4 ms·

20k USD/month is in the range that Google/FB/Microsoft pays for direct managers of ~10 person teams: basically that would be the level of credentials that you w

20k USD/month is in the range that Google/FB/Microsoft pays for direct managers of ~10 person teams: basically that would be the level of credentials that you would be competing for in that pay area.

hennsen 9y ago
Interesting info - but what does that mean in conclusion? what proves us that the skills necessary to lead bigger teams or whole companies are so scarce that they have to be paid orders of magnitude more? Put another way: is it proven that the pay needs to rise with the same or even any multiplier as the people you are “responsible for”? (and i even have to understand what that responsibility means - i saw too many bad managers doing bad in terms of people as well business. who takes responsibility for thousands of failed and misconducted IT projects,their exploded costs and burned out people, to speak only of my personal area of work? Ok, maybe it’s the money you are responsible for... if you have to decide about a certain amount of money, especially in expenses, you might be prone to bribery as somebody who wants to sell your company something for a few millions could easily give you an “extra” of a few hundred thousands to buy from him and this would make uou “earn” a multitude of a months wage with just one signature. But besides this? I see no proof that skills to handle certain management tasks are really so scarce that those who get these jobs get hundreds or some even millions a month for doing them. And they certainly don’t work hundred or thousand times more than others - that would make for extreeeeeme long days. It might sound like bashing, but to me these questions are real, and i wanna know the answers.
rlanday 9y ago
That’s low for a manager. Many individual contributors make more than that at large companies.
- hennsen 9y ago
  What do they contribute that no one else could for this „low“ amount?
  - rlanday 9y ago
    It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar at Google/Facebook/Microsoft, and there are a number of employers with deep pockets trying to hire them. Google in particular is known to offer people with competing offers a lot of money to keep them from going to other companies.
    - hennsen 9y ago
      If there are other people who are able to do the job, but not meet the hiring bar, what does that tell us about the bar?
      - rlanday 9y ago
        Did I say that? No interview process is perfect, but here's what would happen if e.g. Google attempted to use your strategy of "make the interviews easier and pay people less": Many candidates would interview at both Google and Facebook (as well as other companies). The smartest, hardest-working candidates are all able to figure out how to game the interview process and get really good at solving algorithms problems on a whiteboard. Many of them get offers from both Facebook and Google. They all choose to work at Facebook because Google's only offering half as much money. The candidates who are less smart and/or too lazy to study for their interviews get rejected from Facebook, but get an offer from Google since Google's decided that interviews are stupid anyway. They all take the Google offer since they got rejected from Facebook. Now Google ends up with a pool of employees selected on the basis of being not smart enough and/or too lazy to get a job at Facebook. Do you see the problem here?
        hennsen 9y ago
        Haha. You question that you said „It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar“ Or what? I didn’t propose a concrete strategy. I just doubt the things have to be as they are and pose a lot of questions why they are as they are. Then you build exactly one fictional scenario that would make things maybe(not necessarily - there are options... maybe there is a number of smart people who don’t want to learn for artificial interview scenarios, maybe they don’t have some university degree) go bad for one employer and imply the conclusion everything has to be and stay as it is. Do you see the problem here?

20k USD/month is in the range that Google/FB/Microsoft pays for direct managers of ~10 person teams: basically that would be the level of credentials that you would be competing for in that pay area.

hennsen 9y ago

Interesting info - but what does that mean in conclusion? what proves us that the skills necessary to lead bigger teams or whole companies are so scarce that they have to be paid orders of magnitude more? Put another way: is it proven that the pay needs to rise with the same or even any multiplier as the people you are “responsible for”? (and i even have to understand what that responsibility means - i saw too many bad managers doing bad in terms of people as well business. who takes responsibility for thousands of failed and misconducted IT projects,their exploded costs and burned out people, to speak only of my personal area of work? Ok, maybe it’s the money you are responsible for... if you have to decide about a certain amount of money, especially in expenses, you might be prone to bribery as somebody who wants to sell your company something for a few millions could easily give you an “extra” of a few hundred thousands to buy from him and this would make uou “earn” a multitude of a months wage with just one signature. But besides this? I see no proof that skills to handle certain management tasks are really so scarce that those who get these jobs get hundreds or some even millions a month for doing them. And they certainly don’t work hundred or thousand times more than others - that would make for extreeeeeme long days. It might sound like bashing, but to me these questions are real, and i wanna know the answers.

rlanday 9y ago

That’s low for a manager. Many individual contributors make more than that at large companies.

hennsen 9y ago
What do they contribute that no one else could for this „low“ amount?
- rlanday 9y ago
  It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar at Google/Facebook/Microsoft, and there are a number of employers with deep pockets trying to hire them. Google in particular is known to offer people with competing offers a lot of money to keep them from going to other companies.
  - hennsen 9y ago
    If there are other people who are able to do the job, but not meet the hiring bar, what does that tell us about the bar?
    - rlanday 9y ago
      Did I say that? No interview process is perfect, but here's what would happen if e.g. Google attempted to use your strategy of "make the interviews easier and pay people less": Many candidates would interview at both Google and Facebook (as well as other companies). The smartest, hardest-working candidates are all able to figure out how to game the interview process and get really good at solving algorithms problems on a whiteboard. Many of them get offers from both Facebook and Google. They all choose to work at Facebook because Google's only offering half as much money. The candidates who are less smart and/or too lazy to study for their interviews get rejected from Facebook, but get an offer from Google since Google's decided that interviews are stupid anyway. They all take the Google offer since they got rejected from Facebook. Now Google ends up with a pool of employees selected on the basis of being not smart enough and/or too lazy to get a job at Facebook. Do you see the problem here?
      - hennsen 9y ago
        Haha. You question that you said „It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar“ Or what? I didn’t propose a concrete strategy. I just doubt the things have to be as they are and pose a lot of questions why they are as they are. Then you build exactly one fictional scenario that would make things maybe(not necessarily - there are options... maybe there is a number of smart people who don’t want to learn for artificial interview scenarios, maybe they don’t have some university degree) go bad for one employer and imply the conclusion everything has to be and stay as it is. Do you see the problem here?