the industry hiring practices. I'd definitely give that a shot before taking a 18k-24k job. Seriously doubt £25+k for a first, junior dev role is on the cards though.
Tip: When asked about my salary expectations for my first job, I said "£20-24k". I got £22k. Many of the other people who started alongside said lower figures - and that's what they got.
Don't quote something way out of the range of the company you want to work for, but don't undersell yourself either. You'll probably get what you asked for... £15-25k is dirt cheap anyway, for any large corporation, but that £10k makes a whole lot of difference to your life.
Don't quote something way out of the range of the company you want to work for, but don't undersell yourself either. You'll probably get what you asked for... £15-25k is dirt cheap anyway, for any large corporation, but that £10k makes a whole lot of difference to your life.
I think freelancing is a quicker way to get established and reach a high value if you can swing the social and project management aspects. Especially early on, your value increases enormously with each deliverable product you produce. Freelancing allows you to build a portfolio quickly, and you'll be able to point others to jobs you've completed. Successful jobs also inevitably lead to referrals and you can raise your rate on every new contract as your portfolio improves and you become more valuable.
Working for a salary, you can easily get stuck on projects that aren't portfolio-worthy, don't teach you anything that useful, and which you only have a small hand in anyway. And naturally it's comparatively much harder to get pay increases. One solid project that impresses people can take you from charging $50 to $100 an hour as a freelancer overnight. Try convincing your boss to double your salary after 3 months just because you've been shipping good code.
As for breaking in, talk to as many people as you can. Go to meetups, talks, events, whatever is happening, in both the programming AND (very importantly) business/entrepreneurship categories. Just chat and share ideas. If you're confident and you've got brains, people will recognize it, and you'll soon need to beat offers away with a stick. The first gig is the hardest to get because you have nothing to point to in your portfolio. Do this one for free if you have to, or build things on your own. Whatever it takes to get something finished that you can use to prove your competence.
Working for a salary, you can easily get stuck on projects that aren't portfolio-worthy, don't teach you anything that useful, and which you only have a small hand in anyway. And naturally it's comparatively much harder to get pay increases. One solid project that impresses people can take you from charging $50 to $100 an hour as a freelancer overnight. Try convincing your boss to double your salary after 3 months just because you've been shipping good code.
As for breaking in, talk to as many people as you can. Go to meetups, talks, events, whatever is happening, in both the programming AND (very importantly) business/entrepreneurship categories. Just chat and share ideas. If you're confident and you've got brains, people will recognize it, and you'll soon need to beat offers away with a stick. The first gig is the hardest to get because you have nothing to point to in your portfolio. Do this one for free if you have to, or build things on your own. Whatever it takes to get something finished that you can use to prove your competence.
Hi,
£18,000 is what I got at my first job over 15 years ago. I know things are tough in the UK for you young 'uns now though.
Commercial experience isn't as good as having some nice websites in your portfolio IMHO.
£18,000 is what I got at my first job over 15 years ago. I know things are tough in the UK for you young 'uns now though.
Commercial experience isn't as good as having some nice websites in your portfolio IMHO.
Depends on your situation. I got my first job at a mid-late stage startup in DC when I was 18 and that was about $35k as a strictly-frontend developer, which was definitely good enough for me.
For my first programming job I asked for $50k and got $40,000. I always resented that, as I thought I was giving them a break in the first place, but I had just moved to the area (DC) and didn't have time to look very hard.
So 6 months later I got them to raise it to 50, and a few months later they they fired the other programmer (my boss, who was making $85k) and expected me to do the work of both he and I, which I was capable of doing. They told me they just gave me a raise so I shouldn't be greedy.
I left of course. They hired my replacement at $90k after having a consultant do the job for three months at typically high rates. I would have accepted $60k! I just didn't want complete disrespect.
A year or so later I was making $80k and found out another guy at this company was making $40k. What the hell? I don't thing anyone should be so royally fucked.
Companies that do this deserve no loyalty. Salary information should be public as long as they persist in such behaviors.
So 6 months later I got them to raise it to 50, and a few months later they they fired the other programmer (my boss, who was making $85k) and expected me to do the work of both he and I, which I was capable of doing. They told me they just gave me a raise so I shouldn't be greedy.
I left of course. They hired my replacement at $90k after having a consultant do the job for three months at typically high rates. I would have accepted $60k! I just didn't want complete disrespect.
A year or so later I was making $80k and found out another guy at this company was making $40k. What the hell? I don't thing anyone should be so royally fucked.
Companies that do this deserve no loyalty. Salary information should be public as long as they persist in such behaviors.
>Companies that do this deserve no loyalty.
No company deserves "loyalty". You need to get that dinosaur of a concept out of your thought process. We're free market entities now. We act completely within our own interest and the "invisible hand" makes sure everything turns out alright in the end. [1] Loyalty is for family and friends.
[1] Of course your own interest isn't a simple amount question. If another company offers me 5k/yr more I wouldn't drop what I'm doing at the current company and move for that. My reputation is part of my market value so I have to avoid angering my "customers" as much as possible (within reason, but the best choice is to just not take customers that will likely end up hating you later). Ideally, when I leave they'll all hope I come back some day.
No company deserves "loyalty". You need to get that dinosaur of a concept out of your thought process. We're free market entities now. We act completely within our own interest and the "invisible hand" makes sure everything turns out alright in the end. [1] Loyalty is for family and friends.
[1] Of course your own interest isn't a simple amount question. If another company offers me 5k/yr more I wouldn't drop what I'm doing at the current company and move for that. My reputation is part of my market value so I have to avoid angering my "customers" as much as possible (within reason, but the best choice is to just not take customers that will likely end up hating you later). Ideally, when I leave they'll all hope I come back some day.
My first was, in 2007, $46k. I'm still at the same company, now making $70k nearly four years later. (I'm 25, doing web programming, in Sweden)
One of my earliest memories of the Salary Taboo was at the first Java One I attended as a freshly-minted Silverstream "Field Application Engineer" (must have been '99)
Four of us in equivalent positions, including one woman got together in my room and started pounding down screwdrivers. After the fourth of fifth, we started talking salaries. All of the guys were making around $120k and the girl... (wait for it...)
$80k !!! Despite having more education and arguably better qualifications.
We had a big problem on our hands. I'll never forget we were in a room near the top of the tall St. Francis hotel tower and she was angrily threatening to jump out the window.
Four of us in equivalent positions, including one woman got together in my room and started pounding down screwdrivers. After the fourth of fifth, we started talking salaries. All of the guys were making around $120k and the girl... (wait for it...)
$80k !!! Despite having more education and arguably better qualifications.
We had a big problem on our hands. I'll never forget we were in a room near the top of the tall St. Francis hotel tower and she was angrily threatening to jump out the window.
So did she ever end up making 120k?
My teeth always grind when I read articles like this.
Yes, you can make $100K at Google. In Mountain View, California. How does that correlate to someone doing the same job in Austin, Seattle, Chicago, or Cleveland? The cost of living swings greatly when you depart the west coast.
Decent wage databases will add another variable to the position and experience axes: the geographic area where the job is offered. (Example: http://www.erieri.com/)
Yes, you can make $100K at Google. In Mountain View, California. How does that correlate to someone doing the same job in Austin, Seattle, Chicago, or Cleveland? The cost of living swings greatly when you depart the west coast.
Decent wage databases will add another variable to the position and experience axes: the geographic area where the job is offered. (Example: http://www.erieri.com/)
Personally I think the cost of living stuff is largely a red herring. First of all, it's normally not even. Maybe rent is cheaper but food is higher, or certain necessary services are more expensive. Second of all; an iPhone costs the same in Mountain View as it does in podunk Arkansas. You can say "but... luxury!" all you want, we have more and more of these nationally priced items around us all the time.
A cost of living adjustment is one of the easiest calculations to do. Is it as simple as this (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mount...), or did I misunderstand your point? It doesn't seem that complicated to take a $100k salary point and normalize for cost of living.
Seems like a good idea but I doubt the data is very accurate. I live in Montreal which is well known to be one of the cheapest places to live in North America (very cheap housing, very cheap energy, etc.) but WA puts Montreal as the most expensive?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mount...
Higher Taxes. Quebec has generally higher taxes vs. the rest of canada, and places like washington have no state income tax. Also the locations it could be comparing could be downtown metro area's and their costs. 3km away from the downtown core and you get a huge drop in price.
The taxes aren't that much higher. And the rent is cheaper than Toronto.
You're looking at approx 30% deducted at source for 50k in Quebec, I think. You get quite a lot for your tax dollars in Canada though.
And this is utterly ridiculous.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moving+from+Montreal+to...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moving+from+Montreal+to...
I nearly spit-taked when I saw that, it's so distorted... until I noticed that it's for Vancouver, Washington. Ah, well, maybe.
