9 ms·

I’d Pay You $500k a Year, but You Can’t Do the Work

71 points by smaili 9y ago

maxsilver 9y ago
That's an awfully lot of words to write, just to say "I'm lying about my $500k offer". If they were actually paying that, they'd have no shortage of talent to burn out with their standard consulting work. Tons of companies claim "we would pay [huge number]", or "there's no upper bound of income for the best talent". It's almost never true.
- iaw 9y ago
  Facebook and Google total comp for average programmers ~2 years in is >$400K right now. $600k isn't that hard to make at these companies.
  - geebee 9y ago
    Can you post some kind of evidence for this? I know salaries are somewhat secretive, but do you have something to support this? The reason I'm skeptical is that while I do know people at google as relatively senior dev (very talented, elite CS degrees, 15+ years experience), they were well above 200k a year, but nowhere close to 600k. This was also more than 2 years ago. Again, I understand data isn't public, but do you have something to support the notion it isn't hard to make 600k as a dev?
    - iaw 9y ago
      This is in total compensation terms. There are two documents floating around where employees detailed their compensation coming into Google and Facebook. What everyone replying fails to realize is that if you include the appreciation of the preliminary and refresher grants these engineers are making >$400K rather quickly.
      - geebee 9y ago
        I appreciate your reply, but I do see this as just a more detailed claim without evidence, other than referring to documents floating around. I understand publicly available data is hard to come but, but this also just doesn't square with the few data points I have, for senior devs at google (albeit a couple years ago). I suppose some of this may turn on what you mean by "rather quickly" for compensation in excess of $400k a year (let alone $600k/yr, which seems very high). I can't say you're wrong, because I don't have evidence... but that's the problem here, I don't have any evidence to believe you either. You're claiming everyone is failing to realize something, but in the absence of credible and available data. Just give me something here. I can be convinced by evidence, but references to documents "floating around" just isn't enough for me, as it contradict my direct conversations with google employees, though my conversations are limited, slightly old, and personal information may be unreliable. $250k, sure, that squares with what I've heard.
        iaw 9y ago
        I feel comfortable speaking anecdotally but I don't feel comfortable formally doing the math here for reasons that I prefer not to disclose. I appreciate your desire for more details on my claim but I cannot provide it. $250K is accurate assuming zero/normal stock appreciation. Assume half that is in equity compensation with a 38% (for FB) growth rate on a 4 year schedule and determine what the figures get to.
  - bluesnowmonkey 9y ago
    Lies. I was there a year ago. People share compensation info. You're way, way off.
  - gamechangr 9y ago
    I have a friend that's pretty solid programmer - been at google for 3 years. He claims he crossed $400k at the 2 year mark. That's at least 1 case that appears to support this.
  - taude 9y ago
    I don't believe this at all. I have friends who work for Google from acquired companies and they're no where near this.
- geebee 9y ago
  If Mr Palmer is going to claim he'd pay 500k, I'd like to see some evidence that he is actually doing this for his top performing employees. He says he lost a few "perfect" candidates to Facebook and google. Did he offer them $500k a year? Keep in mind, Mr Palmer chose to make this claim very publicly, and he's gotten plenty of attention at this point for doing so. So I'd love to see a good journalist follow up with some real numbers here. If he's telling the truth, well then, good for him! I tend to be skeptical about people who claim there is a shortage, since they almost never talk about what they're offering. Mr Palmer is. So far, so good. But he should be willing to offer some real evidence of this claim. Let's see the numbers.
  - venture_lol 9y ago
    He is good at "promotion" and "marketing". He will now get plenty of talent eyeballs for free rather than having to pay for ads with dubious return :)
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
...but is it remote? I would turn down a $500,000 a year job if it were onsite-only.
- speeder 9y ago
  Or sometimes you can't accept it. Yesterday who is hiring made me sort of depressed, I am in desperate need for work, yet all work I was qualified for was non remote in other countries, or semi remote, the few ones that allowed real remote required some random citizenship I don't have. Seemly being born in the wrong place can heavily cripple a career.
  - ben_jones 9y ago
    The formula I've found is 2-3 months on site where you convince the employer of your value, integrity, professionalism, etc., then 1 month of partial remote work where you show an increase in productivity. Then the question of 'can I just remote' is often a cake walk.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    If you meet the technical requirements then apply anyway, what have you got to loose. I doubt these people are getting flooded with responses, it may be they are more flexible than first appears.
jacquesm 9y ago
Wasn't the who is hiring thread yesterday?
mattnewton 9y ago
I think the "we run a buisiness, not a school" could be the answer to this guy's dilemma. Hiring diamonds in the rough and cultivating talent relentlessly is how the best engineers were found and kept in my limited experience at Apple, and it seems Google has an even stronger internal education culture.
- matwood 9y ago
  > Hiring diamonds in the rough and cultivating talent relentlessly is how the best engineers were found and kept in my limited experience at Apple, and it seems Google has an even stronger internal education culture. Yeah, that was a weird statement in the article. Tech moves so fast that allowing for internal education needs to be a requirement at any company. I literally learn something new every single day. When I look to hire, I look for some raw talent and enthusiasm to learn because whatever the candidate knows right now will be obsolete in 12 months (except for CS foundational topics, but that's for a different post).
  - sevensor 9y ago
    I live in flyover country, so we hire from a different pool. I'm not sure if this is a general rule, or if the Bay Area has sucked all of the talent out of the region, but I have yet to interview a competent graduate from the CS program down the street at Big State U. We've had better luck hiring from engineering and the applied sciences. Ceteris paribus, I'd prefer candidates with some theory background, but the ceteris are not paribus.
    - wbl 9y ago
      Probably because CS is the obvious route to a programming job, while doing something else for intellectual satisfaction speaks to being inquisitive.
- shortsightedsid 9y ago
  It's also means that they are looking not for tech talent but for skilled labor. Highly skilled labor assumes no re-education for the current job but does not account for future work. If you are a master carpenter or a master mechanic then you probably have invested on tools, educating yourself on your own time. You are also probably specialized. E.g. you are highly qualified at fixing/tuning Ferraris but Toyotas are n't your thing. So you go to a Ferrari tune up shop where you can spend the $500,000 salary. /s IMHO, Tech talent on the other hand works completely differently. They are more about talent (i.e designing stuff, critical thinking, analysis skills) rather than rolling into a specific shop to fix a specific issue. That's where there seems to be this problem with "run a business, not a school" that they have.
tsunamifury 9y ago
The technology talent pool in America is just too small right now (even worse abroad)... and requires too many skills that aren't taught in school. On top of that, only the big firms can afford to apprentice as this article points out, but getting into them is difficult for most. Short term these market dynamics appear to benefit the big firms, but long term it constrains the entire ecosystem. All the big firms need a huge ecosystem of competent little companies who handle integrations at a more local scale. I.e. Google needs small business people who know the webstack well so that Google can integrate its services with your business and sell you ads. So Google is incentivized to invest in community education because every one of those future hackers is a potential future customer. If you want to differentiate in hiring, I'd say the main thing to offer people choosing between Google and you is leadership opportunities. Don't stick your techies in the basement -- offer then 1:1 time with top execs and owners so they can give the feedback they need to build better products.
