12 ms·

Make Stronger Offers to Engineering Candidates and Boost Your Closes

79 points by vinnyglennon 9y ago

ggggtez 9y ago
As someone who makes money, money is still the strongest argument. If I'm bored with my job, and you offer me a 30k pay cut, then I think I'll suck it up and stay bored. I don't care how good you think your product is.
notyourday 9y ago
So. Much. B.S. There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. Money buys them stuff. Money lets them have a nice roof over their head. Money lets their family not worry about a slum in the economy. Everything else is secondary. Here's a magic formula: MaxMoney(Min(work)) 402 "PAY_ME_MORE_MONEY" P.S. That's why it is called a job and not hobby or volunteering. P.P.S. Finance industry figured it out - which is why they are starting to raid the interwebz companies with a great success. In finance everything is solved by paying people more money. Sucky stack? $30K extra. Wear suit? $30k extra. Non-tech manager irritating you? Another $20k extra.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Absolutely employees are often shy about it but its 95% about the $/£
- chillydawg 9y ago
  There's enough suckers that will accept Uber or deliveroo vouchers over cash that it's worth trying those before more expensive options.
- config_yml 9y ago
  Money is certainly the baseline, but it's no motivation beyond that. Pay me $20k extra for dealing with that sucky manager? Sure, but 3 months later I'll still quit, especially if it's a pro-candidate market.
  - mohaine 9y ago
    That is because you could get the 20k elsewhere or the manager wasn't worth 20k. What about 40k? 60k?
- jcadam 9y ago
  Money is important, but past a certain point (when you are able to live comfortably and are no longer feeling stressed about your personal/family finances), other factors come into play. Off the top of my head: 1) Respect. By that I mean professional respect - I want to feel that my contributions are valued and that people recognize my talents :) 2) Team. Working with dirtbags is miserable no matter how much you get paid. Sure, I'd do it if you threw enough money at me, but all else being equal, I'd like to work on a team full of smart, pleasant people. 3) Growth. Learning opportunities (conferences, training, etc.), promotions, stimulating projects, etc. 4) Time. As in my time. Overtime is kept to a minimum and really only happens when there is a true emergency. This kind of ties in with #1. To an extent you can substitute cash for any or all of these. However, if your working environment and/or culture is toxic, you're going to have trouble with retention no matter what else you do.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    A lot of these are independent from salary, however, and usually uncorrelated. I pretty have all of these at my current job, certainly the best I've ever had at any job (and I'd throw in a #5: Perks). And my current job, at a Big 4, also happens to pay by far the most of any job I've ever had too. I would certainly never sacrifice any of these for a minor bump in pay, but oftentimes you don't have to sacrifice any of them even for a major bump in pay.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Most people have this idea that either you get paid less and have a good job environment or you are highly paid in a bad environment. From my experience it's the opposite. Companies that pay well also have a good environment.
      - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
        Here to second that notion. So far in my career every move I've done has been for a salary bump and quality of life improvement.
      - 9y ago
- dmos62 9y ago
  Other people look at work as a meaningful part of one's life and take care how to spend it. Some people, once they have basic security, financial or other, look for a fulfilling role in society. That is admirable and sustainable. Your described worldview is characteristic of greed, egoism and shorttermism and generally wasted potential (or a highly hostile environment).
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    People who don't care about money should make sure to work for companies that also don't only care about money. Most companies talk as if they have higher values but in reality they are only about money. I always find it condescending to tell people who aren't independently wealthy that money is not that important while at the same time the owners of a company try to squeeze out every bit of profit.
- sethammons 9y ago
  I've turned down greater pay for better working conditions. Money is important, but after a given level and within given margins, other concerns start taking priority.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    While undoubtedly true, I'm speculating this can in fact be translated to money. You've turned down 50k$/y, say. Would you have turned down an extra 100k? 200k? 500k? I bet at some point you would've said "fuck it, yes I'll take the job despite conditions". But yes, eventually it's just cheaper to create the better working conditions than to pay everybody the extra money :)
    - ska 9y ago
      While true, this isn't particularly actionable if "fuck, yes I'll take the job despite the conditions" is economically unfeasible for most cases. Of course it's different for everyone but I would speculate that most people are also strongly motivated by other factors, once money is not too strong a constraint on what they can do.
    - kemiller2002 9y ago
      For some people you are correct. They will not turn down more money. After a certain point in your career you realize that money does not buy happiness, and it certainly does not buy you more time. As people get older and have families etc., people begin to realize that going home at a reasonable hour is much more important than extra money.
      - mohaine 9y ago
        If you are working massive hours you need a massive salary to make up for it or you are not getting well compensated. If you are working 60 hours a week you better be making 50% extra (or get 50% time off at a later data) or you are NOT making good money.
      - hood_syntax 9y ago