Wolfram Alpha says: "(UN retail price index data in Canada available only for Montreal)"
Wolfram Alpha says: "(UN retail price index data in Canada available only for Montreal)"
WA has good data on cost of living in the US, but I don't think it has comparable data for Canada. For example, if you take out a few of your terms there you'll see that for Toronto it's using the US national average, which is way off. If you try and check their sources, all they list is http://www.coli.org/, which has US data only.
It's just another data point. A lot of kids about to graduate will look at these salaries, go "holy crap! I'm headed to the Bay!" and completely overlook other parts of the country where they could make comparable or even better salaries, relatively speaking.
And yes, I did read the part where Google adjusts for region in their other offices. I just don't think other companies always do the same.
And yes, I did read the part where Google adjusts for region in their other offices. I just don't think other companies always do the same.
That's a bad strategy. If you're going to move away from family and friends to the dead middle part of the US where you'll have less opportunity, less useful connections, etc., then the salary you get is going to have to be much higher to offset this career hit.
Further, if you're on $100k+ in the Bay and you can get down to a ramen lifestyle with roommates, etc. you could potentially save more than you'd even make in the midwest.
I've lived in one of the lowest cost of living places in the US and I'm now living in one of the more expensive countries in the world. I am a lot more financially successful here than I ever was there and I was single there. Now I have a wife and kids.
>And yes, I did read the part where Google adjusts for region in their other offices. I just don't think other companies always do the same.
This makes no sense. You think other companies have offices in the middle of Oklahoma but pay employees a Valley wage? They must have people literally getting into gun fights over the janitor jobs.
Further, if you're on $100k+ in the Bay and you can get down to a ramen lifestyle with roommates, etc. you could potentially save more than you'd even make in the midwest.
I've lived in one of the lowest cost of living places in the US and I'm now living in one of the more expensive countries in the world. I am a lot more financially successful here than I ever was there and I was single there. Now I have a wife and kids.
>And yes, I did read the part where Google adjusts for region in their other offices. I just don't think other companies always do the same.
This makes no sense. You think other companies have offices in the middle of Oklahoma but pay employees a Valley wage? They must have people literally getting into gun fights over the janitor jobs.
[deleted]
Cost of living is very complicated. Most software engineers making $100,000 are young, single, don't have kids, and are comfortable with renting. Most software engineers making $200,000 are older and have kids, which means they need larger living spaces and have a strong preference for owning rather than renting. On this alone, you need different conversion factors. Also, the distance/price curve is different for different cities. Manhattan is very expensive but there are affordable neighborhoods 30 minutes away; the Bay Area isn't as expensive at its core but the catastrophic prices cover a larger area.
Unless the salary is commensurate with increased value or output, I see no reason why older SDEs should make more than younger devs. To be clear, there is often great value in older SDEs, but "because they have kids and want a house" is not a reason to pay them more.
He wasn't saying that, he was saying that their cost of living was different.
[deleted]
According to CNN's cost of living calculator (http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.htm...):
$100,000 in Mountain View, CA
= $58,302 in Austin, TX
= $73,992 in Seattle, WA
= $71,306 in Chicago, IL
= $61,660 in Cleveland, OH
Interesting; it turns out I make right around MV$100,000. Never realized that.
But given two roughly equal-valued salaries, I think the higher absolute salary is still superior. Savings, for instance, don't scale with cost of living; saving 20% of $100,000 is much different from saving 25% of $40,000.
But given two roughly equal-valued salaries, I think the higher absolute salary is still superior. Savings, for instance, don't scale with cost of living; saving 20% of $100,000 is much different from saving 25% of $40,000.
Also, if you relocate from Mountain View, I suspect you'd be able to keep more of your salary than the cost-of-living decrease would strictly dictate.
These savings can only come after the cost-of-living overhead. It's important to note that average salary does not scale 1:1 with cost of living.
Depending on your finances, a 20% bump in pay with a 40% increase in cost of living may lower your discretionary income.
For some, this is offset because overhead does not scale 1:1 with salary: living in a high-cost area provides a greater discretionary income advantage to those with high incomes than for those with modest incomes.
Depending on your finances, a 20% bump in pay with a 40% increase in cost of living may lower your discretionary income.
For some, this is offset because overhead does not scale 1:1 with salary: living in a high-cost area provides a greater discretionary income advantage to those with high incomes than for those with modest incomes.
But cost of living can mean you save none of the $100,000 and lots of the lower salary.
I just moved from Oklahoma to Tennessee and CNN's housing estimate is way off. It says TN is 20% cheaper and it is actually just the opposite.
Probably depends on where in Oklahoma and Tennessee. I moved from Tulsa to Nashville three years ago and the housing market seems fairly equivalent to me with Nashville being slightly higher (which makes sense with Nashville being larger than Tulsa).
Yeah, real estate in the area is what stuck out in my mind the most. I have no idea what rents are like, but then again a new, single grad doesn't mind shacking up with a few other people and keeping costs down.
An experienced engineer with a family and kids looking for a house might not fare as well.
An experienced engineer with a family and kids looking for a house might not fare as well.
I wonder what the difference is like between Canada and the States? It must be lower in Canada, even in Vancouver, BC with all the expenses here.
Still, I'm sure I'm making well below what I should be.
Well, whatever the situation, I'm happy I'm working at a fantastic place with great people and interesting work! I also make far more money than I need to live comfortably.
[edit] I make far less than $100 000.
[edit] I make far less than $100 000.
I am guessing that one of the biggest differences between total compensation packages between hiring Canadians vs. Americans is that companies don't have to pay for health care costs for their employees based in Canada. This is mainly because health care is funded from our income tax.
I believe health insurance is a factor for Americans when choosing a job, but may not be as large a factor for Canadians.
From a company standpoint, this should mean that Canadians may be cheaper to hire (although, given that CDN is higher than USD at the moment, this may not hold).
I believe health insurance is a factor for Americans when choosing a job, but may not be as large a factor for Canadians.
From a company standpoint, this should mean that Canadians may be cheaper to hire (although, given that CDN is higher than USD at the moment, this may not hold).
When I visited Vancouver, the locals mentioned some ridiculously high rents/condo prices for places in downtown near Stanley park (and I'm from the Bay area). I thought the city was gorgeous but couldn't figure out any high paying employers (100K+). What gives? How can a developer afford this?
The simple answer is sometimes the correct one: for the most part, developers do not afford those particular condos. Or many of those who do they're single and childless. Vancouver's one of the most desirable places to live in the world, and so people preferentially migrate here (it's typical for people to be half-seriously astonished to meet a native), and so the market soars (plus there are some weird factors inflating it, arguably).
Although I've certainly known a few developers here to make over $100k. A few I've met professionally, and several of my old high-school friends. But this is not at all typical.
Although I've certainly known a few developers here to make over $100k. A few I've met professionally, and several of my old high-school friends. But this is not at all typical.
http://www.glassdoor.com can be a helpful resource in this regard. It needs a bunch more critical mass before it's truly useful, but some information is usually better than no information.
+1
I've found glassdoor.com to have pretty accurate (though anonymous) reports of employers' salary ranges and employee satisfaction.
I've found glassdoor.com to have pretty accurate (though anonymous) reports of employers' salary ranges and employee satisfaction.
I'm at a company as a senior developer. I know the other senior developer is on more money than me but it doesn't bother me. He is more experienced than me and brings a lot to the table. I have been at the company longer and got the development team going, I even hired the guy. I will continue to be "above" him in a respect as I am part of the decision making team about which routes to go down.
I value the development work more than the decision making though so I stand by the fact that it doesn't bother me he is on more.
You wouldn't accept a job if you were not happy with the conditions, its a two way street. If they offer you a job then you decide whether you want to take it or not, they don't force your hand.
I know I could get 10k more than I am on now if I moved to another company but I'm not in my MD's office telling him I'm leaving because I know this fact. I believe in company values, I am helping a company grow. We are relatively small and I have a chance to make a big difference.
When your work is your life (If you are a dev then your work IS your life), then it's more about the experience than the cash.
But if someone came along and offered me £100k to do my job, I would take it. I'm loyal enough to stay but I'm not stupid enough not to go.
I once worked for a company where I bragged about a massive pay rise, I was young and stupid. It led to a lot of hard feelings. I had been promoted to manager and given some great responsibilities. I ended up losing a lot of friends short term (they got over it) but I learnt a valuable lesson, even if they money you were offered comes from a position above you, you are condemed for taking it.
A lot of people hate to see other people do well for themselves, all the people who say that they should openly discuss their wages are either on a decent package or they genuinely do not care what other people are on. All the people that want to keep it private understand that it only leads to upset and arguments.
If you can be close enough to a work colleague for them not to take it personally then go for it, I would not say an open forum of discussing wages is a good idea though.
I value the development work more than the decision making though so I stand by the fact that it doesn't bother me he is on more.