- Breefield 9y ago
  > I'd say the main thing to offer people choosing between Google and you is leadership opportunities. Agreed!
  - beambot 9y ago
    So now smaller companies (startups?) will be full of engineers who have been promised leadership opportunities? That's untenable and deceptive from my vantage. What happens in 2 years when only 10% achieve those promotions? (Massive turnover and high recruiting costs for new "leaders".)
    - tsunamifury 9y ago
      If the company grows, early stage individuals should all easily be able to become leaders somewhat automatically. If it doesn't grow, they can enjoy leadership and access to the top. Both can be satisfying when compared to big firms.
alexc05 9y ago
> if a recruiter sends us three candidates who cannot pass our coding test, we fire the recruiter is there any room to take blame for the quality of the test? All testing must consider its reliability and validity as a measure. If it is VALID it measures what you think it measures. EG: by passing a programming test it measures that someone CAN or CANNOT code. If it is RELIABLE it has the same results time and again. I'd suggest in their case, that they may have a test which produces a high number of false-negatives - people who can program but struggle with their specific test for one reason or another. Anyways, it's up to them to do whatever they want with respect to their hires... It's up to the rest of us to not let them get away with blowing smoke up our butts about how great their test is or the exceptionally high quality of their candidates are. Joel had a great article saying roughly "no you don't really hire the top 1% of programmers"
- snarf21 9y ago
  Right, or publish an (old) copy of this amazing test and let it be critiqued. Also, if someone is a "top 1%" and you want them to work 100 hour weeks, maybe $500K is just too low.
  - iaw 9y ago
    > want them to work 100 hour weeks, maybe $500K is just too low. I think this is the subtext.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      A 7-day week is 168 hours to begin with. 56 of those must necessarily be for sleep if you want the others to be worth anything. That leaves 112 waking hours. If 100 of those are working at the office, that is 12 hours for personal business. Roughly 100 minutes per day to eat, shower, commute, exercise, etc. $500k is not enough. $500M is not enough. If you put more hours in your labor export category, you have to take some from your leisure consumption category of your time budget. Whatever you earn from selling labor time is generally consumed during your leisure hours, after you subtract all your overhead expenses. And $500k for 100hr work weeks is only about $96/hr. If you subtract $175k for taxes and $75k for overhead expenses, that gives you $250k left to spend over your 624 hours of leisure time, which means you would have to party hard at $400/hr to enjoy it all. You would have to play 4 times as hard as you work. In contrast, $150k for 40hr work weeks is $72/hr. Subtract $42k for taxes and $58k for overhead, and you have $50k left to spend over 3744 leisure hours, which is about $13/hr. If you play just 1/5 as hard as you work, you're directly enjoying all the fruits of your labor. For reference purposes, if you spend $350/mo on a cable TV subscription, that's about $1 for every non-working, non-sleeping hour. If your movie theater charges $10 per 90-minute movie, spending every minute there that you aren't working or in bed is still less than $7/hr. Most leisure time activities repackaged for sale out there are targeted to lower-income households, so it's really difficult to burn up all your disposable income (at that level) just on typical middle-class entertainments without enlisting the help of dependents. That 100hr work week essentially means that you need to have a trophy spouse and some kids that don't know you, so they can spend your money for you. No, thank you; I don't want that.
derialstrazus 9y ago
I'm just starting out in my career, but what do they mean by "good enough to work for us"? Is there a way to measure this metric? And how do I know if I'm there? My personal understanding (as a web developer) had always been, someone who is "good enough" is someone who can build a system from the ground up, with the capability to handle requests at high capacity and manage performance. BUT, this would just be an advanced CRUD app and I fail to see how that would reach a salary of $500,000 a year. It looks like ShellyPalmer has a special focus on machine learning and data science. Perhaps their requirements are beyond what I am even aware of.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > someone who is "good enough" is someone who can build a system from the ground up, with the capability to handle requests at high capacity and manage performance Being a good developer (usually) doesn't mean writing especially performant code, at least not beyond what's noticeable in terms of the end user's experience. It means creating products with: - intuitive database schemas - clean code architecture - good overall readability - simplicity and optionality Being a developer isn't much different than being any other type of writer. The best way to figure out if someone is likely to be a good developer is to ask yourself whether they'd likely be successful as a contributor to the New Yorker.
  - CoolGuySteve 9y ago
    I agree with all of this, these are the most important skills for a developer, but none of these things are tested for in the typical programming interview. If you want to min/max your stats, all that matters is mastering the 'Cracking the Coding Interview' style. So many companies cargo culting Google interview style such that it's now pretty dominant, at least in NYC. On one hand you'd think this would be self correcting, more nimble companies would find more effective ways of interviewing. On the other hand, software development is one of the most fad driven industries out there.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  You actually just broke down quite a few skill sets that can be qualified by experience or interviews. * Build a system from the ground up => Understands how to build custom solutions with or without frameworks and pre-established libraries in order to reach the optimal business solution for the company/client which may include time and resource constraints * Capability to handle requests at high capacity and performance => Understanding of development operations including but not limited to linux, networking, automation, cloud solutions, databases Now the extent to which a developer has trained those skills would greatly effect earning potential however having them at a basic level would certainly qualify one for most dev jobs. Machine learning and data science are particularly valuable because their is simply so much unexplored territory and so few candidates. $500k could easily be the salary of some of the primo researchers working for Uber, Google, Etc.
sheetjs 9y ago
The "tech shortage" is a real myth. The ultimate problem is that people want "unicorns for peanuts" and no one (including Shelly Palmer) wants to take the risk of hiring and developing potential talent. If all you can accept is demonstrated talent, you should be ready to outbid other companies who are looking for demonstrated talent. And if $500K isn't cutting it, that could mean you aren't offering enough (it could also mean your company is in a field that can't really attract top talent, but that's not the case here)
- ferentchak 9y ago
  Off topic: I just started using your open source library and it is helping me out a ton. Thanks!
- xux 9y ago
  > The "tech shortage" is a real myth Except that's wrong. As much as you may dislike the tech industry, you can't contradict the data that shows there are more job openings than developers in the Bay Area
  - jdc0589 9y ago
    The Bay Area is a good indicator for some things, but I'm not so sure it is here. More and more people don't want to live in the Bay area due to the insane cost of living.
  - fictioncircle 9y ago
    And yet every job I've applied to tells me I'm asking for too much money if I ask for my current salary + 10%.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxsilver 9y ago
    A lot of job postings are fake (position doesn't exist, position is exclusively for an internal hire only, job posting just for marketing purposes, job intentionally way underpays to justify hire a H1B, etc) If you simply count job openings, you'll overestimate actual available work by a really large margin.
DanBC 9y ago
