5 ms·

I know this is cynical, but this really just reinforces my suspicion: the open salary thing is actually an attempt to underpay through a formula that's presente

I know this is cynical, but this really just reinforces my suspicion: the open salary thing is actually an attempt to underpay through a formula that's presented as objectively fair. Over time, it ends up gravitating your workforce towards average or below-average performers. There's no room for top talent here, because there's no subjectivity in this formula. If you're a fantastic dev (or whatever), why would you work here when other companies will pay you a lot more?

kowdermeister 9y ago
As worker in Eastern-Europe, their salaries look totally awesome to me. You'd be surprised for this money how many good people you could find.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Let me be clear: from one perspective, I get paid a ridiculous amount of money for what I do. I push buttons and think for a living. I spend a few hours per day doing it, I really enjoy it, and I can do it anywhere in the world from my laptop. It's crazy that someone is willing to pay me $100k / year, and I'm super grateful for that. Really. However, that doesn't mean that $100k / year (or whatever the minimum I'd be excited about) is the market rate. If ten other companies would pay me $300k, then I should go work there, right? There's no speed limit. Just because someone is willing to pay you way more than you ever dreamed doesn't mean you should shun any more than that. Do your best and go to where you're valued the most.
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    I get that, my point is that with their "lower" salary I could get the best of both worlds like staying in my current city (Budapest) and earning as much as a good CEO here. I get offers from companies, but if the job/product is boring, a higher salary does not justify the switch for me. I don't disagree with you, I tend to gravitate towards a high pay :) We will soon have a salary formula refactor too, but I think the raise might be a rounding error compared to remote pays.
- hajile 9y ago
  There are other considerations. Most countries in Europe have lots of government services that offer non-monetary advantages. You have to buy most of those things in the US. There's no free lunch. Instead of giving the employee the money, much of it is handed directly over to the Government (then a bunch more directly from personal income taxes). If you choose to forgo those things while in the US, there is a monetary advantage. If you choose to buy them yourself, you will probably find your final income level to be very close to the same as in Europe.
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    Serious question: I'm curious what you're talking about for high-income professionals? If I'm making six figures as a dev in the US, I probably have fairly generous benefits, including healthcare, vacation, parental leave, retirement plan contributions, disability insurance, etc. And I'm probably paying less in overall taxes than most Europeans (though it really depends). Of course, I don't have the safety net things that lower-income Europeans do, but I almost certainly don't need them. So what would the equivalent person in the EU making half as much be getting from their government that I'm not getting from mine? (Btw, this isn't an argument for the US approach being better overall, but just which system is better for the selfish high-income professional)
    - foota 9y ago
      Vacation in Europe is _much_ nicer than here. I started with my company with 3 weeks, the equivalent role in Europe has something like 5 weeks at start.
      - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
        That’s not really much nicer, is it? That’s 2 weeks, which is an extra cost to the company of 4%. Hardly explains the huge salary discrepancy.
    - Shaanie 9y ago
      I have 6 weeks of vacation a year (2 years out of uni) and 240 days of paid (75% of normal pay) parental leave (480 days in total for both parents). How's your vacation and parental leave in comparison?
fogetti 9y ago
What does it have to do with the openness of the formula/salary data if another company pays more? > there's no subjectivity in this formula Yes, there isn't. Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited). It just usually happens to be the case that the employers somehow "magically forget" to communicate this to the employees. So you are basically kept in the dark in two different respects: 1st regarding how your skills compare to others 2nd regarding how your salary compares to others Basically this is just a spineless, sneaky tactic that employers like to use. Because the less information you have, the lower the chances that you can make a well informed decision about your job change.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited) This is not how salaries work. Companies don't have a pool of $x for y employees. They try to hire every employee at as low a cost as possible. If you accept a salary at $10,000 below what they were willing to pay for that role, it's not like you can rest easy knowing that the other employees will get that money. That $10k is now additional profit [1]. Anyway, you can think this system is unfair and that we should have another one, but this is the one we have now. So you can work at below market rates for companies like Buffer, or you can go get a higher salary at companies that don't do this. 1. This seems like an argument in favor of more worker-owned companies, which I think are fantastic. I think we should have a lot more of them, and I'd like to better understand why we don't.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    > I'd like to better understand why we don't. My view: most workers just want a paycheck and at the end of the work day leave work at work. That isn't compatible with running a company. Besides, even in worker-owned companies an implicit hierarchy emerges and gains its own inertia until eventually "ownership" is technically true but doesn't mean much.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
hobofan 9y ago
Not every company/product needs "top talent" to work, and I could definitely see Buffer being one of them. Why should a company pay extra for top talent if all they have are mundane problems?
- noitsnot 9y ago
  They probably shouldn't be paying massive salaries and should leave SF, because they operate in one of the most expensive and competitive parts of the country, maybe world.