You wouldn't accept a job if you were not happy with the conditions, its a two way street. If they offer you a job then you decide whether you want to take it or not, they don't force your hand.
I know I could get 10k more than I am on now if I moved to another company but I'm not in my MD's office telling him I'm leaving because I know this fact. I believe in company values, I am helping a company grow. We are relatively small and I have a chance to make a big difference.
When your work is your life (If you are a dev then your work IS your life), then it's more about the experience than the cash.
But if someone came along and offered me £100k to do my job, I would take it. I'm loyal enough to stay but I'm not stupid enough not to go.
I once worked for a company where I bragged about a massive pay rise, I was young and stupid. It led to a lot of hard feelings. I had been promoted to manager and given some great responsibilities. I ended up losing a lot of friends short term (they got over it) but I learnt a valuable lesson, even if they money you were offered comes from a position above you, you are condemed for taking it.
A lot of people hate to see other people do well for themselves, all the people who say that they should openly discuss their wages are either on a decent package or they genuinely do not care what other people are on. All the people that want to keep it private understand that it only leads to upset and arguments.
If you can be close enough to a work colleague for them not to take it personally then go for it, I would not say an open forum of discussing wages is a good idea though.
I graduated with a CS degree and am making about $32k a year, before paying for insurance, at an IT job.
Where can I sign up for one of these horribly low paying $45-75k/year programming jobs?
Where can I sign up for one of these horribly low paying $45-75k/year programming jobs?
You need to buy insurance for your IT job? Please describe. I've never heard of this before. Are there different standards for employee fault in different states? Are there any notable court cases?
I did once work at a place where employees were financially liable for the cost to the company of any mistakes they made, but I assumed that was legally along the same lines as the company's policy of not sending employees 1099s until we threatened to report them to the IRS. We were all hourly, scheduled "independent contractors" too.
(And I hear you on the salaries since I'm making $0 a year and looking for one of those $32k a year jobs. I can understand kick-ass coders with experience making $80k and up, but to imply that I should expect that amount with my degree but no talent or experience? I'm not seeing it in the market.)
I did once work at a place where employees were financially liable for the cost to the company of any mistakes they made, but I assumed that was legally along the same lines as the company's policy of not sending employees 1099s until we threatened to report them to the IRS. We were all hourly, scheduled "independent contractors" too.
(And I hear you on the salaries since I'm making $0 a year and looking for one of those $32k a year jobs. I can understand kick-ass coders with experience making $80k and up, but to imply that I should expect that amount with my degree but no talent or experience? I'm not seeing it in the market.)
He probably means health insurance.
Correct.
You're going to have to tell us more about your situation - where are you, what sort of company is it, and what is your general experience in software?
I'm not the OP, but I have had some experience with this when looking for my last job. I made the mistake of posting my resume on a popular tech job site, and the vast majority of contacts were from shady recruiters trying to get me to work 2 hours away in a "contract to hire" position where I would have to pay my own insurance. Making less than I was currently making, still employed at the time.
Perhaps this is similar to the OP. It was a complete ripoff - I think they were trying to take advantage of the massive layoffs going on in the tech industry in my area. The arrogance of these guys was unbelievable.
Perhaps this is similar to the OP. It was a complete ripoff - I think they were trying to take advantage of the massive layoffs going on in the tech industry in my area. The arrogance of these guys was unbelievable.
Also note that all these numbers really depend on location. 80-100K out of college in Minnesota (where I am) would be insane. I know people with 15 years experience making 100-120k.
Now if you are in the Bay area making 32K, that sounds weird, otherwise, start investigating salaries in your area.
Now if you are in the Bay area making 32K, that sounds weird, otherwise, start investigating salaries in your area.
Or you can look at actual data:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151031.htm
Average salary for a software engineer is $90k, for California $103k (this excludes "programmers" who just implement fully spec'd code).
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151031.htm
Average salary for a software engineer is $90k, for California $103k (this excludes "programmers" who just implement fully spec'd code).
who just implement fully spec'd code
Fully spec'd code? I hope the PMs are getting a raise, as I've yet to see such a thing!
Fully spec'd code? I hope the PMs are getting a raise, as I've yet to see such a thing!
Ouch...
edit maybe if you implemented to spec...
edit maybe if you implemented to spec...
Wait...Google starts at $100k/year for people fresh out of college with an undergraduate degree? So what do they go up to for people with experience?
Bear in mind they're not hiring just any old graduate. Google loves to claim they are only interested in candidates from the Top Schools.
Its not just about "Top Schools"(TM)
Have you ever even read the gamut of knowledge they send you to prepare for one of those interviews?
These are some of the best coders alive. And the people are Google are not stupid so they know they need to defray people from poaching as best they can.
Have you ever even read the gamut of knowledge they send you to prepare for one of those interviews?
These are some of the best coders alive. And the people are Google are not stupid so they know they need to defray people from poaching as best they can.
I think the best, non-hearsay source for this is anonymous data at glassdoor.com. Google has quite a lot of data there as well (over 500 reports from San Jose/Mountain View).
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-San...
533 Salaries - Mean is 107,174, with a range of [70, 133]. Median is about 100K.
Bonuses are underreported in comparison. But of 24 reports, the bonus is 18K on average.
This includes experienced engineers as well. So I think the original link's claim of 100K starting salary is probably an over-estimate.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-San...
533 Salaries - Mean is 107,174, with a range of [70, 133]. Median is about 100K.
Bonuses are underreported in comparison. But of 24 reports, the bonus is 18K on average.
This includes experienced engineers as well. So I think the original link's claim of 100K starting salary is probably an over-estimate.
"non-hearsay source"?
What do they do, let you see people's W-2's?
Remember, people can lie.
And many people feel it's in their interests to lie regarding salaries. How can you even be sure the people who are reporting some salary figure on glassdoor.com even ever had the job they claimed to have had, never mind reported an accurate salary?
What do they do, let you see people's W-2's?
Remember, people can lie.
And many people feel it's in their interests to lie regarding salaries. How can you even be sure the people who are reporting some salary figure on glassdoor.com even ever had the job they claimed to have had, never mind reported an accurate salary?
Their reporting is a little weird, for example:
Google Software Engineer, 1-3 years of experience: Salary: 90k Cash bonus: 16.7k Stock bonus: 8.5k
Together it comes to 115k, but the average total pay is listed as 102.6k.
Google Software Engineer, 1-3 years of experience: Salary: 90k Cash bonus: 16.7k Stock bonus: 8.5k
Together it comes to 115k, but the average total pay is listed as 102.6k.
When working for the federal government everyone knows everyone else's salary. So it can be done, and is generally less corrosive than hidden salaries.
Are government salaries merit based or tenure based?
Both. Often times in places like the military merit is only achievable as a function of seniority. So after x number of years after getting a grade you qualify to be promoted to the next. Whether or not the promotion happens at that point in time is a function of merit (and social skills).
They're grade based, and moving up a grade can depend on both merit and tenure, although I think it's mostly about tenure.
When working for the federal government everyone knows everyone else's salary. So it can be done, and is generally less corrosive than hidden salaries.
As long as people are happy with their own pay, they really don't care what anyone else is making. In a large company, an incompetent making $5k/year more (because he's been there longer, or does some task no one else wants to learn how to do) isn't going to turn a happy employee into someone who wants to get out immediately.
As long as people are happy with their own pay, they really don't care what anyone else is making. In a large company, an incompetent making $5k/year more (because he's been there longer, or does some task no one else wants to learn how to do) isn't going to turn a happy employee into someone who wants to get out immediately.
You know what would really solve the problem? If employers publicly announced the salary they are aiming for in job ads. That way, you wouldn't feel like you got ripped off because of bad negotiation skills.
Not sure how much value this gives existing employees. If you go up and see that you are making less than your coworkers, then it's a moral destroyer. If you are making average but feel like you are doing more work than everyone else, again moral destroyer. If you are making bank, all the sudden you are now in everyone's cross-hairs- boom! moral destroyer (depending on the kind of person you are).
It hurts your morale in the short term, but it should give you the impetus you need to a. work harder b. negotiate harder when it comes to that yearly performance review and/or possibly c. leave if you feel you're being underpaid and the company isn't willing to pay you what you think you're worth.
I don't think full salary disclosure will ever happen, but I'm just saying, it wouldn't be bad if it did. I for one would just like to know, for example, what a iphone/ipad developer makes on average (then a high and low end) in ... say ... Austin Tx vs New York or something like that.
I don't think full salary disclosure will ever happen, but I'm just saying, it wouldn't be bad if it did. I for one would just like to know, for example, what a iphone/ipad developer makes on average (then a high and low end) in ... say ... Austin Tx vs New York or something like that.
I used to be very good at salary negotiation and being confident in my skills... until I discovered HN.
In academia, it is common for professors' salaries to be listed in public databases that are searchable by anyone.