> In practice, we could train these workers, but not at market prices with added recruiter vigorish. We just can’t get enough value out of B-team players while they are in training, and by the time we help them become A-team players, their GitHub accounts and contributions will reflect their learning. At that point, they will be firmly on the radar of top-tier tech. And we would have played the role of pre-school for Facebook, Google, or Apple. Great for Zuck, Larry, or Tim, but not so great for us. They create a culture that doesn't value the workforce, and then they wonder why people leave?
forgottenpass 9y ago
I don't want look hard, train on the job, or provide the best long-term career opportunities to candidates. Instead, I'll limit my selection pool to perfectly-tailored candidates that also happen to publish on GitHub. Oh no, other companies are swooping the people I want based on their GitHub! Those candidates are my low hanging fruit, damnit!
ljoshua 9y ago
Some days I think about the 18-25% cut of first year salaries that recruiters are collecting, and I think about transitioning from being a technical person to being a technical recruiter! Unlike most tech recruiters, I actually could vet candidates before presenting them, in theory generating higher quality candidates who are more likely to get placed. There's still a supply-side issue though...
- hocuspocus 9y ago
  It definitely seems to attract highly qualified people. I've dealt with a recruiter who holds a J.D. law degree and passed the bar to be real-estate attorney. Surely that cannot be easy/cheap in the US? (I'm in Europe). And she's an internal recruiter at that, so salaried with some target bonus I assume.
tomtemplate 9y ago
> Feel free to send me a link to your GitHub account. No resumes required. Does anyone have some example github accounts for a talented web developer? Interested to see what a github account for someone who earns $500k looks like.
- phamilton 9y ago
  I think the $500k example is misleading. At that level of seniority, your open source work isn't your primary qualification. What the author is pointing to is the $250k dev who just 2 years back was struggling to land a $90k job.
  - iaw 9y ago
    Two years out of college programmers are making that much in total comp at Facebook and Google. If there's no equity component, $500K is actually in the ballpark.
    - kzisme 9y ago
      Do you have any data or source of this?
      - iaw 9y ago
        There are a couple documents floating around detailing software engineer pay at Facebook and Google. If you do the math on their equity grants, with the past stock growth, you can reach the same figure.
- douche 9y ago
  I would guess that the people making that kind of bank tend to not have GitHub accounts, or at best their fool-around-on-the-weekend projects on it. That's a fuckton of money. I don't know how you make that unless you're in finance, self-employed as a high-end consultant, a CTO/senior architect, or a founder.
- Arcten 9y ago
iFookinHate8 9y ago
Hire people and train them. This is how it worked for thousands of years, yet dbags like shelly think they should be able to skip this step. Google, Facebook, etc., hire college kids and give them time to learn. There is the difference. I'm so sick of the fucking idiots in this industry.
JamesBarney 9y ago
One I would be very surprised if his consultancy actually pays an average salary of $500k for developers. Also $500k is more than 1 in 300 developers make. Every billion dollar company in the world was built with people less talented than the ones your demanding. I would like to see what specific tasks a 1 in 300 developer can accomplish this his 1 in 10 or 50 peer cannot.
- phamilton 9y ago
  Look at Netflix for good examples of a $500k engineer. What did Chaos Monkey require that a 1 in 10 peer could not have done? Technically? Maybe it wouldn't have gone smoothly, or maybe it wouldn't have been as fast, but I am fairly certain most decent developers (with sufficient sysadmin chops) could have built chaos monkey. But the reason that engineer is worth $500k is because of the unique value it added. Their job wasn't to build Chaos Monkey, it was to make Netflix operations more robust. They identified that they didn't know how their software would behave during infrastructure failure and found a way to better understand failure proactively. 1 in 10 engineers add value by writing code. 1 in 50 engineers build value by solving problems. 1 in 300 engineers add value by identifying and solving problems.
  - JamesBarney 9y ago
    1 in 10 engineers are real smart guys who identify and solve problems all the time. What about the 1 in 300 is different? Is it technical knowledge? Is it the ability to sell his ideas to upper management? Google would pay $10 million for a lawyer that would win a case against Microsoft for IP. Similarly defining a 1 in 300 developer as one that makes great contributions is problematic. You're no longer paying for the developer but for the outcome. And people are willing to pay a lot more for outcomes than people.
pjc50 9y ago
This is the footballer hiring model again. At least in football there's a reason why you can't replace one Lionel Messi with half a dozen cheaper people, but are we really sure that this doesn't apply in software development? Is it really that non-parallelisable?
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  "Is it really that non-parallelisable?" Yes. If you have a very complex problem, it won't help to just put more people to it. Rather the opposite. Though there are also plenty of jobs for not-genius programmers.
wohlergehen 9y ago
TLDR (I think): Due to Github, recruiters can poach employees easily. As such, hiring anyone who has not peaked is useless, because he might be poached after training/getting better and we will have to compete with other (possibly more wealthy) employers to retain him.
jaredklewis 9y ago
There is something to be said for risk aversion, but I often encounter attitudes like the one in this blog post that seem proud they are willing avoid risk at any cost. It's irrational. If every company only wants the best of the best programmers and adopts a "better a false negative than a false positive" attitude to hiring, then it is just economics that programmers who are not obviously first class are being undervalued. Translation: if every company wants programmers with a perfect git profile, you can get a programmer w/o a good git profile at bargain prices. Even when you price in the risk of hiring duds, with such an irrational attraction to top-performers, there is a huge opportunity to profit here. Sure, no one should go seek out unnecessary risks, but I think companies should employ a little more cost benefit analysis. Training people is a risk. Hiring junior programmers is a risk. Hiring programmers from a second tier college is a risk. But risks are opportunities to innovate. If you only want to hire MIT grads with 10,000 GitHub stars, fine, but don't expect to get a competitive advantage from this, because this is by and large what all your competitors are doing. The company that learns to identify and retain new talent or manage the risks of hiring "B-team" programmers will be the one with the competitive advantage.
OhHeyItsE 9y ago
I kept waiting for the punchline that gave away the piece as satire. But... it seems 100% serious. > In practice, we could train these workers, but not at market prices with added recruiter vigorish. We just can’t get enough value out of B-team players while they are in training Does the author realize that this is the exact cause of his "problem"? Developers live in constant fear of "if you don't stay up to date, you'll never get another job". Combine that with the generally risky venture-backed tech climate, an at-will employment culture and the zeitgeist of youth worship and blatant ageism. All I can say is: you reap what you sew. Turn this toxic culture around so that devs can feel comfortable that being a great engineer is enough, instead of chasing frameworks and books about algorithms.
tboyd47 9y ago
Yep. Great article. Google and Facebook really have learned how to game the talent system with strategic open sourcing of tech. And you're right, it is Macchiavellian. And here's how you, as a smaller tech company, can beat the system and snag great talent anyway: look for devs with expertise in technologies other than those created by Google and Facebook. You've seen what lies behind the shadows on the cave wall. You know that the talent gold rush is not really about getting the right tech skills, but using tech to get the right people. Now make a bold move based on that knowledge and go with Ruby on Rails. Or Django. Or Ember. Or Intercooler. Or heck, even PHP, which Facebook uses but hardly has a monopoly on. Or even - dare I say it? - .NET! Step off the hype train. Break the monopoly.
hidden_sheepman 9y ago