- jasode 9y ago
  There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. That's not true for everyone. I've taken $20k less salary to work on technologies that were more interesting. Money is just one dimension and one can be strategic about it. People can have other priorities besides money. Salary is important but it's not the only priority nor is it always the most important priority. Someone previously said that the best programmers are "coin-operated". Well, I guess I'm a substandard programmer because I'm definitely not coin-operated. I may prefer a $150k job that utilizes machine learning to analyze cancer cells instead of $175k to trick people into clicking ads. If job salary is the most important factor for a candidate, that's absolutely fine. This essay really isn't intended for candidates with that mindset.
  - saosebastiao 9y ago
    All you’ve said though is that your personal marginal value of working on an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. What if the offer was 100k more? 250k more? I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. And that’s why the suggestion matters: nobody is going to change their job requirements to recruit more candidates...you are best off paying more money.
    - jasode 9y ago
      >an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. It doesn't matter where it ends in the context of the reply to notyourday's assertion that only _one_ thing matters to non-mentally impaired people and that is _money_. >I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. Totally understandable and that's why I began my comment that priorities will be different for different people. That's ok. The world needs all types. My comment is informed by my experience with various tech jobs with wildly different salaries. I earned 2x the Google/Facebook salaries working for finance companies for 10 years. It was the worst 10 years of my life. The massive salary (massive for a programmer) let me buy nice toys, travel to expensive exotic places, and build up a nest egg but it was also soul-sucking misery. I look back at that period with regret. If I had to do it over, I should have taken a lesser paying $150k job with a company working on things that were interesting to me. However, that doesn't mean other programmers can't accept the miserable finance job with insanely high pay. If it pays big money, they'll be fine with it because they can compartmentalize the job and find meaning elsewhere. Some people can do that, but that's not me. Terrible work and uninspiring colleagues just spills over into personal life even when I'm not physically at the job site.
- derekp7 9y ago
  As an employee, I don't want to work for a place that is paying me more than they feel I'm worth. Because then they start to resent you. "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." Had this at a previous job (I was actually right at market rate, or slightly below, but a year prior the company was offering about 20% below market for this position). And every time I asked for clarification, or performed the job that was asked for (instead of what they "really wanted", since I wasn't a mind reader), I got that thrown in my face. Can't believe I stuck around for 3 years there.
  - raducu 9y ago
    I heard this argument thrown by a manager at an annual review: "We're paying you what you are worth to us, not what the market pays", to which I promptly replied: "Following your logic, can I step in a Ferrari dealership and pay only 1000$ for a nice car, because that's what it's worth to me?"
    - KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
      You should take it as a compliment. Your manager is saying that your company cannot afford an engineer of your level.
      - raducu 9y ago
        My manager was a good guy, but a sub-mediocre performer and a bit spineless and he REALLY wanted to be a manager. Just before the annual review they had him trained how to handle it, and I'm pretty sure he was just regurgitating bullshit fed to him during his training. I later found out he asked a mother of two why is she so fixated on earning more money. Pretty lame gimmicks -- just say to your employees "Hey, your performance was ok but nothing special, I have this budget and for an ok performance the firm only gives you 3% salary increase this year".
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." That's just a bullying strategy for underpaid people. If you are really highly paid you are in the "in" group and they will make sure that you get what you need. Otherwise they would be wasting your expensive time.
- torstenvl 9y ago
  What is the dollar value for which you are willing to sell the prime of your life? If someone offered you $500,000 over the course of three years to give up your mid- or late-twenties, would you take it?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Mid 30s here, and I left tech to go into financial services because the total comp is so much higher as the parent comment alludes to after spending several years doing what I thought was fulfilling work (but it was not). If I can make X in tech, or 2X-3X in financial services dealing with more day to day pain, I’m taking more money every day of the week. I don’t care about the team, the mission, the working environment, just the total dollars.
    - ska 9y ago
      It's worth noting though, that this is how industries (e.g. finance) that look at it this way are filled with people (e.g. you) who look at it this way. That doesn't mean they've achieved some sort of global optimum. Confirmation bias is a significant effect here, and it works the same way for people who are doing what they consider to be "socially meaningful" work, or whatever, as for people who are "maximizing paychecks".
