8 ms·

These salaries don't come from thin air, they're constrained by the market rate at which engineers can be hired and retained. It's unfairly reductive to say tha

These salaries don't come from thin air, they're constrained by the market rate at which engineers can be hired and retained. It's unfairly reductive to say that the engineers aren't contributing value since they work in ads. We work in all sorts of fields from the frivolous, like consumer electronics, to the decidedly less so like self-driving. If the discrepancy between engineering salaries and research/teaching/nursing salaries is bothersome then perhaps the blame should be placed on the economic environment that has produced this result, not the twenty-somethings that are accepting great compensation.

tidepod12 7y ago
I don't believe you'll find anywhere in my post above that I placed the blame on anyone. Why so defensive?
- pb7 7y ago
  Are you sure? Because it sure sounds like you disagree that these people deserve to be making large sums of money and then also not be appreciative of it. I would call that placing blame.
  - tidepod12 7y ago
    I mean to put this as civilly as possible, but I don't believe you understand the meaning of blame if you actually think that. Saying that these grads don't deserve that much money (and also observing that they are not appreciative of it) is not casting blame at all.
    - pb7 7y ago
      Okay, let's agree to disagree on the terminology. What exact solution do you propose? Do people stop accepting this money? Do they thank their cashiers extra generously because they make 10x more? What is the actionable step here that would make it all okay in your eyes?
      - tidepod12 7y ago
        >Okay, let's agree to disagree on the terminology. No, let's not. If we're going to have a discussion, we're at least going to agree on the actual meaning of words, otherwise attempting to discuss them is going to be fruitless. To blame means to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong. At no point in my comment above did I assign responsibility to anyone for any fault or wrong. In this case, the "fault or wrong" would be being paid too high. Again, nowhere in my comment did I say, or even imply that the new grads are responsible for their high pay. That fault would (obviously) lie with the people willing to give them such high pay. Based on this, you can now see why the rest of your comment doesn't make sense. The new grads aren't responsible for doing anything (they don't have to not accept the money or whatever) because it isn't their fault in the first place.
        pb7 7y ago
        From the fact that you took a dump on the steps of this thread and have repeatedly refused to back up or explain your points both to me and others who responded to you by arguing over semantics and side stepping questions, I'm just going to assume you are acting in bad faith.
        tidepod12 7y ago
        I know that saying "now you're just arguing semantics" is a smug way to get out of having to participate in an actual discussion, but it's silly to do that here. You brought up the claim of blame, and now you're backpedaling when it's revealed that you used the word incorrectly. It's not arguing semantics when your entire point rests on the meaning of the word. If you aren't willing to abide by the actual meaning of words when you attempt to use them, you're the bad faith actor, and a discussion is going to get us nowhere.
        random314 7y ago
        At this point it is clear that you are not engaging in discussion in good faith. Envy followed by anger is a common human emotion and every person has to find their own path to come to terms with it.
    - balfirevic 7y ago
      > Saying that these grads don't deserve that much money Of course they deserve it - the money belongs to their employer and they decided to part with it in exchange for the services of those grads. Whatever it is that you're trying to say hinges entirely on what you think the concept of "to deserve something" means. And you really haven't elaborated much on that (if at all, as far as I can see).
      - tidepod12 7y ago
        When I say "deserve" I mean it in a broader sense that considers more aspects of our society than just "a company is willing to pay that much". Sure, Facebook is probably willing to pay a mediocre engineer much more than they are willing to pay the best teacher in the world. That makes sense, because Facebook doesn't hire teachers and has no reason to pay a teacher a lot of money. In this sense, the teacher doesn't "deserve" a lot of money from Facebook, while the engineer might. But speaking in a broader sense, do you think that a mediocre 22 year old engineer "deserves" more money and a better lifestyle than the best teacher in the world?
        balfirevic 7y ago