I don't particularly draw any conclusion from this; indeed, there is some debate as to whether this is a good thing overall. My impression is that it doesn't make much difference one way or another. In any case, it may be interesting to HN readers to know that this is the norm in the public sector.
I don't particularly draw any conclusion from this; indeed, there is some debate as to whether this is a good thing overall. My impression is that it doesn't make much difference one way or another. In any case, it may be interesting to HN readers to know that this is the norm in the public sector.
Incentives in academia can get pretty complex, however. In terms of bragging rights, salary tends to factor in way below publications, tenure, chaired position, etc. Plenty of academics are still lured away to other institutions with the promise of a better salary, but it's less socially acceptable to admit that that's the reason you're switching jobs (instead of, say "I would get to be head of a program/department"). Also, unlike most tech jobs, most academic jobs are not located in the most exciting places to live, which adds yet another confounding factor.
I was recently came across a list of the salaries of everyone employed by my university, including students. It was an interesting read. I seems I make just about the average for graduate research assistants in science/engineering, though I'm still trying to extract the data to make nice plots.
More interesting was to see the relative salaries of professors and administrators. Some professors are clearly able to demand much higher than average salaries, but nothing like head sports coaches...
More interesting was to see the relative salaries of professors and administrators. Some professors are clearly able to demand much higher than average salaries, but nothing like head sports coaches...
Interesting that all of the examples provided, google, amazon, facebook, MSFT all apparently provide units of stock with a predictable initial value; with stock options, all you can do is guess whether the company will grow and by how much, but if the company didn't grow at all they would be worthless. In fact, are we sure facebook doesn't grant options? Seems like they are still in the growth phase to the point where they could offer options instead, whereas MSFT would have a hard time keeping a straight face offering options at this point.
I find that in canada (toronto, ontario) programmers are not paid near the amounts of programmers in the US.
5 years ago i started at 40K (working in Hamilton). Now living in toronto, and i find that newly graduate programmers start around 50K-60K, and senior programmers make anywhere between 80K-100K.
I feel that living toronto/ontario, programmers are utilized as tradesmen, where they service the industry (corporations, banks, publications, marketing firms etc...)
I just wish there was more of a tech/startup industry in toronto, like there is in California, Boston, New York, etc..
5 years ago i started at 40K (working in Hamilton). Now living in toronto, and i find that newly graduate programmers start around 50K-60K, and senior programmers make anywhere between 80K-100K.
I feel that living toronto/ontario, programmers are utilized as tradesmen, where they service the industry (corporations, banks, publications, marketing firms etc...)
I just wish there was more of a tech/startup industry in toronto, like there is in California, Boston, New York, etc..
You're not considering regional standards and cost of living, though. Even if you consider that, I think what you described is hardly specific to the Toronto Area. Any company without their own "dev shop" or tech culture, regardless of area will consider programmers as tradesmen.
Toronto may be on the low end, but I'm pretty sure the "true" tech companies in the area are much closer to the higher end than you think.
Toronto may be on the low end, but I'm pretty sure the "true" tech companies in the area are much closer to the higher end than you think.
Your health care is a lot cheaper. You have to consider these kinds of issues. The market rates must be as they are for a reason.
Absolutely correct. I ended up leaving Toronto after I realized this. I'm not sure if it was a good decision or bad. I ended up getting fantastic work experience and a higher number salary. However, my quality of life wasn't the same (because I left behind family and friends, and miss Canada in general). Also, I realized that the salary number doesn't mean much when you live in ridiculously expensive places.
Are there parts of the world where it's customary for salaries to be known?
There are parts of the world (Scandinavia) where the tax filling is public, from that you can have a good guess.
In Norway all tax returns are public: http://skattelister.no/
In fact I just looked up an old high school classmate and was initially surprised at how much she was making - until I realized 280,000 Kronor is only about 50,000 USD.
In fact I just looked up an old high school classmate and was initially surprised at how much she was making - until I realized 280,000 Kronor is only about 50,000 USD.
FYI: 280.000 is a pretty poor salary in Norway. Gasoline here just topped $10/gal, if that gives you an idea of the cost-of-living-adjustment necessary. In other words, your friend is not living the life that a $50k salary in the US would buy (in terms of disposible income.) On the other hand, she gets 5 weeks of paid vacation a year, full health care, and a year's paid maternity leave with each child.
Gasoline prices aren't a good indicator of cost of living. They are a factor to be sure, but their prices are too overwhelmed by political policy (ie gasoline taxes) compared with other expenses, which introduces too much noise into the data.
It was just an example; food is equally expensive, and many consumer goods are roughly double the US equivalent price.
At many Japanese megacorps, the company's salary schedule is widely distributed in the company. At my company, the engineering track so closely followed the monopsony engineering employer in this region (cough I wonder what large automobile manufacturer that could be cough) that there is literally no middle class adult within 400 miles who could not guess my salary within 2% for each of the last seven years.
many years ago, i was a fresh grad with an ms in comp sci working at a bay area startup. i sucked at negotiations too, and my starting salary was 75k, which actually wasn't too shabby (or so i thought). long story short: the company imploded, but i was one of the few people kept around until they turned off the lights. most of my friends had been laid off, and we had all revealed our salaries. they made closer to 95-125k, and i was the guy in the OP's story: they guy that worked tirelessly, did the work of 2.5 of my co-workers, was well liked, and had a grad degree. i was pretty annoyed, so i went into the ceo's office and said i was due a salary bump. it was the least he could do seeing as how the company would be gone in a month, and i could use that as leverage in negotiations for next time. he complied, and bumped my salary to 90k. i got a new job about a month later and i negotiated 98k.
usually, you will get some incremental improvement when you move to a new position.
usually, you will get some incremental improvement when you move to a new position.
I believe this is exactly what happens in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Salaries aren't public directly, but tax returns are...so you can easily see what everyone makes.
Just fyi. this is not the case in Denmark, tax returns are private here.
It would be extremely interesting to see whether or not having these data publicly available (especially in such a context-free fashion as in this article) is truly helpful or not. It reminds me of another HN story which saw the front page today: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3930466/...
Full transparency could lead to a more equitable distribution of salary, or it could mean that companies are less able to pay top dollar for great talent because they know that there will then be a hundred wannabes who are demanding the same salary.
Full transparency could lead to a more equitable distribution of salary, or it could mean that companies are less able to pay top dollar for great talent because they know that there will then be a hundred wannabes who are demanding the same salary.
The state of California releases salary info for all kinds of state employees (which has shown up on HN before : http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/). When I first found out, I spent 30 minutes looking up the salaries of all my old UC Berkeley professors, and comparing them to prison doctors and state troopers. I was saddened to see that salaries and talent/research output/prestige are often very unrelated, even in the presence of total transparency. George Smoot, who's a Nobel laureate only around 150k!
I also wondered whether (for example) Martin Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan, who've collaborated on papers, classes and a book on my to-read list, ever experience friction as a consequence of salary, given that Jordan appears to earn roughly 85% more than Wainwright.
I know that state employees and academic salaries are subject to a lot of forces that aren't present in tech companies -- but this makes me doubt that transparency is enough to bring about reasonable, equitable salaries.
I also wondered whether (for example) Martin Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan, who've collaborated on papers, classes and a book on my to-read list, ever experience friction as a consequence of salary, given that Jordan appears to earn roughly 85% more than Wainwright.
I know that state employees and academic salaries are subject to a lot of forces that aren't present in tech companies -- but this makes me doubt that transparency is enough to bring about reasonable, equitable salaries.
Wow, this article comes in perfect timing for me. Hopefully, you, the HN community could help me.
I am currently being offered a software engineering job at Apple through a recruiting company. What I want to know is, how much should I be asking for? I am 4 months out of college (no Ivy league, just a state college) with little professional experience. So far, I have said $50k, but is that low-balling it? Should I be asking for more? From what I gather, Apple won't be paying me directly; it will be the recruiting company that will be issuing my checks.
edit: Forgot to mention that I would be moving from Louisiana to California if I get the job.
I am currently being offered a software engineering job at Apple through a recruiting company. What I want to know is, how much should I be asking for? I am 4 months out of college (no Ivy league, just a state college) with little professional experience. So far, I have said $50k, but is that low-balling it? Should I be asking for more? From what I gather, Apple won't be paying me directly; it will be the recruiting company that will be issuing my checks.
edit: Forgot to mention that I would be moving from Louisiana to California if I get the job.
I'm confused – Why wouldn't Apple pay you directly?
You shouldn't have to ask for anything, they should present you with an offer.
Meanwhile, you should do appropriate due diligence and interview with other companies that interest you and see what other offers you get. If Apple is interested in hiring you, no doubt other companies will be too.
Also: keep in mind that relocating will incur at least a few thousand dollars in expenses (which your future employer should cover as part of the comp package) and that living in the bay area is very expensive. 50k is do-able, but won't take you very far.
