5 ms·

> But maybe the job isn't economically worth it at the higher salary? That would means the company is dysfunctional and only desperate people are going to join

> But maybe the job isn't economically worth it at the higher salary? That would means the company is dysfunctional and only desperate people are going to join this wagon.

icebraining 9y ago
How does that follow? You seem to be assuming a lot. If they're peripheral, optional tasks, like an extra service you could upsell to your clients for a small margin, it may not provide enough income for a market-level salary.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  So you are incapable of hiring. When you don't have the money for a ferrari, you don't buy a toyota because of the lack of available ferraris.
  - havetocharge 9y ago
    People are not objects, and your analogy is not accurate (or maybe just unclear). People (at least in our industry) are free not to accept jobs with low pay. You are also free to seek clients rather than employers.
- learc83 9y ago
  In most cases, you don't want to take a job that's worth say $100k, but not $150k to an employer. Either the value you're bringing to the company is somewhere less than $50k, or the company is irrationally tied to not paying more than $100k.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    So what if the value is less than $50k?
    - learc83 9y ago
      You want to work for a company where you cost them $150k in salary and benefits and only add $50k in value? That's a very insecure position to be in, it doesn't leave much room for growth, and it means you have very little leverage overall.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Six months ago, I was making about 1/6 of that working as a software developer, and I wasn't badly paid for the area. I'm pretty sure most of my colleagues would sign up for that in five minutes.
        learc83 9y ago
        I'm assuming you mean 1/6 of $150k (150k was salary plus benefits, the salary was only 100k). 25k is very badly paid for any area in the US (outside of a few territories) as a software developer. If you're not in the US, then obviously that changes things.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Yeah, not in the US :)
    - jldugger 9y ago
      Then there's not a heck of a lot of room for error or raises. In a now deleted reddit thread someone was bitching that $150k for programmers was absurd, and they have all kinds of applicants, so nobody's worth that kind of money. My rebuttal was pretty simple: major tech companies have profits per employee north of $100k. That's $100k in compensation left on the table, by companies reputed to be among the highest paying out there. In contrast, IBM has profits of $30k per person and is constantly in layoff mode. That's what happens when the value is less than $50k.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    Unless you're currently making $50K, in which case why would you turn down a 100% raise?
    - learc83 9y ago
      If your choice is only between your current $50k job and the $100k job then of course. For most people looking at a $100k a year job, that's not the case.
      - kartickv 9y ago
        That's a fair point.

> But maybe the job isn't economically worth it at the higher salary? That would means the company is dysfunctional and only desperate people are going to join this wagon.

icebraining 9y ago

How does that follow? You seem to be assuming a lot. If they're peripheral, optional tasks, like an extra service you could upsell to your clients for a small margin, it may not provide enough income for a market-level salary.

owebmaster 9y ago
So you are incapable of hiring. When you don't have the money for a ferrari, you don't buy a toyota because of the lack of available ferraris.
- havetocharge 9y ago
  People are not objects, and your analogy is not accurate (or maybe just unclear). People (at least in our industry) are free not to accept jobs with low pay. You are also free to seek clients rather than employers.
learc83 9y ago
In most cases, you don't want to take a job that's worth say $100k, but not $150k to an employer. Either the value you're bringing to the company is somewhere less than $50k, or the company is irrationally tied to not paying more than $100k.
- icebraining 9y ago
  So what if the value is less than $50k?
  - learc83 9y ago
    You want to work for a company where you cost them $150k in salary and benefits and only add $50k in value? That's a very insecure position to be in, it doesn't leave much room for growth, and it means you have very little leverage overall.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Six months ago, I was making about 1/6 of that working as a software developer, and I wasn't badly paid for the area. I'm pretty sure most of my colleagues would sign up for that in five minutes.
      - learc83 9y ago
        I'm assuming you mean 1/6 of $150k (150k was salary plus benefits, the salary was only 100k). 25k is very badly paid for any area in the US (outside of a few territories) as a software developer. If you're not in the US, then obviously that changes things.
        icebraining 9y ago
        Yeah, not in the US :)
  - jldugger 9y ago
    Then there's not a heck of a lot of room for error or raises. In a now deleted reddit thread someone was bitching that $150k for programmers was absurd, and they have all kinds of applicants, so nobody's worth that kind of money. My rebuttal was pretty simple: major tech companies have profits per employee north of $100k. That's $100k in compensation left on the table, by companies reputed to be among the highest paying out there. In contrast, IBM has profits of $30k per person and is constantly in layoff mode. That's what happens when the value is less than $50k.
- kartickv 9y ago
  Unless you're currently making $50K, in which case why would you turn down a 100% raise?
  - learc83 9y ago
    If your choice is only between your current $50k job and the $100k job then of course. For most people looking at a $100k a year job, that's not the case.
    - kartickv 9y ago
      That's a fair point.