I miss the days of expertise, you expect doctors to specialize, why can't software developers specialize? I get the point but, its really hard to expect someone in the software industry to be top tier at something when they are expected to know everything. Basically I think developers need more focus instead of the industry expecting us to know everything. I am not saying that we shouldn't know or try to learn different things, but its really hard to become the best when your spending your time on frontend, or backend or tweaking the database or algorithms there is just so much going on. people just need time, just like doctors need time to become a good doctor, developers also need time. People who really get this understand how to build teams and good engineers in which inevitably leads to a good product.
psyc 9y ago
I'm at the point where I simply don't believe a word hiring people say about hiring anymore. I have 20 years of experience at world-class companies, and have shipped multiple very well known products that have collectively sold ~150 million copies. I've had nothing but stellar performance reviews and LinkedIn recs. Coworkers and managers have told me often that I'm one of the best devs they've had the pleasure of working with, and I believe they meant it. I'm very comfortable with every major OS and language, and every stack level. Nobody is going to pay me $500K. Nobody is going to pay me $200K. As recently as 2015, I still had well-known companies trying as hard as they could to bring me on at under $100K! The last time I talked to an SV company publicly claiming to offer $250K, it turned out they were reserving the "top end" for imaginary devs. My work experience only weighed in at $150, according to them. Also, despite having a very rare combination of two unrelated specialties (the reason I applied), and being proficient in 6 languages, including JS, they passed because they felt my JS experience was too light. Writing the AJAX and UI framework used by a team of 30, and working on the front end of a major portal, both at BigCo, were apparently too small-time. My whole career in the industry I was aggressively low-balled 9 times out of 10. Hiring people can't hire who they want, because they're scheming double-talkers, and they've convinced themselves that it's just good business. I started a small business that pays the bills, and I've never been happier. I sincerely would not go back to the industry even if you did pay me $500K.
- venture_lol 9y ago
  Marketing. You need marketing. You may be the hottest deal in town, but if no-one who knows you "personally", need your skills and can afford your rate, it will be rough riding.
- luckydude 9y ago
  Back when we were thriving (as recently as 2015) my top engineers made about $400K/year in salary, bonus, & 401K. That does not include health insurance, we footed the bill for 100% of the health insurance and we covered the whole family. Truth in advertising though. I'm the founder, I'm weird, I ran that company much more like a cooperative than just about anyone else would have. So I don't expect that comp to be that commonplace. I also tracked salaries at the big companies and made sure we were competitive. In general, we were very competitive but it is possible to get a better package, not common, but possible. One of my guys went to Saleforce or Linkedin, and I could not beat their package (well I could but then I'd have to bump everyone else up to that and we all agreed that didn't make sense for us).
ohstopitu 9y ago
So TLDR: 1. We want to hire experienced programmers for 500k 2. We don't want to train junior programmers to become senior programmers because they'll leave for BigCo. 3. BigCo. with bigger budgets are stealing such senior employees and somehow it's not fair I'm still waiting for the "it's satire" post. That said, out of curiosity: why a Github account? If you are that good, and work that hard currently, you'll probably not have time for a Github account that'll land you a job anyway :/ Or are they looking for "branded" devs that work in open source? (because not all companies even allow for open source on stuff you work on)
srpablo 9y ago
Wow there's a ton about this that I'm reacting badly to. * It's a jobs ad; it shouldn't be frontpaged and they're not paying anyone $500k. * Nobody says "I want 100 steaks for 200 dollars and I couldn't find it; there's a steak shortage!!" Labor markets and scarcity are a thing, I'm sorry this person isn't getting (by their own admission) the same output from their few employees as the world's most valuable companies. I wonder how good their consulting is if their reaction to tech's labor market is "the world is rigged and most developers are useless or untrustworthy." * I'd be curious to know what the author's tech chops are. There's no shortage of non-tech people who think building an app is "simple" because "I know what I want and explained it to you" and surely the issue, should problems arise, is that the developer was subpar. "I'd pay you, but you can't do the work." Please. This is exactly the person you avoid in your career, life.
pjungwir 9y ago
Personally I feel a mix of eagerness and skepticism. Just to rule out the bait-and-switch, this is $500k to write code? Not to travel half the time and bring in more sales? They say they want "React/Redux specialists, Unity developers, data scientists, and data engineers (proficient with TensorFlow), technical project managers (who used to do the above, but have evolved into managers), and technical account executives." The hero image is just some React. If this is for real, I'm willing to apply. I've built web-based software for clients for 17 years. I can handle the tech, but also lead a team, manage a project, design products and features, learn a customer's problems and advise them, and offer creative solutions that bring massive value and savings. I'm a great fit for a consulting company. I do pretty well right now working for myself, but $500k would still be a big bump up. So I'm looking for the call-to-action, and it is . . . "Subscribe to the newsletter." Really? Who is this article for anyway? It is just one executive commiserating to others? It definitely doesn't seem to show ShellyPalmer in their best light: I don't see any solutions, just complaining and excuses. They are advertising their inability to hire the best people? Offer me $500k to solve technical problems (and not leave Oregon), and I'll apply. But I can't even find a Careers page. I guess they feel I should have to work for it. That's fine, I'll tweet at you if you want, but in that case I'd like to see some proof first that this offer is for real.
mnm1 9y ago
For $500k, a company could hire three excellent engineers. I don't care how good an engineer is, he won't be doing the work of two people, let alone three, especially in things like UI design/programming which is 95% grunt work. The reason FB and other big companies' products are the quality they are isn't because they have geniuses working for them. It's simply because they have thousands of workers and therefore can concentrate on all the most minute details and follow all the byzantine paths that regular companies simply do not have the manpower to do. The author thinks he can find someone to pay $500k and this person will outperform multiple teams of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people. That's delusional and a horrible way to "lead" a company. Damn right he won't be hiring anyone with that $500k. Such a human being does not exist. Not at FB, not anywhere.
taude 9y ago
In reading this, I'm thinking to myself, they probably don't want to pay for this A-grade talent. It shouldn't be too hard to keep employees away from Google/FB/etc if you're place is really that great to work. It's more likely the OP's employees don't like consulting, and the lifestyle of having to deliver unreasonable amount/quality of work in a short time that was over-sold to clients. If they can get B-Players into their company, that's doing well in my book. I'm often stuck hiring C and D players because of the corporate pay rates my company offers, and lack of perks that make us not competitive around town.
dlwdlw 9y ago
There might be a correlation between effective workers and large companies. A person who is willing to memorize "Cracking the Coding Interview" is the type of person who has his or her life on guided rails and would prefer the upper middle class of a large company rather than the scrappiness of a smaller company which results in poor/rich. Chinese culture especially has a long history of exam guided lives dating to ancient dynasties. Stereotypical desired professions like lawyers and doctors are also very credential-gated and similar. So small companies are left with a much smaller pool of candidates, often less credentialed and much stronger willed. They cannot grow a workforce of highly credentialed/technical workers who do what they are told. Are there mavericks who are also very technical out of passion rather than trying to oull their families out of poverty? Yes. But they usually aren't willing to play second fiddle.