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Entirely possible. Luckily there are enough jobs to go around for both the “F you pay me” and the “Cash is not king” tech workers. There are waaaaaay more startups claiming to help the social good or that they’re changing the world versus the number that are just money-driven enterprises. My problem is the disingenuity and virtue signaling being used to underpay workers.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    That's not far off from what I did. I got total after tax compensation of around $4MM for 4 years of intense work. I consistently worked around 100 hours per week. So basically no life at all besides eat/sleep/shower/gym/work. No social life. No hobbies. No family time. No down time - for 4 years. It took a toll, but it was worth it in my opinion, as I'm financially independent now and I retired early, and I will never work another job that I'm not absolutely in love with. I would repeat the same thing again if given a choice, and a lot of poor bastards work more for less compensation, so I count myself fortunate to have had the opportunity. However, I think $500,000k for 3 years is probably not a great deal, and I probably wouldn't have accepted that bargain.
- SonicSoul 9y ago
  I've strongly considered taking a 65% compensation cut to work at a startup because it would be so much cooler to talk about, i'd learn a whole new stack, worked alongside super stars, and walk to work. The only reason i didn't take it was because said startup didn't follow up initial negotiation (mainly because even if i took such a big cut, i'd still be expensive for them). But i am certain i would have taken it and been much more happy. I know others who took such cuts to leave cushy "VP" positions and are very happy for doing so. *that said, there are very few companies that offer such conditions. 90% of places i ever interviewed at feel more like "work" and i'd want to maximize income for being there
- kalimeh 9y ago
  I am in management at a company that pays top quartile salaries and I concentrate on exactly the sort of selling that the FRC article talks about. Geat candidates get multiple offers, so I want my offer to be money plus valued intangibles, while my competitors just offer money. That way they have to outbid me to get the candidate; whereas I just have to _match_ them to win.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    I guess your time is not valuable.
- yosito 9y ago
  I disagree with this. I'm motivated by money for two reasons; 1) I have bills to pay. 2) I want to be paid a fair rate, in line with other people with my level of skills and experience. So beyond fair pay that meets my needs, money is far less motivating for me than having a fulfilling, mission-focused career.
- metafunctor 9y ago
  I've turned down jobs that would have paid a LOT more than I made at the time, because I thought the hiring people were assholes (in the finance sector, no less). Based on your other comments here, I think they were probably much like you. There's more to it than money. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    There's no job that's so fun that I'd take it over working on things I want to work on (e.g. that same job), but only when I feel like it. Which is what you get when you are financially independent. Which you won't be if you work for peanuts.
    - metafunctor 9y ago
      I completely agree on financial independence. I have optimized for personal freedom in my career. That's why, for example, I haven't taken (many) consulting jobs, even though I would have made a lot of money in the short term. I ended up running a small software product business that I own 100%, make at least a steady $250k per year, can choose where I live, work maybe 20-30 hours per week, and can take a few weeks off whenever I like (this year I worked maybe 9 months out of 12).
- swat535 9y ago
  I am not sure if I fully agree with this. I think time and health are the most valuable assets one can have, followed immediately by money. You can have all the money in the world but without health, you will not enjoy it. You can have all the money in the world but without time, you will not enjoy it. Having more money is fantastic, if and only if the first two criterias are met in my opinion. I think it's a matter of calculating the risk/reward which greatly based on your personal situation, we can't lump everyone in the same basket. There is a balance to keep.
YPCrumble 9y ago
A moderator should rename this "How to pay your engineers less by fooling them: A primer by First Round Capital".
sjg007 9y ago
There’s two forms of money: cash now and Magic future money (stock options)
- tzahola 9y ago
  B-but what about Making The World Better™ ?
learc83 9y ago
This title is very misleading. It implies that it advises you to boost your closing rate by offering more money. But it's actually about how to save money by finding people who aren't motivated by money.
lhnz 9y ago
> There is one motivation that should raise a red flag, though. > “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time > on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check. This is a red flag to me. What if engineers want to buy houses or support families? What if they have elite backgrounds and want a similarly high level of living as their friends? Offering bread-and-circuses and work-as-lifestyle to software engineers when they're fresh and naive or wishing to prioritise other things over money is fine. But eventually people start wanting to be able to get a pay-off for their investment in "learning". If all you're offering is warm-fuzzies, they'll go somewhere in which the remuneration is able to support investment outside from themselves.
- YPCrumble 9y ago
  This is a good summary of the Republican Manifesto. People in power convince powerless people that they shouldn't desire power. This allows the people in power to consolidate more power.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    True. Or companies that are only about money try to convince people who work for them that money is not important.
    - YPCrumble 9y ago
      Haha that's clearly First Round Capital's motto!
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Republican Manifesto, or Sociopath's Manifesto? Same same, I guess.
  - briandear 9y ago
    That’s ridiculous. Conservatism is about smaller government and not using the government to pick winners and losers. The implementation leaves a lot to be desired, but in the context of manifestos, you have it completely backwards.