You shouldn't have to ask for anything, they should present you with an offer.
Meanwhile, you should do appropriate due diligence and interview with other companies that interest you and see what other offers you get. If Apple is interested in hiring you, no doubt other companies will be too.
Also: keep in mind that relocating will incur at least a few thousand dollars in expenses (which your future employer should cover as part of the comp package) and that living in the bay area is very expensive. 50k is do-able, but won't take you very far.
Thanks, I'll be talking to the recruiter about an offer. Part of the problem is that when I was asked about it, I was basing the salary off of what someone in South Louisiana would make as a junior developer. At the time, I did not have any knowledge of what the salary of someone similar in the Bay Area would be.
I was told that the recruiting company (TekSystems) would be paying me. However, I will ask the recruiter for further clarification.
The job is a contract job and located at the Cupertino campus. So far, I have not had an interview with Apple and have only completed an assessment for the recruiting company. The recruiter has been the middle-man between anyone at Apple and I so far.
When I asked if relocation assistance would be provided, I was given an answer of no. Any suggestions as to negotiating a way to get assistance?
I was told that the recruiting company (TekSystems) would be paying me. However, I will ask the recruiter for further clarification.
The job is a contract job and located at the Cupertino campus. So far, I have not had an interview with Apple and have only completed an assessment for the recruiting company. The recruiter has been the middle-man between anyone at Apple and I so far.
When I asked if relocation assistance would be provided, I was given an answer of no. Any suggestions as to negotiating a way to get assistance?
"The job is a contract job". That's why; you'll be an employee of TekSystems, not Apple. You won't be getting Apple benefits or compensation.
On the other hand, you can still put Apple on your resume, so it's not all bad.
On the other hand, you can still put Apple on your resume, so it's not all bad.
That is very low for a junior software engineer. I would ask for 75k but be OK with taking less for a "trial" period of 3-6 months.
We need to remember "you are not your salary". Comments like "an insulting $60,000" or "only $100,000" makes me shake my head. Your salary is not something you have to brag about.Your worth is not determined by your salary. A developer can create millions of dollars in value. Think how much value DHH created with Rails or Linus with Git and Linux. Or Damien with CouchDB. Remember Steve Jobs salary is $1 a year.
Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value. This salary talk makes us look like programmers not hackers.
Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value. This salary talk makes us look like programmers not hackers.
Which is all well and good, but to say that salary doesn't matter is bupkis.
If you're creating significant value and getting little for it, you're getting the short end of the stick. If you notice you're getting the short end of the stick, you're probably going to feel like crap.
Mind that lots of developers, if working for a company, don't own what they create.
If you're creating significant value and getting little for it, you're getting the short end of the stick. If you notice you're getting the short end of the stick, you're probably going to feel like crap.
Mind that lots of developers, if working for a company, don't own what they create.
"Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value."
Forgive me, but I think you meant that to say that salary doesn't matter is mishuggeneh. Bupkis is what you'll have in your bank account if you go on thinking this way.
I'm not even Jewish. This is just from years in New York.
I'm not even Jewish. This is just from years in New York.
DHH, Linus and Damien all got publicity from what they created. In marketing terminology, they did a "loss leader" and it worked. Jobs' salary is $1 a year but that's not what his stock options are. How do you think the man got to be worth billions?
>Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value.
I do want to create things and I don't care about how much money what I create is worth. Sadly, my landlord doesn't see it this way. I have to buy in a free market and work in a free market, why would I purposely avoid participating in one when it comes to my salary (i.e. my only hope to ever actually get to hack on what I care about hacking on)?
>Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value.
I do want to create things and I don't care about how much money what I create is worth. Sadly, my landlord doesn't see it this way. I have to buy in a free market and work in a free market, why would I purposely avoid participating in one when it comes to my salary (i.e. my only hope to ever actually get to hack on what I care about hacking on)?
That is if you have some sort of interest in what you are doing. Either shares in or ownership of the company, enjoying the project you are working on (and hence it can be considered a hobby), or just doing the job for the money so that you can follow your passion outside of work.
Salary isn't everything but it may be key thing keeping you at your job.
Salary isn't everything but it may be key thing keeping you at your job.
[deleted]
So, I'm most certain that I'm being given the shaft by my employer.
A coworker recently quit, because he felt underpaid (his previous job paid him over 10% more). Negotiations with HR got him nowhere, so he left.
The coworker and I had identical jobs, and we did them in the same capacity, with very similar skill levels. When he left, he disclosed everything to me. Despite being underpaid, he was still being paid significantly higher than I am (almost 25% more).
Of course, I'm no longer happy with my pay, but don't really know what to do about it. I don't have the flexibility to just leave town, and I'm in a town that just isn't hiring developers right now ("metro"=200k). I've applied to places far away, but just without much luck. I thought if I got an offer, I'd have some arguing room. But I don't; I don't have anything. Besides, if my employer doesn't budge, I'm not prepared to take the leap. I can't leave town because my wife is in school here, now.
I started at a lower pay rate, because they hired me without a college degree. I've been working for them for three years now, and have been moving up in pay, but I started so low that it hasn't amounted to much.
I think a huge part of my problem is that I don't have a college degree. I think that I've obviously shown that I'm capable of doing the job, regardless, though. How much should the degree really matter? I've seriously been considering applying to a lower tier school (I mean low tier state school, not U of Phoenix, etc.) for a degree completion program, just so I can pad my resume up some. I don't know if that hurts more than it helps, though. I did already finish up the handful of courses I needed for the A.S. from the local community college.
A coworker recently quit, because he felt underpaid (his previous job paid him over 10% more). Negotiations with HR got him nowhere, so he left.
The coworker and I had identical jobs, and we did them in the same capacity, with very similar skill levels. When he left, he disclosed everything to me. Despite being underpaid, he was still being paid significantly higher than I am (almost 25% more).
Of course, I'm no longer happy with my pay, but don't really know what to do about it. I don't have the flexibility to just leave town, and I'm in a town that just isn't hiring developers right now ("metro"=200k). I've applied to places far away, but just without much luck. I thought if I got an offer, I'd have some arguing room. But I don't; I don't have anything. Besides, if my employer doesn't budge, I'm not prepared to take the leap. I can't leave town because my wife is in school here, now.
I started at a lower pay rate, because they hired me without a college degree. I've been working for them for three years now, and have been moving up in pay, but I started so low that it hasn't amounted to much.
I think a huge part of my problem is that I don't have a college degree. I think that I've obviously shown that I'm capable of doing the job, regardless, though. How much should the degree really matter? I've seriously been considering applying to a lower tier school (I mean low tier state school, not U of Phoenix, etc.) for a degree completion program, just so I can pad my resume up some. I don't know if that hurts more than it helps, though. I did already finish up the handful of courses I needed for the A.S. from the local community college.
You could try asking them. "What do I need to do to earn X?" If it's something reasonable, get them to give you a timescale and an action plan so it's in writing that if you hit these targets you'll get your salary raised to X.
If you have no other options then that decreases your market value. The good news is: you now know of the problem and you know what is standing in the way of fixing it.
I've always heard that a degree is worth 5 years experience.
I've always heard that a degree is worth 5 years experience.
While not being a programmer, I did work as a sysadmin for a hosting company. Since I quit around 2 years ago, I was asked by my ex-colleagues on several occasions would I consider returning there. Now, these questions were raised by my coworkers and not my boss, but nevertheless, my answer was the same. Yeah, sure, if they double my salary from 2 years ago, assign me to a higher tier support level so I don't have to deal with customers in any way.
Simple reason for this was that knowing my peers salary, both those of lower, equal and higher position, I knew how much I was worth to them, and how much others were slacking.
So, with public salaries, you get that. With them being private, I would probably ask for a small raise based on economic situation. I'm not saying I wouldn't work for the same money as before, It's just that I'd feel like a jerk toward my self in that case.
Simple reason for this was that knowing my peers salary, both those of lower, equal and higher position, I knew how much I was worth to them, and how much others were slacking.
So, with public salaries, you get that. With them being private, I would probably ask for a small raise based on economic situation. I'm not saying I wouldn't work for the same money as before, It's just that I'd feel like a jerk toward my self in that case.
On one hand, being able to compare yourself to others is very valuable. The challenges arise though in how to square two different numbers. What is the value of each individual skill? If 2 people have differing abilities in 3 different skills, are all skills valued equally?
How are startup salaries compared to the big companies?
I avoid all of the fuss.* I work for a State agency in a low population state. There's a published ceiling and floor on salaries (based on pay band). All salaries are public record.
* Tongue firmly in cheek.
* Tongue firmly in cheek.
Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement. This race to make more money for the sake of money just leads to accelerating inflation across the board. As far as I am concerned, salary is just a number and people can live just fine on $50,000 if they we weren't such a consumerist society.