        > But speaking in a broader sense, do you think that a mediocre 22 year old engineer "deserves" more money and a better lifestyle than the best teacher in the world? Well, first of all, it is very unlikely that the "best teacher in the world" simply works in school. And if they do - then it is by choice. Second, it would of course not matter if said mediocre engineer is 22 or 66 years old - maybe you just included it for the sake of illustration but it does give some ageism vibes. Anyway, since you have still not elaborated on what "to deserve" means to you, I will tell you how I think about it. When I think "someone doesn't deserve something" it implies "this should not be so". Now we have a question - can we and should we do something about it? Either on a personal level, or on collective governmental level. In this particular case - it would depend on having a way to objectively determine teacher's skill level and whether disproportionately high skill level would translate to similarly disproportional effects in their teaching (both in the individual pupil results and the number of pupils they are able to reach). All of that is required because they are paid by public money - private tutors can get paid whatever their clients are willing to pay. If we are able to do that, I might say such a great teacher deserves to be paid lot of money, comparable to what Facebook pays it's engineers. Otherwise, I would not presume to say that any particular teacher should (which is the same as "deserves" for me) command a salary based on what few big tech companies are willing to pay fresh grads.
- InterimNew 7y ago
  22 and 23 year olds making $200k+ a year? For doing what, exactly? Contributing 0.001% of the codebase to an app that sells advertisements? It may not have been your intent, but your comment has (at least on my read) an accusatory tone. You ask a number of rhetorical questions which indicate that you have low-regard for the work of the engineers in question. You appear to be doubling down on this with your recent comment. Why so defensive Calling someone defensive because they disagree with you is uncivil and a great way to start an argument. In the most literal sense of the word, my comment offers some justification for these salaries because yours appears to discredit them.
  - tidepod12 7y ago
    >It may not have been your intent, but your comment has (at least on my read) an accusatory tone. You ask a number of rhetorical questions which indicate that you have low-regard for the work of the engineers in question. I do have low regard for the engineers in question (low regard in terms of their ability and worthiness of salary, obviously not low regard in terms of their person). The majority of engineers in SV are working on products that primarily exist to serve advertisements to customers. They don't deserve $200k+ for that, and it makes me sad that society has decided these are the people that are paid this much while teachers and nurses are actually starving. You say that self-driving car engineers deserve it? Really? Show me the 22 year olds that have contributed meaningfully to self-driving technology. But you can't. Because the people making the meaningful contributions (read: worthy of being paid $200k+) are much more experienced, have been working in the field much longer, and are much older. They are not 22 year old new grads. >Calling someone defensive because they disagree with you is uncivil and a great way to start an argument. In the most literal sense of the word, my comment offers some justification for these salaries because yours appears to discredit them. And claiming that someone is accusing blame (when they haven't) is also uncivil and a great way to start an argument.
    - pb7 7y ago
      >teachers and nurses are actually starving Citation needed.
mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
It doesn't appear to me that the parent implied that these salaries come from thin air. It seems much more obvious that this person is pointing out just how disproportionate it is compared to other very crucial professions, with no obvious labor differences for why this is. Chalking it up to it being the "market rate" sort of ignores how the market has failed for these other professions. They have to deal with the cost of living just like people in tech. The issue with the new grads, as the parent pointed out, is the attitude. Most could care less about this. That deserves critique. I should also add that this dynamic does play out in other parts of the country. In other states in the US with much lower costs of living, nurses and teachers for example still have an average salary that is much lower than that of those in the tech industry, especially software development.
- Pyxl101 7y ago
  > with no obvious labor differences for why this is One difference that stands out to me is that the supply of people who can perform the job is constrained. Other professions may be crucial - indeed, the truck drivers who deliver supplies to all stores from which we purchase daily goods are crucial - but that job in particular can be performed by almost anyone with minimal training. Words like "crucial" don't have much meaning as far as determining job compensation: it's a supply/demand interaction. If the supply of people who can perform the job is not constrained, because the job is relatively easy to get into, then that will suppress the compensation. It's difficult to obtain a computer science degree and perform at the level required to solicit job offers from the kind of companies that pay new graduates $200k. Imagine for the sake of argument that these jobs require an IQ of 125 or higher: then only about 5% of the population will be capable of performing at that level. (This is just an example. I'm not saying that I think programming has a particular IQ requirement.)
  - 1shooner 7y ago
    This is also reductive. If market value was the sole driver for selection of profession, we would suffer a critical lack of specialists in a variety of fields.