71 points by smaili 9y ago

That's an awfully lot of words to write, just to say "I'm lying about my $500k offer". If they were actually paying that, they'd have no shortage of talent to burn out with their standard consulting work. Tons of companies claim "we would pay [huge number]", or "there's no upper bound of income for the best talent". It's almost never true.

iaw 9y ago
Facebook and Google total comp for average programmers ~2 years in is >$400K right now. $600k isn't that hard to make at these companies.
- geebee 9y ago
  Can you post some kind of evidence for this? I know salaries are somewhat secretive, but do you have something to support this? The reason I'm skeptical is that while I do know people at google as relatively senior dev (very talented, elite CS degrees, 15+ years experience), they were well above 200k a year, but nowhere close to 600k. This was also more than 2 years ago. Again, I understand data isn't public, but do you have something to support the notion it isn't hard to make 600k as a dev?
  - iaw 9y ago
    This is in total compensation terms. There are two documents floating around where employees detailed their compensation coming into Google and Facebook. What everyone replying fails to realize is that if you include the appreciation of the preliminary and refresher grants these engineers are making >$400K rather quickly.
    - geebee 9y ago
      I appreciate your reply, but I do see this as just a more detailed claim without evidence, other than referring to documents floating around. I understand publicly available data is hard to come but, but this also just doesn't square with the few data points I have, for senior devs at google (albeit a couple years ago). I suppose some of this may turn on what you mean by "rather quickly" for compensation in excess of $400k a year (let alone $600k/yr, which seems very high). I can't say you're wrong, because I don't have evidence... but that's the problem here, I don't have any evidence to believe you either. You're claiming everyone is failing to realize something, but in the absence of credible and available data. Just give me something here. I can be convinced by evidence, but references to documents "floating around" just isn't enough for me, as it contradict my direct conversations with google employees, though my conversations are limited, slightly old, and personal information may be unreliable. $250k, sure, that squares with what I've heard.
      - iaw 9y ago
        I feel comfortable speaking anecdotally but I don't feel comfortable formally doing the math here for reasons that I prefer not to disclose. I appreciate your desire for more details on my claim but I cannot provide it. $250K is accurate assuming zero/normal stock appreciation. Assume half that is in equity compensation with a 38% (for FB) growth rate on a 4 year schedule and determine what the figures get to.
- bluesnowmonkey 9y ago
  Lies. I was there a year ago. People share compensation info. You're way, way off.
- gamechangr 9y ago
  I have a friend that's pretty solid programmer - been at google for 3 years. He claims he crossed $400k at the 2 year mark. That's at least 1 case that appears to support this.
- taude 9y ago
  I don't believe this at all. I have friends who work for Google from acquired companies and they're no where near this.
geebee 9y ago
If Mr Palmer is going to claim he'd pay 500k, I'd like to see some evidence that he is actually doing this for his top performing employees. He says he lost a few "perfect" candidates to Facebook and google. Did he offer them $500k a year? Keep in mind, Mr Palmer chose to make this claim very publicly, and he's gotten plenty of attention at this point for doing so. So I'd love to see a good journalist follow up with some real numbers here. If he's telling the truth, well then, good for him! I tend to be skeptical about people who claim there is a shortage, since they almost never talk about what they're offering. Mr Palmer is. So far, so good. But he should be willing to offer some real evidence of this claim. Let's see the numbers.
- venture_lol 9y ago
  He is good at "promotion" and "marketing". He will now get plenty of talent eyeballs for free rather than having to pay for ads with dubious return :)

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago

...but is it remote? I would turn down a $500,000 a year job if it were onsite-only.

speeder 9y ago
Or sometimes you can't accept it. Yesterday who is hiring made me sort of depressed, I am in desperate need for work, yet all work I was qualified for was non remote in other countries, or semi remote, the few ones that allowed real remote required some random citizenship I don't have. Seemly being born in the wrong place can heavily cripple a career.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  The formula I've found is 2-3 months on site where you convince the employer of your value, integrity, professionalism, etc., then 1 month of partial remote work where you show an increase in productivity. Then the question of 'can I just remote' is often a cake walk.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  If you meet the technical requirements then apply anyway, what have you got to loose. I doubt these people are getting flooded with responses, it may be they are more flexible than first appears.

jacquesm 9y ago

Wasn't the who is hiring thread yesterday?

mattnewton 9y ago

I think the "we run a buisiness, not a school" could be the answer to this guy's dilemma. Hiring diamonds in the rough and cultivating talent relentlessly is how the best engineers were found and kept in my limited experience at Apple, and it seems Google has an even stronger internal education culture.

matwood 9y ago
> Hiring diamonds in the rough and cultivating talent relentlessly is how the best engineers were found and kept in my limited experience at Apple, and it seems Google has an even stronger internal education culture. Yeah, that was a weird statement in the article. Tech moves so fast that allowing for internal education needs to be a requirement at any company. I literally learn something new every single day. When I look to hire, I look for some raw talent and enthusiasm to learn because whatever the candidate knows right now will be obsolete in 12 months (except for CS foundational topics, but that's for a different post).
- sevensor 9y ago
  I live in flyover country, so we hire from a different pool. I'm not sure if this is a general rule, or if the Bay Area has sucked all of the talent out of the region, but I have yet to interview a competent graduate from the CS program down the street at Big State U. We've had better luck hiring from engineering and the applied sciences. Ceteris paribus, I'd prefer candidates with some theory background, but the ceteris are not paribus.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Probably because CS is the obvious route to a programming job, while doing something else for intellectual satisfaction speaks to being inquisitive.
shortsightedsid 9y ago
It's also means that they are looking not for tech talent but for skilled labor. Highly skilled labor assumes no re-education for the current job but does not account for future work. If you are a master carpenter or a master mechanic then you probably have invested on tools, educating yourself on your own time. You are also probably specialized. E.g. you are highly qualified at fixing/tuning Ferraris but Toyotas are n't your thing. So you go to a Ferrari tune up shop where you can spend the $500,000 salary. /s IMHO, Tech talent on the other hand works completely differently. They are more about talent (i.e designing stuff, critical thinking, analysis skills) rather than rolling into a specific shop to fix a specific issue. That's where there seems to be this problem with "run a business, not a school" that they have.

tsunamifury 9y ago

The technology talent pool in America is just too small right now (even worse abroad)... and requires too many skills that aren't taught in school. On top of that, only the big firms can afford to apprentice as this article points out, but getting into them is difficult for most. Short term these market dynamics appear to benefit the big firms, but long term it constrains the entire ecosystem. All the big firms need a huge ecosystem of competent little companies who handle integrations at a more local scale. I.e. Google needs small business people who know the webstack well so that Google can integrate its services with your business and sell you ads. So Google is incentivized to invest in community education because every one of those future hackers is a potential future customer. If you want to differentiate in hiring, I'd say the main thing to offer people choosing between Google and you is leadership opportunities. Don't stick your techies in the basement -- offer then 1:1 time with top execs and owners so they can give the feedback they need to build better products.