"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement. This race to make more money.."
Ah.. right. And the owners, board members, and CEO's of these companies are too enlightened to be concerned with mere trifles like money, nor would they ever dream of feeling entitled to anything.
Ah.. right. And the owners, board members, and CEO's of these companies are too enlightened to be concerned with mere trifles like money, nor would they ever dream of feeling entitled to anything.
And you must be in the class of "money isn't that important to me" programmer who will work 100 hours a week for $40,000 a year and years down the road wonder why you feel so slighted.
Its not about entitlement its about worth. If a company makes billions of dollars(or generates that much value for the pedantic) off of a fraction of that many people its stands to reason that at least some of those people are worth a substantial amount more than $50,000
Its not about entitlement its about worth. If a company makes billions of dollars(or generates that much value for the pedantic) off of a fraction of that many people its stands to reason that at least some of those people are worth a substantial amount more than $50,000
There's a considerable difference between having a sense of entitlement and being rational.
Clearly. And this difference is exactly what we're seeing a lot of here.
Rational: "I am unhappy with $60,000 because it does not meet my needs."
Entitlement: "I was happy with $60,000 until I found out Fred was making $61,000."
Rational: "I am unhappy with $60,000 because it does not meet my needs."
Entitlement: "I was happy with $60,000 until I found out Fred was making $61,000."
Wrong.
Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what ever the company offers me and be happy"
Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or I'm not earning my market rate even though my company (and CEO!) are"
The only entitlement in this picture is you two giving proxy entitlement to the companies to make even more money by underpaying everyone.
Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what ever the company offers me and be happy"
Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or I'm not earning my market rate even though my company (and CEO!) are"
The only entitlement in this picture is you two giving proxy entitlement to the companies to make even more money by underpaying everyone.
No one said that you should take whatever the company offers and just be happy; that would be ridiculous. In fact, as someone who's weighing multiple offers right now, step one is negotiating with these companies to see who can meet my needs and, after that's met, see who can better meet my wants.
However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty enough for me to be happy and then some, there is no reason for me to be unhappy if I find my coworker is making $Y + 10%. If I needed that 10% to be happy, I shouldn't have been happy with $Y.
Now, where such a thing is rational is if I'm not happy with $Y but I don't believe I can get a better offer so I take it and then later find out I probably could have gotten more. In this case, I'm already unhappy about $Y (although less unhappy than $0), so I continue to be unhappy when I find out I might have been worth $Y + 10% but am not receiving it.
However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty enough for me to be happy and then some, there is no reason for me to be unhappy if I find my coworker is making $Y + 10%. If I needed that 10% to be happy, I shouldn't have been happy with $Y.
Now, where such a thing is rational is if I'm not happy with $Y but I don't believe I can get a better offer so I take it and then later find out I probably could have gotten more. In this case, I'm already unhappy about $Y (although less unhappy than $0), so I continue to be unhappy when I find out I might have been worth $Y + 10% but am not receiving it.
So you, like the OP, are assuming everyone posting in this thread about getting more money are petty losers who just go "waaaah! He get's $500 more a year than I do! THAT'S NOT FAIR!". Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it sound fair? Why would you assume that instead of assuming they understand the market and that salary is simply the market value of your time?
First, as a general rule, in any sort of discussion or debate or argument or whatever you want to call it when there are multiple disagreeing with each other, please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...." Rarely do I see such a sentence that is not a total misrepresentation of the original point, intentional or otherwise, and attacking that point constitutes a strawman. As a specific example, I'd love to see you point to a single point where I said anything like that.
A much better representation of what I am saying: Let's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago. This is precisely what both I and junishaun are saying, where you only care about more money for the sake of more money.
If you weren't happy with the $50,000 to begin with, then you have every right to be upset when you find out you could have gotten more. However, this is not the case I've seen represented by most of the HN comments on these various "salary taboo" threads.
A much better representation of what I am saying: Let's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago. This is precisely what both I and junishaun are saying, where you only care about more money for the sake of more money.
If you weren't happy with the $50,000 to begin with, then you have every right to be upset when you find out you could have gotten more. However, this is not the case I've seen represented by most of the HN comments on these various "salary taboo" threads.
>please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...."
No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. So no, what I said was in no way a misrepresentation. Then you came on defending what he said without pointing out that you disagreed with his application of his theory to HN posters (you still haven't).
So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread? No one has claimed to be mad about the money for the money's sake so this whole line is a straw man. Unless you (like the OP) are claiming other people here are behaving this way.
>et's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago.
Again this is wrong. The mythical person was happy because he/she assumed the market rate for what they did was $50k. Now they've just seen evidence that it's actually $100k. The rational response is to take action as they're potentially leaving $50k (or more) of your value on the table. The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth.
You're only going to live so long and you only have so much earning potential. Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. So no, what I said was in no way a misrepresentation. Then you came on defending what he said without pointing out that you disagreed with his application of his theory to HN posters (you still haven't).
So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread? No one has claimed to be mad about the money for the money's sake so this whole line is a straw man. Unless you (like the OP) are claiming other people here are behaving this way.
>et's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago.
Again this is wrong. The mythical person was happy because he/she assumed the market rate for what they did was $50k. Now they've just seen evidence that it's actually $100k. The rational response is to take action as they're potentially leaving $50k (or more) of your value on the table. The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth.
You're only going to live so long and you only have so much earning potential. Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
> No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently).
I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case.
> The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality.
I hold that there are three key differences between what OP and I are actually saying and how you are representing it. One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that. Two, you seem to be representing our statements as saying that anyone who is unhappy after finding out their coworker is making more is entitled when instead is upset for money's sake, which I have been specifically maintaining to be a case I have noticed rather than a universal. Three, while your "petty losers" case could certainly be an extreme case of this entitlement, it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
> So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread?
I think this is most clearly exemplified by the original article ("That dev's salary is higher than mine") that sparked all of the subsequent "salary taboo" threads. A direct quote from that article: "Part of me was even angrier because if he hadn’t made this mistake I could be blissfully ignorant and wouldn’t have to deal with this mess."
The HN response? Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this and a couple people (including you!) disagreeing with me.
> The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth. This is he entitlement of which we are speaking; thank you for making it so explicit. If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that money cannot help achieve happiness, but if you are already happy, finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
> Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
If your definition of rational is "attempting to maximise the amount of money I make" is your definition of rational, sure, but I maintain that is a terrible definition of rationality. For a very obvious example, if you used that definition, we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate, the rest of our life be damned. After all, we need to get more money without worrying about silly things like "health" or "friends and family" or "enjoyment of job" or anything else that really is just "some feeling of happiness" at the end of the day. Since I don't think that either of us subscribe to this view, I think we'd agree that there needs to be some trade-off between money and happiness.
However, I'm not talking about leaving money on the table at any rate. If there exists money I can obtain, I have every right to go after it. It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case.
> The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality.
I hold that there are three key differences between what OP and I are actually saying and how you are representing it. One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that. Two, you seem to be representing our statements as saying that anyone who is unhappy after finding out their coworker is making more is entitled when instead is upset for money's sake, which I have been specifically maintaining to be a case I have noticed rather than a universal. Three, while your "petty losers" case could certainly be an extreme case of this entitlement, it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
> So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread?
I think this is most clearly exemplified by the original article ("That dev's salary is higher than mine") that sparked all of the subsequent "salary taboo" threads. A direct quote from that article: "Part of me was even angrier because if he hadn’t made this mistake I could be blissfully ignorant and wouldn’t have to deal with this mess."
The HN response? Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this and a couple people (including you!) disagreeing with me.
> The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth. This is he entitlement of which we are speaking; thank you for making it so explicit. If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that money cannot help achieve happiness, but if you are already happy, finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
> Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
If your definition of rational is "attempting to maximise the amount of money I make" is your definition of rational, sure, but I maintain that is a terrible definition of rationality. For a very obvious example, if you used that definition, we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate, the rest of our life be damned. After all, we need to get more money without worrying about silly things like "health" or "friends and family" or "enjoyment of job" or anything else that really is just "some feeling of happiness" at the end of the day. Since I don't think that either of us subscribe to this view, I think we'd agree that there needs to be some trade-off between money and happiness.
However, I'm not talking about leaving money on the table at any rate. If there exists money I can obtain, I have every right to go after it. It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
>One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that.
Excerpt from the original post:
"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement."
I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.
>it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere? Then who cares?
>Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this
There is nothing to call the article out for here. The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value. Now he has to take action. Of course a part of him wishes this uncomfortable situation wasn't in front of him, but to claim he "wants money for money's sake" is pretty judgmental. Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
>If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement.
This is illogical. Let me try again; we sell our time for a market price. Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother? I have things I'd much rather be doing. I don't want to sell my time. I need money so I sell it at the best market rate I can (complimented with other factors, of course). This isn't entitlement anymore than selling any other product is.
>finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
Of course it should. You were happy before because you thought you were getting acceptable value. Now you just found out you're getting ripped off.
If you bought a nice car for $5k, of course you'd be happy about such a great deal... until you found out they actually cost $1k new and you just bought it from someone who exploited your market ignorance to get an extra $4k of your money for nothing.
>we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate
Highest possible rate within bounds. There are jobs I'm not willing to do for anything less than FU money. But what you're missing here is that a portion of the market value is what you're willing to do. Willing to travel? Then your market rate is higher than those who aren't. Willing to spend every waking moment on the job? Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that. I just want the best market rate I can get for what I'm offering.
>It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
I really think the "irrationality" you're seeing is coming from assuming someone (who ever it is) is unhappy about not getting money "for money's sake". I don't see anyone doing that and don't see that as a valid concept. I think it's about market value and companies using their advantages to exploit people's market rate ignorance.
Excerpt from the original post:
"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement."
I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.
>it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere? Then who cares?
>Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this
There is nothing to call the article out for here. The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value. Now he has to take action. Of course a part of him wishes this uncomfortable situation wasn't in front of him, but to claim he "wants money for money's sake" is pretty judgmental. Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
>If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement.
This is illogical. Let me try again; we sell our time for a market price. Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother? I have things I'd much rather be doing. I don't want to sell my time. I need money so I sell it at the best market rate I can (complimented with other factors, of course). This isn't entitlement anymore than selling any other product is.
>finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
Of course it should. You were happy before because you thought you were getting acceptable value. Now you just found out you're getting ripped off.
If you bought a nice car for $5k, of course you'd be happy about such a great deal... until you found out they actually cost $1k new and you just bought it from someone who exploited your market ignorance to get an extra $4k of your money for nothing.
>we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate
Highest possible rate within bounds. There are jobs I'm not willing to do for anything less than FU money. But what you're missing here is that a portion of the market value is what you're willing to do. Willing to travel? Then your market rate is higher than those who aren't. Willing to spend every waking moment on the job? Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that. I just want the best market rate I can get for what I'm offering.
>It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
I really think the "irrationality" you're seeing is coming from assuming someone (who ever it is) is unhappy about not getting money "for money's sake". I don't see anyone doing that and don't see that as a valid concept. I think it's about market value and companies using their advantages to exploit people's market rate ignorance.
> I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.
I put the 'all' into my response because I'm tired of you forcing everything to extremes. I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.
> If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere?
Once again, you keep forcing things to extremes. Most of life, including this, is not all-or-nothing, yet you seem to keep insisting that this is for some bizarre reason. We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
> The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value.
But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless. He could potentially get more, but he was happy with what he had before he learned of the difference.
> Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
The previous combined with the fact that he was unhappy with the amount he received after learning he could receive more. The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
> Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother?
I said nothing about the time; it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money. Selling my time may not be my greatest desire, but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
> Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that.
How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
> I think it's about market value
If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake? If that's not what you mean, what the hell do you mean such that it's still possible to be less happy with the exact same buying power?
I put the 'all' into my response because I'm tired of you forcing everything to extremes. I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.
> If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere?
Once again, you keep forcing things to extremes. Most of life, including this, is not all-or-nothing, yet you seem to keep insisting that this is for some bizarre reason. We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
> The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value.
But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless. He could potentially get more, but he was happy with what he had before he learned of the difference.
> Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
The previous combined with the fact that he was unhappy with the amount he received after learning he could receive more. The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
> Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother?
I said nothing about the time; it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money. Selling my time may not be my greatest desire, but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
> Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that.
How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
> I think it's about market value
If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake? If that's not what you mean, what the hell do you mean such that it's still possible to be less happy with the exact same buying power?
>I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.
So again, you're judging some of the people on HN in a very harsh manner based on pure assumptions of your own.
>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.
>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.
Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found out he was actually being exploited, of course he was upset!
>The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product", far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what "rational" means.
>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.
Fine, and I would say it isn't in this case. Being treated fairly is.
>but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would be very odd to not be upset.
>How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny my offering is worth.
>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake?
This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now others may get paid less.
And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.
So again, you're judging some of the people on HN in a very harsh manner based on pure assumptions of your own.
>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.
>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.
Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found out he was actually being exploited, of course he was upset!
>The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product", far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what "rational" means.
>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.
Fine, and I would say it isn't in this case. Being treated fairly is.
>but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would be very odd to not be upset.
>How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny my offering is worth.
>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake?
This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now others may get paid less.
And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.
Exactly my point.
I'm sorry but this is an utterly ridiculous, borderline offensive comment. Companies want to outsource because they want to keep more money themselves. Executive salaries have risen practically exponentially. Why is it that only the workers have to suck in their belt? If we should be happy living on $50k/yr then what the ever loving fuck do they need with MILLIONS per year?
If companies want to try and outsource then let them. They've tried and yet we're still all employed. Why? Because the market has spoken. This is what it costs to develop, full stop. People getting paid less than this are just an arbitrage situation in the company's favor.
It has nothing to do with entitlement, it has to do with those who have some understanding of how the market works and those who are utterly ignorant of it.
If companies want to try and outsource then let them. They've tried and yet we're still all employed. Why? Because the market has spoken. This is what it costs to develop, full stop. People getting paid less than this are just an arbitrage situation in the company's favor.
It has nothing to do with entitlement, it has to do with those who have some understanding of how the market works and those who are utterly ignorant of it.
How does this translate into UK salaries? I'm working at a medium sized company (approx £200 million turnover) and am a senior developer with 15 years experience in stuff like c++/c#/iphone/asp.net mostly MS stack and I'm getting paid £34k. I know I can go contracting for £40/hr but it's alot more hassle.
What are other people getting paid here in Blighty?
What are other people getting paid here in Blighty?
Depends where you live, apparently that is normal if you are out in the sticks. I was 22 and contracting as a c# developer @ £40/hour in 2004/5. That grew over time so that i had 2 month holiday and still made 80k for the year.
I did have a dud job though with oracle where it was almost impossible to earn anymore. Left Oracle as I didnt believe in the technology. Now on 100k a year, no degree and foreign. Plus I recieve a bonus on top of that.
I did have a dud job though with oracle where it was almost impossible to earn anymore. Left Oracle as I didnt believe in the technology. Now on 100k a year, no degree and foreign. Plus I recieve a bonus on top of that.
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/ is an excellent resource for the UK for this.
With 15 years experience, you are underpaid.
Anyone has figures for IBM?
In Silicon Valley, is it expected that you'll negotiate an offer? If so, by how much? In general in Detroit, offers are final (clearly a generalization, but true of big co's).
This is a strange question. Of course most any company hopes you won't negotiate. What they expect is that you'll value yourself more than their initial offer and will negotiate.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you about Detroit. I believe that you believe that, I believe companies tell you that but I unless all big Detroit companies only have very junior people I don't believe for one second that this is actually the case.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you about Detroit. I believe that you believe that, I believe companies tell you that but I unless all big Detroit companies only have very junior people I don't believe for one second that this is actually the case.
Maybe I should rephrase the question: In Silicon Valley do most people negotiate? Is it just part of the culture?
I've found that talking about grossing a figure up to cover taxes can be a good way to get your feet wet with negotiating.
[deleted]
HN needs anon comments. I have specific questions, but not ones I want my name on =)
I actually think full transparency on salary could make this nasty issue go away. Post what everyone is making and let people negotiate a fair package. There would be some transitional pain in the first 2 months, and payroll costs might go up 10 percent, but people would be happier in the long run. Why use inaccurate gossip instead of full transparency?
What drove up compensation in banking in the 2000s was inaccurate compensation reporting. Pay in banking is one's status, so everyone would claim to have received top bonus when applying to private equity jobs or trying to make a lateral move. This meant that whatever bonus was paid to the top 5% of each year would be claimed by everyone in that year. That ratcheted up pay expectations over time. Banks actually liked this, because the high pay enabled them to make entry-level conditions and hours even worse, but most companies wouldn't be able to afford that process.
In the long run, I think that salary discovery by inaccurate gossip is more expensive and volatile than full transparency, and I can't think of a good reason why, in any company, everyone shouldn't have access to everyone else's base compensation (performance bonuses can be private; the range should be public but not the amount.)
What drove up compensation in banking in the 2000s was inaccurate compensation reporting. Pay in banking is one's status, so everyone would claim to have received top bonus when applying to private equity jobs or trying to make a lateral move. This meant that whatever bonus was paid to the top 5% of each year would be claimed by everyone in that year. That ratcheted up pay expectations over time. Banks actually liked this, because the high pay enabled them to make entry-level conditions and hours even worse, but most companies wouldn't be able to afford that process.
In the long run, I think that salary discovery by inaccurate gossip is more expensive and volatile than full transparency, and I can't think of a good reason why, in any company, everyone shouldn't have access to everyone else's base compensation (performance bonuses can be private; the range should be public but not the amount.)