draw_down 9y ago
Labor costs.
FidelCashflow 9y ago
Full screen pop up warning.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Here's what most companies want: >> We only hire "passionate" engineers who have proven themselves to be "rock stars" and we call them "family" so that they can "take one for the team" and forgo a "raise" because we didn't meet our quarter. But we did make enough to give ourselves "bonuses!" I am motivated by money because every company I work for is motivated by money. They want theirs, I want mine. I factor into my asking salary a "what if I get screwed" amount.
- itgoon 9y ago
  Exactly. I've worked for a couple of charities at a discount, because I was working with people who wanted to help others, and it showed. Nobody was raking in the big bucks. If I was offered a position somewhere that actively took "hits" for their customers and/or employees, I might stick around. As it is, everyone above me is looking for a payday, and paying me less makes theirs better.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > I factor into my asking salary a "what if I get screwed" amount. I can guarantee that the moment it is cheaper to screw you than keep you a successful company will screw you. If a company is not successful, they may miscalculate when they screw you and instead screw themselves in addition to screwing you.
dmitrygr 9y ago
I guess I'm one of those "red flag" candidates that this guy says you shouldn't hire. If I wanted to make a difference, I'd join the Red Cross. If I wanted to solve people's problems, I'd go work as a life coach. I want to get paid the maximum amount while working around people and doing a job that doesn't make me want to blow my brains out or work 20 hour days. That is all.
- Bob2019 9y ago
  Red flag = "not a gullible looser". It's a flag of honour.
dkhenry 9y ago
Wow these comments are depressing. The extreme polarization between, pay me enough and I'll do anything, and take one for the team by making peanuts and working obscene hours is kinda frightenting. Has no one had a job where they were treated well and paid a fair wage? Its perfectly reasonable to get both of those things and be able to make a decision on a company based on additional things, like what the mission is, or who you will work with, or what tools you will use. Money isn't everything and you don't have to be taken advantage of. There is a middle ground.
- nfriedly 9y ago
  > Has no one had a job where they were treated well and paid a fair wage? I think IBM would qualify there, with the one exception of their occasional mass firings ("resource action").
jerrycabbage 9y ago
The advice is, "tell the person what they want to hear". It is absolutely no surprise that the author does not stick around at one job either.
dmitrygr 9y ago
“At a certain point, I’m very explicit: ‘Look, I think 5X is Absolutely conservative given how we’re growing No. 0X is conservative. It's a startup. Most of those make non-founders $0.00 on equity
- sk5t 9y ago
  Indeed. If 5x were conservative, at series C or any other point, one would be fending off investors with a stick, failing to justify 409a valuations, etc., etc.
kylnew 9y ago
I do agree with the criticisms of this article but also agree with the parts about assessing your candidates better and understanding their motivations. I did an interview once where they tried to jump to technical interview on the first phone meeting so fast I felt my answers to everything else were this unnecessary preamble to just doing a code question. It totally turned me off. I ended the call early. So while I need the money to be good, I also want to feel like we are starting a mutually beneficial arrangement on other levels than just pay.
SubuSS 9y ago
NOTE: This applies only to the Big 5 (Amazon/Google/MS/FB/Oracle). To be really honest, it is hard to distinguish the big companies today based on non-money line items: - All the companies I have and am working for have very smart folk, very personable people you want to work with / learn from. - All the companies pay well, have great benefits. - I don't care for perks, I can afford the $20 a day to spend on food and snacks. - All of em have great challenges to tackle, and usually you are sought after by the teams with exactly those. No one is going to pay you double your worth to sit around / purely 'learn on the job'. Past experience counts big when it comes to leveling/team choices in all of them. - All of them are exponentially growing. - Almost all of them are dabbling in each others areas of work: Everyone is doing databases/fs/networking/user applications/web dev and what not. For me the choice of snap was purely because I wanted a small company experience without the risk of a pure startup, in fact all the benefits and better compared to the big 5. Unless you have a specific requirement like that, sadly money will end up being the differentiator. To add some irony to the whole discussion, they know this as well: All the offers I got from the big companies were with few $$$ of each other. I didn't tell them my current salary with Amazon, it didn't even come close to the numbers on glassdoor for my then level, but magically they seem to 'know' (shrug).
purplezooey 9y ago
How about not putting your new company in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park or Santa Clara. Nobody can live there, it's impossible to drive/transit there from anywhere, and they're just plain miserable places with cheaply constructed office buildings. So tired of seeing this.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  I agree. But companies will never learn this lesson as long as they can still hire there easily.
pascalxus 9y ago
You can boost a potential candidate's compensation by 1 to 2 million dollars, just by choosing a suitable location outside the bay area! At no cost to yourself! This should become an increasingly hot strategy, as all those young engineers at google and facebook begin to age and start thinking about having families. Then again, if all you want is young interns that'll work for free, keep hiring in SF.