Breefield 9y ago
> I'd say the main thing to offer people choosing between Google and you is leadership opportunities. Agreed!
- beambot 9y ago
  So now smaller companies (startups?) will be full of engineers who have been promised leadership opportunities? That's untenable and deceptive from my vantage. What happens in 2 years when only 10% achieve those promotions? (Massive turnover and high recruiting costs for new "leaders".)
  - tsunamifury 9y ago
    If the company grows, early stage individuals should all easily be able to become leaders somewhat automatically. If it doesn't grow, they can enjoy leadership and access to the top. Both can be satisfying when compared to big firms.

alexc05 9y ago

> if a recruiter sends us three candidates who cannot pass our coding test, we fire the recruiter is there any room to take blame for the quality of the test? All testing must consider its reliability and validity as a measure. If it is VALID it measures what you think it measures. EG: by passing a programming test it measures that someone CAN or CANNOT code. If it is RELIABLE it has the same results time and again. I'd suggest in their case, that they may have a test which produces a high number of false-negatives - people who can program but struggle with their specific test for one reason or another. Anyways, it's up to them to do whatever they want with respect to their hires... It's up to the rest of us to not let them get away with blowing smoke up our butts about how great their test is or the exceptionally high quality of their candidates are. Joel had a great article saying roughly "no you don't really hire the top 1% of programmers"

snarf21 9y ago
Right, or publish an (old) copy of this amazing test and let it be critiqued. Also, if someone is a "top 1%" and you want them to work 100 hour weeks, maybe $500K is just too low.
- iaw 9y ago
  > want them to work 100 hour weeks, maybe $500K is just too low. I think this is the subtext.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    A 7-day week is 168 hours to begin with. 56 of those must necessarily be for sleep if you want the others to be worth anything. That leaves 112 waking hours. If 100 of those are working at the office, that is 12 hours for personal business. Roughly 100 minutes per day to eat, shower, commute, exercise, etc. $500k is not enough. $500M is not enough. If you put more hours in your labor export category, you have to take some from your leisure consumption category of your time budget. Whatever you earn from selling labor time is generally consumed during your leisure hours, after you subtract all your overhead expenses. And $500k for 100hr work weeks is only about $96/hr. If you subtract $175k for taxes and $75k for overhead expenses, that gives you $250k left to spend over your 624 hours of leisure time, which means you would have to party hard at $400/hr to enjoy it all. You would have to play 4 times as hard as you work. In contrast, $150k for 40hr work weeks is $72/hr. Subtract $42k for taxes and $58k for overhead, and you have $50k left to spend over 3744 leisure hours, which is about $13/hr. If you play just 1/5 as hard as you work, you're directly enjoying all the fruits of your labor. For reference purposes, if you spend $350/mo on a cable TV subscription, that's about $1 for every non-working, non-sleeping hour. If your movie theater charges $10 per 90-minute movie, spending every minute there that you aren't working or in bed is still less than $7/hr. Most leisure time activities repackaged for sale out there are targeted to lower-income households, so it's really difficult to burn up all your disposable income (at that level) just on typical middle-class entertainments without enlisting the help of dependents. That 100hr work week essentially means that you need to have a trophy spouse and some kids that don't know you, so they can spend your money for you. No, thank you; I don't want that.

derialstrazus 9y ago

I'm just starting out in my career, but what do they mean by "good enough to work for us"? Is there a way to measure this metric? And how do I know if I'm there? My personal understanding (as a web developer) had always been, someone who is "good enough" is someone who can build a system from the ground up, with the capability to handle requests at high capacity and manage performance. BUT, this would just be an advanced CRUD app and I fail to see how that would reach a salary of $500,000 a year. It looks like ShellyPalmer has a special focus on machine learning and data science. Perhaps their requirements are beyond what I am even aware of.

Alex3917 9y ago
> someone who is "good enough" is someone who can build a system from the ground up, with the capability to handle requests at high capacity and manage performance Being a good developer (usually) doesn't mean writing especially performant code, at least not beyond what's noticeable in terms of the end user's experience. It means creating products with: - intuitive database schemas - clean code architecture - good overall readability - simplicity and optionality Being a developer isn't much different than being any other type of writer. The best way to figure out if someone is likely to be a good developer is to ask yourself whether they'd likely be successful as a contributor to the New Yorker.
- CoolGuySteve 9y ago
  I agree with all of this, these are the most important skills for a developer, but none of these things are tested for in the typical programming interview. If you want to min/max your stats, all that matters is mastering the 'Cracking the Coding Interview' style. So many companies cargo culting Google interview style such that it's now pretty dominant, at least in NYC. On one hand you'd think this would be self correcting, more nimble companies would find more effective ways of interviewing. On the other hand, software development is one of the most fad driven industries out there.
ben_jones 9y ago
You actually just broke down quite a few skill sets that can be qualified by experience or interviews. * Build a system from the ground up => Understands how to build custom solutions with or without frameworks and pre-established libraries in order to reach the optimal business solution for the company/client which may include time and resource constraints * Capability to handle requests at high capacity and performance => Understanding of development operations including but not limited to linux, networking, automation, cloud solutions, databases Now the extent to which a developer has trained those skills would greatly effect earning potential however having them at a basic level would certainly qualify one for most dev jobs. Machine learning and data science are particularly valuable because their is simply so much unexplored territory and so few candidates. $500k could easily be the salary of some of the primo researchers working for Uber, Google, Etc.

sheetjs 9y ago

The "tech shortage" is a real myth. The ultimate problem is that people want "unicorns for peanuts" and no one (including Shelly Palmer) wants to take the risk of hiring and developing potential talent. If all you can accept is demonstrated talent, you should be ready to outbid other companies who are looking for demonstrated talent. And if $500K isn't cutting it, that could mean you aren't offering enough (it could also mean your company is in a field that can't really attract top talent, but that's not the case here)

ferentchak 9y ago
Off topic: I just started using your open source library and it is helping me out a ton. Thanks!
xux 9y ago
> The "tech shortage" is a real myth Except that's wrong. As much as you may dislike the tech industry, you can't contradict the data that shows there are more job openings than developers in the Bay Area
- jdc0589 9y ago
  The Bay Area is a good indicator for some things, but I'm not so sure it is here. More and more people don't want to live in the Bay area due to the insane cost of living.
- fictioncircle 9y ago
  And yet every job I've applied to tells me I'm asking for too much money if I ask for my current salary + 10%.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- maxsilver 9y ago
  A lot of job postings are fake (position doesn't exist, position is exclusively for an internal hire only, job posting just for marketing purposes, job intentionally way underpays to justify hire a H1B, etc) If you simply count job openings, you'll overestimate actual available work by a really large margin.