tidepod12 7y ago

I don't believe you'll find anywhere in my post above that I placed the blame on anyone. Why so defensive?

pb7 7y ago
Are you sure? Because it sure sounds like you disagree that these people deserve to be making large sums of money and then also not be appreciative of it. I would call that placing blame.
- tidepod12 7y ago
  I mean to put this as civilly as possible, but I don't believe you understand the meaning of blame if you actually think that. Saying that these grads don't deserve that much money (and also observing that they are not appreciative of it) is not casting blame at all.
  - pb7 7y ago
    Okay, let's agree to disagree on the terminology. What exact solution do you propose? Do people stop accepting this money? Do they thank their cashiers extra generously because they make 10x more? What is the actionable step here that would make it all okay in your eyes?
    - tidepod12 7y ago
      >Okay, let's agree to disagree on the terminology. No, let's not. If we're going to have a discussion, we're at least going to agree on the actual meaning of words, otherwise attempting to discuss them is going to be fruitless. To blame means to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong. At no point in my comment above did I assign responsibility to anyone for any fault or wrong. In this case, the "fault or wrong" would be being paid too high. Again, nowhere in my comment did I say, or even imply that the new grads are responsible for their high pay. That fault would (obviously) lie with the people willing to give them such high pay. Based on this, you can now see why the rest of your comment doesn't make sense. The new grads aren't responsible for doing anything (they don't have to not accept the money or whatever) because it isn't their fault in the first place.
      - pb7 7y ago
        From the fact that you took a dump on the steps of this thread and have repeatedly refused to back up or explain your points both to me and others who responded to you by arguing over semantics and side stepping questions, I'm just going to assume you are acting in bad faith.
        tidepod12 7y ago
        I know that saying "now you're just arguing semantics" is a smug way to get out of having to participate in an actual discussion, but it's silly to do that here. You brought up the claim of blame, and now you're backpedaling when it's revealed that you used the word incorrectly. It's not arguing semantics when your entire point rests on the meaning of the word. If you aren't willing to abide by the actual meaning of words when you attempt to use them, you're the bad faith actor, and a discussion is going to get us nowhere.
      - random314 7y ago
        At this point it is clear that you are not engaging in discussion in good faith. Envy followed by anger is a common human emotion and every person has to find their own path to come to terms with it.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    > Saying that these grads don't deserve that much money Of course they deserve it - the money belongs to their employer and they decided to part with it in exchange for the services of those grads. Whatever it is that you're trying to say hinges entirely on what you think the concept of "to deserve something" means. And you really haven't elaborated much on that (if at all, as far as I can see).
    - tidepod12 7y ago
      When I say "deserve" I mean it in a broader sense that considers more aspects of our society than just "a company is willing to pay that much". Sure, Facebook is probably willing to pay a mediocre engineer much more than they are willing to pay the best teacher in the world. That makes sense, because Facebook doesn't hire teachers and has no reason to pay a teacher a lot of money. In this sense, the teacher doesn't "deserve" a lot of money from Facebook, while the engineer might. But speaking in a broader sense, do you think that a mediocre 22 year old engineer "deserves" more money and a better lifestyle than the best teacher in the world?
      - balfirevic 7y ago
        > But speaking in a broader sense, do you think that a mediocre 22 year old engineer "deserves" more money and a better lifestyle than the best teacher in the world? Well, first of all, it is very unlikely that the "best teacher in the world" simply works in school. And if they do - then it is by choice. Second, it would of course not matter if said mediocre engineer is 22 or 66 years old - maybe you just included it for the sake of illustration but it does give some ageism vibes. Anyway, since you have still not elaborated on what "to deserve" means to you, I will tell you how I think about it. When I think "someone doesn't deserve something" it implies "this should not be so". Now we have a question - can we and should we do something about it? Either on a personal level, or on collective governmental level. In this particular case - it would depend on having a way to objectively determine teacher's skill level and whether disproportionately high skill level would translate to similarly disproportional effects in their teaching (both in the individual pupil results and the number of pupils they are able to reach). All of that is required because they are paid by public money - private tutors can get paid whatever their clients are willing to pay. If we are able to do that, I might say such a great teacher deserves to be paid lot of money, comparable to what Facebook pays it's engineers. Otherwise, I would not presume to say that any particular teacher should (which is the same as "deserves" for me) command a salary based on what few big tech companies are willing to pay fresh grads.
InterimNew 7y ago
22 and 23 year olds making $200k+ a year? For doing what, exactly? Contributing 0.001% of the codebase to an app that sells advertisements? It may not have been your intent, but your comment has (at least on my read) an accusatory tone. You ask a number of rhetorical questions which indicate that you have low-regard for the work of the engineers in question. You appear to be doubling down on this with your recent comment. Why so defensive Calling someone defensive because they disagree with you is uncivil and a great way to start an argument. In the most literal sense of the word, my comment offers some justification for these salaries because yours appears to discredit them.
- tidepod12 7y ago
  >It may not have been your intent, but your comment has (at least on my read) an accusatory tone. You ask a number of rhetorical questions which indicate that you have low-regard for the work of the engineers in question. I do have low regard for the engineers in question (low regard in terms of their ability and worthiness of salary, obviously not low regard in terms of their person). The majority of engineers in SV are working on products that primarily exist to serve advertisements to customers. They don't deserve $200k+ for that, and it makes me sad that society has decided these are the people that are paid this much while teachers and nurses are actually starving. You say that self-driving car engineers deserve it? Really? Show me the 22 year olds that have contributed meaningfully to self-driving technology. But you can't. Because the people making the meaningful contributions (read: worthy of being paid $200k+) are much more experienced, have been working in the field much longer, and are much older. They are not 22 year old new grads. >Calling someone defensive because they disagree with you is uncivil and a great way to start an argument. In the most literal sense of the word, my comment offers some justification for these salaries because yours appears to discredit them. And claiming that someone is accusing blame (when they haven't) is also uncivil and a great way to start an argument.
  - pb7 7y ago
    >teachers and nurses are actually starving Citation needed.

mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago

It doesn't appear to me that the parent implied that these salaries come from thin air. It seems much more obvious that this person is pointing out just how disproportionate it is compared to other very crucial professions, with no obvious labor differences for why this is. Chalking it up to it being the "market rate" sort of ignores how the market has failed for these other professions. They have to deal with the cost of living just like people in tech. The issue with the new grads, as the parent pointed out, is the attitude. Most could care less about this. That deserves critique. I should also add that this dynamic does play out in other parts of the country. In other states in the US with much lower costs of living, nurses and teachers for example still have an average salary that is much lower than that of those in the tech industry, especially software development.

Pyxl101 7y ago
> with no obvious labor differences for why this is One difference that stands out to me is that the supply of people who can perform the job is constrained. Other professions may be crucial - indeed, the truck drivers who deliver supplies to all stores from which we purchase daily goods are crucial - but that job in particular can be performed by almost anyone with minimal training. Words like "crucial" don't have much meaning as far as determining job compensation: it's a supply/demand interaction. If the supply of people who can perform the job is not constrained, because the job is relatively easy to get into, then that will suppress the compensation. It's difficult to obtain a computer science degree and perform at the level required to solicit job offers from the kind of companies that pay new graduates $200k. Imagine for the sake of argument that these jobs require an IQ of 125 or higher: then only about 5% of the population will be capable of performing at that level. (This is just an example. I'm not saying that I think programming has a particular IQ requirement.)
- 1shooner 7y ago
  This is also reductive. If market value was the sole driver for selection of profession, we would suffer a critical lack of specialists in a variety of fields.