79 points by vinnyglennon 9y ago

As someone who makes money, money is still the strongest argument. If I'm bored with my job, and you offer me a 30k pay cut, then I think I'll suck it up and stay bored. I don't care how good you think your product is.

notyourday 9y ago

So. Much. B.S. There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. Money buys them stuff. Money lets them have a nice roof over their head. Money lets their family not worry about a slum in the economy. Everything else is secondary. Here's a magic formula: MaxMoney(Min(work)) 402 "PAY_ME_MORE_MONEY" P.S. That's why it is called a job and not hobby or volunteering. P.P.S. Finance industry figured it out - which is why they are starting to raid the interwebz companies with a great success. In finance everything is solved by paying people more money. Sucky stack? $30K extra. Wear suit? $30k extra. Non-tech manager irritating you? Another $20k extra.

walshemj 9y ago
Absolutely employees are often shy about it but its 95% about the $/£
chillydawg 9y ago
There's enough suckers that will accept Uber or deliveroo vouchers over cash that it's worth trying those before more expensive options.
config_yml 9y ago
Money is certainly the baseline, but it's no motivation beyond that. Pay me $20k extra for dealing with that sucky manager? Sure, but 3 months later I'll still quit, especially if it's a pro-candidate market.
- mohaine 9y ago
  That is because you could get the 20k elsewhere or the manager wasn't worth 20k. What about 40k? 60k?
jcadam 9y ago
Money is important, but past a certain point (when you are able to live comfortably and are no longer feeling stressed about your personal/family finances), other factors come into play. Off the top of my head: 1) Respect. By that I mean professional respect - I want to feel that my contributions are valued and that people recognize my talents :) 2) Team. Working with dirtbags is miserable no matter how much you get paid. Sure, I'd do it if you threw enough money at me, but all else being equal, I'd like to work on a team full of smart, pleasant people. 3) Growth. Learning opportunities (conferences, training, etc.), promotions, stimulating projects, etc. 4) Time. As in my time. Overtime is kept to a minimum and really only happens when there is a true emergency. This kind of ties in with #1. To an extent you can substitute cash for any or all of these. However, if your working environment and/or culture is toxic, you're going to have trouble with retention no matter what else you do.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  A lot of these are independent from salary, however, and usually uncorrelated. I pretty have all of these at my current job, certainly the best I've ever had at any job (and I'd throw in a #5: Perks). And my current job, at a Big 4, also happens to pay by far the most of any job I've ever had too. I would certainly never sacrifice any of these for a minor bump in pay, but oftentimes you don't have to sacrifice any of them even for a major bump in pay.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Most people have this idea that either you get paid less and have a good job environment or you are highly paid in a bad environment. From my experience it's the opposite. Companies that pay well also have a good environment.
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      Here to second that notion. So far in my career every move I've done has been for a salary bump and quality of life improvement.
    - 9y ago
dmos62 9y ago
Other people look at work as a meaningful part of one's life and take care how to spend it. Some people, once they have basic security, financial or other, look for a fulfilling role in society. That is admirable and sustainable. Your described worldview is characteristic of greed, egoism and shorttermism and generally wasted potential (or a highly hostile environment).
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  People who don't care about money should make sure to work for companies that also don't only care about money. Most companies talk as if they have higher values but in reality they are only about money. I always find it condescending to tell people who aren't independently wealthy that money is not that important while at the same time the owners of a company try to squeeze out every bit of profit.
sethammons 9y ago
I've turned down greater pay for better working conditions. Money is important, but after a given level and within given margins, other concerns start taking priority.
- virgilp 9y ago
  While undoubtedly true, I'm speculating this can in fact be translated to money. You've turned down 50k$/y, say. Would you have turned down an extra 100k? 200k? 500k? I bet at some point you would've said "fuck it, yes I'll take the job despite conditions". But yes, eventually it's just cheaper to create the better working conditions than to pay everybody the extra money :)
  - ska 9y ago
    While true, this isn't particularly actionable if "fuck, yes I'll take the job despite the conditions" is economically unfeasible for most cases. Of course it's different for everyone but I would speculate that most people are also strongly motivated by other factors, once money is not too strong a constraint on what they can do.
  - kemiller2002 9y ago
    For some people you are correct. They will not turn down more money. After a certain point in your career you realize that money does not buy happiness, and it certainly does not buy you more time. As people get older and have families etc., people begin to realize that going home at a reasonable hour is much more important than extra money.
    - mohaine 9y ago
      If you are working massive hours you need a massive salary to make up for it or you are not getting well compensated. If you are working 60 hours a week you better be making 50% extra (or get 50% time off at a later data) or you are NOT making good money.
    - hood_syntax 9y ago
jasode 9y ago
There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. That's not true for everyone. I've taken $20k less salary to work on technologies that were more interesting. Money is just one dimension and one can be strategic about it. People can have other priorities besides money. Salary is important but it's not the only priority nor is it always the most important priority. Someone previously said that the best programmers are "coin-operated". Well, I guess I'm a substandard programmer because I'm definitely not coin-operated. I may prefer a $150k job that utilizes machine learning to analyze cancer cells instead of $175k to trick people into clicking ads. If job salary is the most important factor for a candidate, that's absolutely fine. This essay really isn't intended for candidates with that mindset.
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  All you’ve said though is that your personal marginal value of working on an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. What if the offer was 100k more? 250k more? I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. And that’s why the suggestion matters: nobody is going to change their job requirements to recruit more candidates...you are best off paying more money.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. It doesn't matter where it ends in the context of the reply to notyourday's assertion that only _one_ thing matters to non-mentally impaired people and that is _money_. >I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. Totally understandable and that's why I began my comment that priorities will be different for different people. That's ok. The world needs all types. My comment is informed by my experience with various tech jobs with wildly different salaries. I earned 2x the Google/Facebook salaries working for finance companies for 10 years. It was the worst 10 years of my life. The massive salary (massive for a programmer) let me buy nice toys, travel to expensive exotic places, and build up a nest egg but it was also soul-sucking misery. I look back at that period with regret. If I had to do it over, I should have taken a lesser paying $150k job with a company working on things that were interesting to me. However, that doesn't mean other programmers can't accept the miserable finance job with insanely high pay. If it pays big money, they'll be fine with it because they can compartmentalize the job and find meaning elsewhere. Some people can do that, but that's not me. Terrible work and uninspiring colleagues just spills over into personal life even when I'm not physically at the job site.