DanBC 9y ago

> In practice, we could train these workers, but not at market prices with added recruiter vigorish. We just can’t get enough value out of B-team players while they are in training, and by the time we help them become A-team players, their GitHub accounts and contributions will reflect their learning. At that point, they will be firmly on the radar of top-tier tech. And we would have played the role of pre-school for Facebook, Google, or Apple. Great for Zuck, Larry, or Tim, but not so great for us. They create a culture that doesn't value the workforce, and then they wonder why people leave?

forgottenpass 9y ago

I don't want look hard, train on the job, or provide the best long-term career opportunities to candidates. Instead, I'll limit my selection pool to perfectly-tailored candidates that also happen to publish on GitHub. Oh no, other companies are swooping the people I want based on their GitHub! Those candidates are my low hanging fruit, damnit!

ljoshua 9y ago

Some days I think about the 18-25% cut of first year salaries that recruiters are collecting, and I think about transitioning from being a technical person to being a technical recruiter! Unlike most tech recruiters, I actually could vet candidates before presenting them, in theory generating higher quality candidates who are more likely to get placed. There's still a supply-side issue though...

hocuspocus 9y ago
It definitely seems to attract highly qualified people. I've dealt with a recruiter who holds a J.D. law degree and passed the bar to be real-estate attorney. Surely that cannot be easy/cheap in the US? (I'm in Europe). And she's an internal recruiter at that, so salaried with some target bonus I assume.

tomtemplate 9y ago

> Feel free to send me a link to your GitHub account. No resumes required. Does anyone have some example github accounts for a talented web developer? Interested to see what a github account for someone who earns $500k looks like.

phamilton 9y ago
I think the $500k example is misleading. At that level of seniority, your open source work isn't your primary qualification. What the author is pointing to is the $250k dev who just 2 years back was struggling to land a $90k job.
- iaw 9y ago
  Two years out of college programmers are making that much in total comp at Facebook and Google. If there's no equity component, $500K is actually in the ballpark.
  - kzisme 9y ago
    Do you have any data or source of this?
    - iaw 9y ago
      There are a couple documents floating around detailing software engineer pay at Facebook and Google. If you do the math on their equity grants, with the past stock growth, you can reach the same figure.
douche 9y ago
I would guess that the people making that kind of bank tend to not have GitHub accounts, or at best their fool-around-on-the-weekend projects on it. That's a fuckton of money. I don't know how you make that unless you're in finance, self-employed as a high-end consultant, a CTO/senior architect, or a founder.
Arcten 9y ago

iFookinHate8 9y ago

Hire people and train them. This is how it worked for thousands of years, yet dbags like shelly think they should be able to skip this step. Google, Facebook, etc., hire college kids and give them time to learn. There is the difference. I'm so sick of the fucking idiots in this industry.

JamesBarney 9y ago

One I would be very surprised if his consultancy actually pays an average salary of $500k for developers. Also $500k is more than 1 in 300 developers make. Every billion dollar company in the world was built with people less talented than the ones your demanding. I would like to see what specific tasks a 1 in 300 developer can accomplish this his 1 in 10 or 50 peer cannot.

phamilton 9y ago
Look at Netflix for good examples of a $500k engineer. What did Chaos Monkey require that a 1 in 10 peer could not have done? Technically? Maybe it wouldn't have gone smoothly, or maybe it wouldn't have been as fast, but I am fairly certain most decent developers (with sufficient sysadmin chops) could have built chaos monkey. But the reason that engineer is worth $500k is because of the unique value it added. Their job wasn't to build Chaos Monkey, it was to make Netflix operations more robust. They identified that they didn't know how their software would behave during infrastructure failure and found a way to better understand failure proactively. 1 in 10 engineers add value by writing code. 1 in 50 engineers build value by solving problems. 1 in 300 engineers add value by identifying and solving problems.
- JamesBarney 9y ago
  1 in 10 engineers are real smart guys who identify and solve problems all the time. What about the 1 in 300 is different? Is it technical knowledge? Is it the ability to sell his ideas to upper management? Google would pay $10 million for a lawyer that would win a case against Microsoft for IP. Similarly defining a 1 in 300 developer as one that makes great contributions is problematic. You're no longer paying for the developer but for the outcome. And people are willing to pay a lot more for outcomes than people.

pjc50 9y ago

This is the footballer hiring model again. At least in football there's a reason why you can't replace one Lionel Messi with half a dozen cheaper people, but are we really sure that this doesn't apply in software development? Is it really that non-parallelisable?

hutzlibu 9y ago
"Is it really that non-parallelisable?" Yes. If you have a very complex problem, it won't help to just put more people to it. Rather the opposite. Though there are also plenty of jobs for not-genius programmers.

wohlergehen 9y ago

TLDR (I think): Due to Github, recruiters can poach employees easily. As such, hiring anyone who has not peaked is useless, because he might be poached after training/getting better and we will have to compete with other (possibly more wealthy) employers to retain him.

jaredklewis 9y ago

There is something to be said for risk aversion, but I often encounter attitudes like the one in this blog post that seem proud they are willing avoid risk at any cost. It's irrational. If every company only wants the best of the best programmers and adopts a "better a false negative than a false positive" attitude to hiring, then it is just economics that programmers who are not obviously first class are being undervalued. Translation: if every company wants programmers with a perfect git profile, you can get a programmer w/o a good git profile at bargain prices. Even when you price in the risk of hiring duds, with such an irrational attraction to top-performers, there is a huge opportunity to profit here. Sure, no one should go seek out unnecessary risks, but I think companies should employ a little more cost benefit analysis. Training people is a risk. Hiring junior programmers is a risk. Hiring programmers from a second tier college is a risk. But risks are opportunities to innovate. If you only want to hire MIT grads with 10,000 GitHub stars, fine, but don't expect to get a competitive advantage from this, because this is by and large what all your competitors are doing. The company that learns to identify and retain new talent or manage the risks of hiring "B-team" programmers will be the one with the competitive advantage.

OhHeyItsE 9y ago

I kept waiting for the punchline that gave away the piece as satire. But... it seems 100% serious. > In practice, we could train these workers, but not at market prices with added recruiter vigorish. We just can’t get enough value out of B-team players while they are in training Does the author realize that this is the exact cause of his "problem"? Developers live in constant fear of "if you don't stay up to date, you'll never get another job". Combine that with the generally risky venture-backed tech climate, an at-will employment culture and the zeitgeist of youth worship and blatant ageism. All I can say is: you reap what you sew. Turn this toxic culture around so that devs can feel comfortable that being a great engineer is enough, instead of chasing frameworks and books about algorithms.

tboyd47 9y ago

Yep. Great article. Google and Facebook really have learned how to game the talent system with strategic open sourcing of tech. And you're right, it is Macchiavellian. And here's how you, as a smaller tech company, can beat the system and snag great talent anyway: look for devs with expertise in technologies other than those created by Google and Facebook. You've seen what lies behind the shadows on the cave wall. You know that the talent gold rush is not really about getting the right tech skills, but using tech to get the right people. Now make a bold move based on that knowledge and go with Ruby on Rails. Or Django. Or Ember. Or Intercooler. Or heck, even PHP, which Facebook uses but hardly has a monopoly on. Or even - dare I say it? - .NET! Step off the hype train. Break the monopoly.