kowdermeister 9y ago

As worker in Eastern-Europe, their salaries look totally awesome to me. You'd be surprised for this money how many good people you could find.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Let me be clear: from one perspective, I get paid a ridiculous amount of money for what I do. I push buttons and think for a living. I spend a few hours per day doing it, I really enjoy it, and I can do it anywhere in the world from my laptop. It's crazy that someone is willing to pay me $100k / year, and I'm super grateful for that. Really. However, that doesn't mean that $100k / year (or whatever the minimum I'd be excited about) is the market rate. If ten other companies would pay me $300k, then I should go work there, right? There's no speed limit. Just because someone is willing to pay you way more than you ever dreamed doesn't mean you should shun any more than that. Do your best and go to where you're valued the most.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  I get that, my point is that with their "lower" salary I could get the best of both worlds like staying in my current city (Budapest) and earning as much as a good CEO here. I get offers from companies, but if the job/product is boring, a higher salary does not justify the switch for me. I don't disagree with you, I tend to gravitate towards a high pay :) We will soon have a salary formula refactor too, but I think the raise might be a rounding error compared to remote pays.
hajile 9y ago
There are other considerations. Most countries in Europe have lots of government services that offer non-monetary advantages. You have to buy most of those things in the US. There's no free lunch. Instead of giving the employee the money, much of it is handed directly over to the Government (then a bunch more directly from personal income taxes). If you choose to forgo those things while in the US, there is a monetary advantage. If you choose to buy them yourself, you will probably find your final income level to be very close to the same as in Europe.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Serious question: I'm curious what you're talking about for high-income professionals? If I'm making six figures as a dev in the US, I probably have fairly generous benefits, including healthcare, vacation, parental leave, retirement plan contributions, disability insurance, etc. And I'm probably paying less in overall taxes than most Europeans (though it really depends). Of course, I don't have the safety net things that lower-income Europeans do, but I almost certainly don't need them. So what would the equivalent person in the EU making half as much be getting from their government that I'm not getting from mine? (Btw, this isn't an argument for the US approach being better overall, but just which system is better for the selfish high-income professional)
  - foota 9y ago
    Vacation in Europe is _much_ nicer than here. I started with my company with 3 weeks, the equivalent role in Europe has something like 5 weeks at start.
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      That’s not really much nicer, is it? That’s 2 weeks, which is an extra cost to the company of 4%. Hardly explains the huge salary discrepancy.
  - Shaanie 9y ago
    I have 6 weeks of vacation a year (2 years out of uni) and 240 days of paid (75% of normal pay) parental leave (480 days in total for both parents). How's your vacation and parental leave in comparison?

fogetti 9y ago

What does it have to do with the openness of the formula/salary data if another company pays more? > there's no subjectivity in this formula Yes, there isn't. Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited). It just usually happens to be the case that the employers somehow "magically forget" to communicate this to the employees. So you are basically kept in the dark in two different respects: 1st regarding how your skills compare to others 2nd regarding how your salary compares to others Basically this is just a spineless, sneaky tactic that employers like to use. Because the less information you have, the lower the chances that you can make a well informed decision about your job change.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Because subjectivity in favour of someone, is to the detriment of another employee (because the budget is limited) This is not how salaries work. Companies don't have a pool of $x for y employees. They try to hire every employee at as low a cost as possible. If you accept a salary at $10,000 below what they were willing to pay for that role, it's not like you can rest easy knowing that the other employees will get that money. That $10k is now additional profit [1]. Anyway, you can think this system is unfair and that we should have another one, but this is the one we have now. So you can work at below market rates for companies like Buffer, or you can go get a higher salary at companies that don't do this. 1. This seems like an argument in favor of more worker-owned companies, which I think are fantastic. I think we should have a lot more of them, and I'd like to better understand why we don't.
- sidlls 9y ago
  > I'd like to better understand why we don't. My view: most workers just want a paycheck and at the end of the work day leave work at work. That isn't compatible with running a company. Besides, even in worker-owned companies an implicit hierarchy emerges and gains its own inertia until eventually "ownership" is technically true but doesn't mean much.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

hobofan 9y ago

Not every company/product needs "top talent" to work, and I could definitely see Buffer being one of them. Why should a company pay extra for top talent if all they have are mundane problems?

noitsnot 9y ago
They probably shouldn't be paying massive salaries and should leave SF, because they operate in one of the most expensive and competitive parts of the country, maybe world.