derekp7 9y ago
As an employee, I don't want to work for a place that is paying me more than they feel I'm worth. Because then they start to resent you. "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." Had this at a previous job (I was actually right at market rate, or slightly below, but a year prior the company was offering about 20% below market for this position). And every time I asked for clarification, or performed the job that was asked for (instead of what they "really wanted", since I wasn't a mind reader), I got that thrown in my face. Can't believe I stuck around for 3 years there.
- raducu 9y ago
  I heard this argument thrown by a manager at an annual review: "We're paying you what you are worth to us, not what the market pays", to which I promptly replied: "Following your logic, can I step in a Ferrari dealership and pay only 1000$ for a nice car, because that's what it's worth to me?"
  - KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
    You should take it as a compliment. Your manager is saying that your company cannot afford an engineer of your level.
    - raducu 9y ago
      My manager was a good guy, but a sub-mediocre performer and a bit spineless and he REALLY wanted to be a manager. Just before the annual review they had him trained how to handle it, and I'm pretty sure he was just regurgitating bullshit fed to him during his training. I later found out he asked a mother of two why is she so fixated on earning more money. Pretty lame gimmicks -- just say to your employees "Hey, your performance was ok but nothing special, I have this budget and for an ok performance the firm only gives you 3% salary increase this year".
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." That's just a bullying strategy for underpaid people. If you are really highly paid you are in the "in" group and they will make sure that you get what you need. Otherwise they would be wasting your expensive time.
torstenvl 9y ago
What is the dollar value for which you are willing to sell the prime of your life? If someone offered you $500,000 over the course of three years to give up your mid- or late-twenties, would you take it?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Mid 30s here, and I left tech to go into financial services because the total comp is so much higher as the parent comment alludes to after spending several years doing what I thought was fulfilling work (but it was not). If I can make X in tech, or 2X-3X in financial services dealing with more day to day pain, I’m taking more money every day of the week. I don’t care about the team, the mission, the working environment, just the total dollars.
  - ska 9y ago
    It's worth noting though, that this is how industries (e.g. finance) that look at it this way are filled with people (e.g. you) who look at it this way. That doesn't mean they've achieved some sort of global optimum. Confirmation bias is a significant effect here, and it works the same way for people who are doing what they consider to be "socially meaningful" work, or whatever, as for people who are "maximizing paychecks".
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Entirely possible. Luckily there are enough jobs to go around for both the “F you pay me” and the “Cash is not king” tech workers. There are waaaaaay more startups claiming to help the social good or that they’re changing the world versus the number that are just money-driven enterprises. My problem is the disingenuity and virtue signaling being used to underpay workers.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  That's not far off from what I did. I got total after tax compensation of around $4MM for 4 years of intense work. I consistently worked around 100 hours per week. So basically no life at all besides eat/sleep/shower/gym/work. No social life. No hobbies. No family time. No down time - for 4 years. It took a toll, but it was worth it in my opinion, as I'm financially independent now and I retired early, and I will never work another job that I'm not absolutely in love with. I would repeat the same thing again if given a choice, and a lot of poor bastards work more for less compensation, so I count myself fortunate to have had the opportunity. However, I think $500,000k for 3 years is probably not a great deal, and I probably wouldn't have accepted that bargain.
SonicSoul 9y ago
I've strongly considered taking a 65% compensation cut to work at a startup because it would be so much cooler to talk about, i'd learn a whole new stack, worked alongside super stars, and walk to work. The only reason i didn't take it was because said startup didn't follow up initial negotiation (mainly because even if i took such a big cut, i'd still be expensive for them). But i am certain i would have taken it and been much more happy. I know others who took such cuts to leave cushy "VP" positions and are very happy for doing so. *that said, there are very few companies that offer such conditions. 90% of places i ever interviewed at feel more like "work" and i'd want to maximize income for being there
kalimeh 9y ago
I am in management at a company that pays top quartile salaries and I concentrate on exactly the sort of selling that the FRC article talks about. Geat candidates get multiple offers, so I want my offer to be money plus valued intangibles, while my competitors just offer money. That way they have to outbid me to get the candidate; whereas I just have to _match_ them to win.
- notyourday 9y ago
  I guess your time is not valuable.
yosito 9y ago
I disagree with this. I'm motivated by money for two reasons; 1) I have bills to pay. 2) I want to be paid a fair rate, in line with other people with my level of skills and experience. So beyond fair pay that meets my needs, money is far less motivating for me than having a fulfilling, mission-focused career.
metafunctor 9y ago
I've turned down jobs that would have paid a LOT more than I made at the time, because I thought the hiring people were assholes (in the finance sector, no less). Based on your other comments here, I think they were probably much like you. There's more to it than money. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  There's no job that's so fun that I'd take it over working on things I want to work on (e.g. that same job), but only when I feel like it. Which is what you get when you are financially independent. Which you won't be if you work for peanuts.
  - metafunctor 9y ago
    I completely agree on financial independence. I have optimized for personal freedom in my career. That's why, for example, I haven't taken (many) consulting jobs, even though I would have made a lot of money in the short term. I ended up running a small software product business that I own 100%, make at least a steady $250k per year, can choose where I live, work maybe 20-30 hours per week, and can take a few weeks off whenever I like (this year I worked maybe 9 months out of 12).
swat535 9y ago
I am not sure if I fully agree with this. I think time and health are the most valuable assets one can have, followed immediately by money. You can have all the money in the world but without health, you will not enjoy it. You can have all the money in the world but without time, you will not enjoy it. Having more money is fantastic, if and only if the first two criterias are met in my opinion. I think it's a matter of calculating the risk/reward which greatly based on your personal situation, we can't lump everyone in the same basket. There is a balance to keep.