I rather suspect that full salary transparency would result in a race-to-the-top.
I was just going to say something like this. In The Logic of Life, Tim Harford writes about how CEO pay reformers thought that making CEO pay public would cause companies to reduce pay because high pay was so outrageous. The opposite happened.
Why? Because who wants to be in the bottom 50%? Practically no one. If you open up salary information, everyone is going to want to be "above average," even in companies that pride themselves on hiring exceptional people--like Google.
This year, the median is $90K, so everyone will want $95K. Next year, it'll be 95K, so everyone will want $100K, and so on.
Why? Because who wants to be in the bottom 50%? Practically no one. If you open up salary information, everyone is going to want to be "above average," even in companies that pride themselves on hiring exceptional people--like Google.
This year, the median is $90K, so everyone will want $95K. Next year, it'll be 95K, so everyone will want $100K, and so on.
Fog Creek has a "ladder" system based on some fairly objective criteria. Based on years of experience and certain assessments of project scope and skill level, each employee gets a number between 8 and 16 that determines pay. This means that compensation is based on performance.
Now, the only point of controversy is whether the employee and employer agree on performance. If there's a discrepancy there, at least there's something meaningful to discuss and, if the difference is irresolvable, then they should separate.
This isn't perfect, but the gossip-driven salary-discovery system is even more imperfect and has the same problems.
Now, the only point of controversy is whether the employee and employer agree on performance. If there's a discrepancy there, at least there's something meaningful to discuss and, if the difference is irresolvable, then they should separate.
This isn't perfect, but the gossip-driven salary-discovery system is even more imperfect and has the same problems.
Could you elaborate on this criteria?
Yes, the Verblen effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good (in this case the CEO is the Verblen good, the company is the customer).
In Finland, tax data is public -- you can go look up what your coworkers are making without the consent of either them or their employers. I don't think it has caused a race to the top in any meaningful way.
Norway does that too:
http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/liv-johanne-ullmann-3417...
Edit: Heh, obviously, this has done the rounds on HN while I was asleep.
http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/liv-johanne-ullmann-3417...
Edit: Heh, obviously, this has done the rounds on HN while I was asleep.
Even if it causes a "race to the top", is that such a bad thing? Shouldn't most of the fruits of labor go to the people doing the work?
I think the "race to the top" people are talking about is the psychological tendency of most people to think they are better than average.
So, if you know the average salary is $X and the top salary is $2X, and you're making $1.1X then you ask for a payrise to $1.6X because "you know you're better than most of the people here". Then everyone does. And so on.
I think the way around that is to match transparent salaries with a transparent ladder of responsibilities/expectations/experience, like you were talking about with Fog Creek.
Then there's a clear standard for people to evaluate what they are worth to the company.
So, if you know the average salary is $X and the top salary is $2X, and you're making $1.1X then you ask for a payrise to $1.6X because "you know you're better than most of the people here". Then everyone does. And so on.
I think the way around that is to match transparent salaries with a transparent ladder of responsibilities/expectations/experience, like you were talking about with Fog Creek.
Then there's a clear standard for people to evaluate what they are worth to the company.
Will they be paid a fraction of their salary if the company performs poorly?
The biggest rewards go to the biggest risk-takers.
The biggest rewards go to the biggest risk-takers.
I can see the point you're trying to make, but humanistically and morally speaking, this isn't true.
A person with $10 million who puts $3 million into a business isn't taking that much of a risk. There's some risk there and, yes, it should be rewarded. But a person with no net worth is taking a huge risk every time he takes a new job: career risk.
This dynamic exists in startups as well. The people who are taking the real risks are the founders, not the venture capitalists.
A person with $10 million who puts $3 million into a business isn't taking that much of a risk. There's some risk there and, yes, it should be rewarded. But a person with no net worth is taking a huge risk every time he takes a new job: career risk.
This dynamic exists in startups as well. The people who are taking the real risks are the founders, not the venture capitalists.
Career risk in startups?
There's job risk in startups, yes, but not career risk. Working for startups serves you very well.
There's job risk in startups, yes, but not career risk. Working for startups serves you very well.
This sort of misses the point. Maybe it's true that the employee is taking relatively more risk based on his life situation, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the business needs $3 million. The only way it can get that is by promising a sufficient return to whoever is willing to risk that much. What the amount means to the investor personally is irrelevant. The reality is there are a lot more people willing to risk their time (take a job) than $3 million, therefore the $3 million has a higher price attached. From the perspective of someone investing $3 million, seeking the best possible return the market will provide is no different than a programmer seeking the best possible wage the market will provide.
A race to the highest price the market can sustain. Companies will never pay so much they make a loss on a person, so the marginal revenue from having an additional employee is a firm upper bound on how much they will pay that employee.
This is good from an employee's perspective, but it reduces profits for companies. As such, it is unlikely that many companies would voluntarily support transparency.
This is good from an employee's perspective, but it reduces profits for companies. As such, it is unlikely that many companies would voluntarily support transparency.
It could, but it could also save companies major headaches because people would at least have accurate information instead of gossip. Average salaries would go up a little bit (10-15%?) but there'd be a lot less volatility, and managers wouldn't have to worry about people coming in pissed off that they've been underpaid for three years.
> full salary transparency would result in a race-to-the-top.
because you work for a hobby...
because you work for a hobby...
Transparency would also level the playing field in terms of negotiations. Whether or not you are a good negotiator should not affect how much you get paid for most types of positions. As it stands, in most companies, negotiation is welcome and if you're savvy, you can get all sorts of perks that someone who is not savvy will be unable to get.
I'm a big fan of salary transparency -- the last startup I was a part of practiced this and I found it great for a number of reasons, primarily because anyone can say, "Hey, I'm performing at or above this person's level, I should be compensated accordingly."
Unfortunately, talking about compensation is still a pretty big taboo so I don't see this becoming mainstream anytime soon.
I'm a big fan of salary transparency -- the last startup I was a part of practiced this and I found it great for a number of reasons, primarily because anyone can say, "Hey, I'm performing at or above this person's level, I should be compensated accordingly."
Unfortunately, talking about compensation is still a pretty big taboo so I don't see this becoming mainstream anytime soon.
"Hey, I'm performing at or above this person's level, I should be compensated accordingly".
The value you bring to the organization should be the deciding factor, and your performance relative to someone else might be a way to measure this, but probably isn't a good measure.
The value you bring to the organization should be the deciding factor, and your performance relative to someone else might be a way to measure this, but probably isn't a good measure.
The value you bring to the organisation is often beyond your control. You may be allocated to a profitable project or "on the bench" if the work has temporarily dried up.
Not many employees would be happy taking a salary cut if their skillset becames less valuable (for whatever reason ).
There are so many variations and possible complications I don't think there is a fair "solution" to the salary disclosure question.
Different approaches work at different times for different organisations.
Not many employees would be happy taking a salary cut if their skillset becames less valuable (for whatever reason ).
There are so many variations and possible complications I don't think there is a fair "solution" to the salary disclosure question.
Different approaches work at different times for different organisations.
Isn't that what Unions do, effectively negotiating pay and conditions for its members.
As it happens, there was this Ask HN about salary. Guess why it had to be created using a anonymous throwaway:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2440956
Last year we were having a discussion at lunch. Coworker was building a new house, and when it came to the numbers it was let loose that it was going to cost about $700K. This didn't seem like much, except to a young guy that joined the previous year and had done nothing but kick ass and take names. The new guy was arguably the most talented guy in the company by a considerable margin, so he thought someone building a $700K home might've been overextending themselves. The person buying the home retorted that it was reasonable and asked the new guy why he wouldn't buy the Porsche Boxster he considered his dream car. The new guy responded that would never be prudent. That didn't seem right, as several of us at the table could've nearly swung a Boxster with just our bonus.
The conversation ended up in numbers. Coworker building the house pulled about $140K base (median for a programmer was probably $125K), and his bonus nearly matched the new guy's salary, which was an insulting $60K -- and got cut out of the bonus and raise in January for not being there a full year, only 11 months.
Turns out he was a doormat in negotiating, though his salary history was cringeworthy. It pained everyone to hear it, considering how nice of a guy he was. In all honestly, $60K was a big step up for him. Worst of all, this wasn't a cheap market (Boston). The guy probably shortchanged himself well over a half-million dollars in the past decade. This was someone who voluntarily put in long hours and went out of his way to teach others, and did everything he could to help other departments like operations and other teams. On top, he was beyond frugal. Supposedly he saved something around 40% of his take home pay, despite living alone in Boston. He grew up in a trailer park.
He spent the next day in non-stop meetings with HR, his manager and the CTO. That Friday he simply handed in his badge without a word, walked out and never came back.
Until 3 months later. As a consultant. At $175/hour.