hidden_sheepman 9y ago

I miss the days of expertise, you expect doctors to specialize, why can't software developers specialize? I get the point but, its really hard to expect someone in the software industry to be top tier at something when they are expected to know everything. Basically I think developers need more focus instead of the industry expecting us to know everything. I am not saying that we shouldn't know or try to learn different things, but its really hard to become the best when your spending your time on frontend, or backend or tweaking the database or algorithms there is just so much going on. people just need time, just like doctors need time to become a good doctor, developers also need time. People who really get this understand how to build teams and good engineers in which inevitably leads to a good product.

psyc 9y ago

I'm at the point where I simply don't believe a word hiring people say about hiring anymore. I have 20 years of experience at world-class companies, and have shipped multiple very well known products that have collectively sold ~150 million copies. I've had nothing but stellar performance reviews and LinkedIn recs. Coworkers and managers have told me often that I'm one of the best devs they've had the pleasure of working with, and I believe they meant it. I'm very comfortable with every major OS and language, and every stack level. Nobody is going to pay me $500K. Nobody is going to pay me $200K. As recently as 2015, I still had well-known companies trying as hard as they could to bring me on at under $100K! The last time I talked to an SV company publicly claiming to offer $250K, it turned out they were reserving the "top end" for imaginary devs. My work experience only weighed in at $150, according to them. Also, despite having a very rare combination of two unrelated specialties (the reason I applied), and being proficient in 6 languages, including JS, they passed because they felt my JS experience was too light. Writing the AJAX and UI framework used by a team of 30, and working on the front end of a major portal, both at BigCo, were apparently too small-time. My whole career in the industry I was aggressively low-balled 9 times out of 10. Hiring people can't hire who they want, because they're scheming double-talkers, and they've convinced themselves that it's just good business. I started a small business that pays the bills, and I've never been happier. I sincerely would not go back to the industry even if you did pay me $500K.

venture_lol 9y ago
Marketing. You need marketing. You may be the hottest deal in town, but if no-one who knows you "personally", need your skills and can afford your rate, it will be rough riding.
luckydude 9y ago
Back when we were thriving (as recently as 2015) my top engineers made about $400K/year in salary, bonus, & 401K. That does not include health insurance, we footed the bill for 100% of the health insurance and we covered the whole family. Truth in advertising though. I'm the founder, I'm weird, I ran that company much more like a cooperative than just about anyone else would have. So I don't expect that comp to be that commonplace. I also tracked salaries at the big companies and made sure we were competitive. In general, we were very competitive but it is possible to get a better package, not common, but possible. One of my guys went to Saleforce or Linkedin, and I could not beat their package (well I could but then I'd have to bump everyone else up to that and we all agreed that didn't make sense for us).

ohstopitu 9y ago

So TLDR: 1. We want to hire experienced programmers for 500k 2. We don't want to train junior programmers to become senior programmers because they'll leave for BigCo. 3. BigCo. with bigger budgets are stealing such senior employees and somehow it's not fair I'm still waiting for the "it's satire" post. That said, out of curiosity: why a Github account? If you are that good, and work that hard currently, you'll probably not have time for a Github account that'll land you a job anyway :/ Or are they looking for "branded" devs that work in open source? (because not all companies even allow for open source on stuff you work on)

srpablo 9y ago

Wow there's a ton about this that I'm reacting badly to. * It's a jobs ad; it shouldn't be frontpaged and they're not paying anyone $500k. * Nobody says "I want 100 steaks for 200 dollars and I couldn't find it; there's a steak shortage!!" Labor markets and scarcity are a thing, I'm sorry this person isn't getting (by their own admission) the same output from their few employees as the world's most valuable companies. I wonder how good their consulting is if their reaction to tech's labor market is "the world is rigged and most developers are useless or untrustworthy." * I'd be curious to know what the author's tech chops are. There's no shortage of non-tech people who think building an app is "simple" because "I know what I want and explained it to you" and surely the issue, should problems arise, is that the developer was subpar. "I'd pay you, but you can't do the work." Please. This is exactly the person you avoid in your career, life.

pjungwir 9y ago

Personally I feel a mix of eagerness and skepticism. Just to rule out the bait-and-switch, this is $500k to write code? Not to travel half the time and bring in more sales? They say they want "React/Redux specialists, Unity developers, data scientists, and data engineers (proficient with TensorFlow), technical project managers (who used to do the above, but have evolved into managers), and technical account executives." The hero image is just some React. If this is for real, I'm willing to apply. I've built web-based software for clients for 17 years. I can handle the tech, but also lead a team, manage a project, design products and features, learn a customer's problems and advise them, and offer creative solutions that bring massive value and savings. I'm a great fit for a consulting company. I do pretty well right now working for myself, but $500k would still be a big bump up. So I'm looking for the call-to-action, and it is . . . "Subscribe to the newsletter." Really? Who is this article for anyway? It is just one executive commiserating to others? It definitely doesn't seem to show ShellyPalmer in their best light: I don't see any solutions, just complaining and excuses. They are advertising their inability to hire the best people? Offer me $500k to solve technical problems (and not leave Oregon), and I'll apply. But I can't even find a Careers page. I guess they feel I should have to work for it. That's fine, I'll tweet at you if you want, but in that case I'd like to see some proof first that this offer is for real.

mnm1 9y ago

For $500k, a company could hire three excellent engineers. I don't care how good an engineer is, he won't be doing the work of two people, let alone three, especially in things like UI design/programming which is 95% grunt work. The reason FB and other big companies' products are the quality they are isn't because they have geniuses working for them. It's simply because they have thousands of workers and therefore can concentrate on all the most minute details and follow all the byzantine paths that regular companies simply do not have the manpower to do. The author thinks he can find someone to pay $500k and this person will outperform multiple teams of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people. That's delusional and a horrible way to "lead" a company. Damn right he won't be hiring anyone with that $500k. Such a human being does not exist. Not at FB, not anywhere.

taude 9y ago

In reading this, I'm thinking to myself, they probably don't want to pay for this A-grade talent. It shouldn't be too hard to keep employees away from Google/FB/etc if you're place is really that great to work. It's more likely the OP's employees don't like consulting, and the lifestyle of having to deliver unreasonable amount/quality of work in a short time that was over-sold to clients. If they can get B-Players into their company, that's doing well in my book. I'm often stuck hiring C and D players because of the corporate pay rates my company offers, and lack of perks that make us not competitive around town.

dlwdlw 9y ago

There might be a correlation between effective workers and large companies. A person who is willing to memorize "Cracking the Coding Interview" is the type of person who has his or her life on guided rails and would prefer the upper middle class of a large company rather than the scrappiness of a smaller company which results in poor/rich. Chinese culture especially has a long history of exam guided lives dating to ancient dynasties. Stereotypical desired professions like lawyers and doctors are also very credential-gated and similar. So small companies are left with a much smaller pool of candidates, often less credentialed and much stronger willed. They cannot grow a workforce of highly credentialed/technical workers who do what they are told. Are there mavericks who are also very technical out of passion rather than trying to oull their families out of poverty? Yes. But they usually aren't willing to play second fiddle.