YPCrumble 9y ago

A moderator should rename this "How to pay your engineers less by fooling them: A primer by First Round Capital".

sjg007 9y ago

There’s two forms of money: cash now and Magic future money (stock options)

tzahola 9y ago
B-but what about Making The World Better™ ?

learc83 9y ago

This title is very misleading. It implies that it advises you to boost your closing rate by offering more money. But it's actually about how to save money by finding people who aren't motivated by money.

lhnz 9y ago

> There is one motivation that should raise a red flag, though. > “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time > on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check. This is a red flag to me. What if engineers want to buy houses or support families? What if they have elite backgrounds and want a similarly high level of living as their friends? Offering bread-and-circuses and work-as-lifestyle to software engineers when they're fresh and naive or wishing to prioritise other things over money is fine. But eventually people start wanting to be able to get a pay-off for their investment in "learning". If all you're offering is warm-fuzzies, they'll go somewhere in which the remuneration is able to support investment outside from themselves.

YPCrumble 9y ago
This is a good summary of the Republican Manifesto. People in power convince powerless people that they shouldn't desire power. This allows the people in power to consolidate more power.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  True. Or companies that are only about money try to convince people who work for them that money is not important.
  - YPCrumble 9y ago
    Haha that's clearly First Round Capital's motto!
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Republican Manifesto, or Sociopath's Manifesto? Same same, I guess.
- briandear 9y ago
  That’s ridiculous. Conservatism is about smaller government and not using the government to pick winners and losers. The implementation leaves a lot to be desired, but in the context of manifestos, you have it completely backwards.

draw_down 9y ago

Labor costs.

FidelCashflow 9y ago

Full screen pop up warning.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Here's what most companies want: >> We only hire "passionate" engineers who have proven themselves to be "rock stars" and we call them "family" so that they can "take one for the team" and forgo a "raise" because we didn't meet our quarter. But we did make enough to give ourselves "bonuses!" I am motivated by money because every company I work for is motivated by money. They want theirs, I want mine. I factor into my asking salary a "what if I get screwed" amount.

itgoon 9y ago
Exactly. I've worked for a couple of charities at a discount, because I was working with people who wanted to help others, and it showed. Nobody was raking in the big bucks. If I was offered a position somewhere that actively took "hits" for their customers and/or employees, I might stick around. As it is, everyone above me is looking for a payday, and paying me less makes theirs better.
notyourday 9y ago
> I factor into my asking salary a "what if I get screwed" amount. I can guarantee that the moment it is cheaper to screw you than keep you a successful company will screw you. If a company is not successful, they may miscalculate when they screw you and instead screw themselves in addition to screwing you.

dmitrygr 9y ago

I guess I'm one of those "red flag" candidates that this guy says you shouldn't hire. If I wanted to make a difference, I'd join the Red Cross. If I wanted to solve people's problems, I'd go work as a life coach. I want to get paid the maximum amount while working around people and doing a job that doesn't make me want to blow my brains out or work 20 hour days. That is all.

Bob2019 9y ago
Red flag = "not a gullible looser". It's a flag of honour.

dkhenry 9y ago

Wow these comments are depressing. The extreme polarization between, pay me enough and I'll do anything, and take one for the team by making peanuts and working obscene hours is kinda frightenting. Has no one had a job where they were treated well and paid a fair wage? Its perfectly reasonable to get both of those things and be able to make a decision on a company based on additional things, like what the mission is, or who you will work with, or what tools you will use. Money isn't everything and you don't have to be taken advantage of. There is a middle ground.

nfriedly 9y ago
> Has no one had a job where they were treated well and paid a fair wage? I think IBM would qualify there, with the one exception of their occasional mass firings ("resource action").

jerrycabbage 9y ago

The advice is, "tell the person what they want to hear". It is absolutely no surprise that the author does not stick around at one job either.

dmitrygr 9y ago

“At a certain point, I’m very explicit: ‘Look, I think 5X is Absolutely conservative given how we’re growing No. 0X is conservative. It's a startup. Most of those make non-founders $0.00 on equity

sk5t 9y ago
Indeed. If 5x were conservative, at series C or any other point, one would be fending off investors with a stick, failing to justify 409a valuations, etc., etc.

kylnew 9y ago

I do agree with the criticisms of this article but also agree with the parts about assessing your candidates better and understanding their motivations. I did an interview once where they tried to jump to technical interview on the first phone meeting so fast I felt my answers to everything else were this unnecessary preamble to just doing a code question. It totally turned me off. I ended the call early. So while I need the money to be good, I also want to feel like we are starting a mutually beneficial arrangement on other levels than just pay.

SubuSS 9y ago

NOTE: This applies only to the Big 5 (Amazon/Google/MS/FB/Oracle). To be really honest, it is hard to distinguish the big companies today based on non-money line items: - All the companies I have and am working for have very smart folk, very personable people you want to work with / learn from. - All the companies pay well, have great benefits. - I don't care for perks, I can afford the $20 a day to spend on food and snacks. - All of em have great challenges to tackle, and usually you are sought after by the teams with exactly those. No one is going to pay you double your worth to sit around / purely 'learn on the job'. Past experience counts big when it comes to leveling/team choices in all of them. - All of them are exponentially growing. - Almost all of them are dabbling in each others areas of work: Everyone is doing databases/fs/networking/user applications/web dev and what not. For me the choice of snap was purely because I wanted a small company experience without the risk of a pure startup, in fact all the benefits and better compared to the big 5. Unless you have a specific requirement like that, sadly money will end up being the differentiator. To add some irony to the whole discussion, they know this as well: All the offers I got from the big companies were with few $$$ of each other. I didn't tell them my current salary with Amazon, it didn't even come close to the numbers on glassdoor for my then level, but magically they seem to 'know' (shrug).

purplezooey 9y ago

How about not putting your new company in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park or Santa Clara. Nobody can live there, it's impossible to drive/transit there from anywhere, and they're just plain miserable places with cheaply constructed office buildings. So tired of seeing this.

pascalxus 9y ago
I agree. But companies will never learn this lesson as long as they can still hire there easily.

pascalxus 9y ago

You can boost a potential candidate's compensation by 1 to 2 million dollars, just by choosing a suitable location outside the bay area! At no cost to yourself! This should become an increasingly hot strategy, as all those young engineers at google and facebook begin to age and start thinking about having families. Then again, if all you want is young interns that'll work for free, keep hiring in SF.