4 ms·

Salary has very little with how "good" you are, and determining "good" is the essence of this scam industry. Hypothetically, lets say there are devs being paid

Salary has very little with how "good" you are, and determining "good" is the essence of this scam industry. Hypothetically, lets say there are devs being paid $1MM per year who are kicking back $250-500k to their managers who got them the jobs. They do the same work as everyone else. Are they good?

stephenr 6y ago
In most industries, more experience = more pay. Not all, not always fairly, but generally. In tech, more experience in a niche field generally = even more money. It’s not that different than paying for regular items. There is supply and demand at play (hence niche roles will often pay higher) and the basic concept of “you get what you pay for”. Generally a more experienced developer will be more productive. Generally that means they’ll be compensated more. SF salaries are pushing the supply and demand part heavily: without sufficient salary the candidates can’t afford to live where the job is because it’s so over populated.
asdkhadsj 6y ago
Oh it entirely does. But I think you're confusing the source for "good". As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right? So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a good feeling. A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap price tag is often great. Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income, salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables at the time, and we made the right decision. Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.
- codegeek 6y ago
  Very well said.
- one2know 6y ago
  The labor market is not as efficient as your one data point makes you think. At big corporations hundreds of millions are thrown around like paper. All you need is a large corporation, some intense groupthink, and some kickbacks and the company is going to be paying $1MM for a remote worker barely better than a recent graduate. With monetary persuasion people are able to make management buy into calling someone who is nothing a purple squirrel critical to the company.
  - asdkhadsj 6y ago
    What does that matter to the conversation, though? My point was merely that compensation is merely a variable. As with any variables different companies will value different things. In your example the company has almost no concern for compensation amounts. My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have valued the compensation variable heavily. And I (or rather the group of people I work with) are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam employees out of potential earnings.
neonate 6y ago
If you have to invoke a fabricated scenario to make your point, it suggests that your argument is weak.

stephenr 6y ago

In most industries, more experience = more pay. Not all, not always fairly, but generally. In tech, more experience in a niche field generally = even more money. It’s not that different than paying for regular items. There is supply and demand at play (hence niche roles will often pay higher) and the basic concept of “you get what you pay for”. Generally a more experienced developer will be more productive. Generally that means they’ll be compensated more. SF salaries are pushing the supply and demand part heavily: without sufficient salary the candidates can’t afford to live where the job is because it’s so over populated.

asdkhadsj 6y ago

Oh it entirely does. But I think you're confusing the source for "good". As the GP said, supply and demand, you're competing with a lot more developers when you work remote. I think we'd all agree there, right? So now the company hiring has a large pool they need to sort through. How do you choose? Well they _could_ just choose the "best", but they get to define best, or good, right? Some companies may literally want to choose the best client they can, but many will want to balance all variables. They want a skilled candidate, who fits their culture, for a price that leaves them with a good feeling. A candidate willing to accept less pay is a value in itself. If the candidate meets or exceeds the minimum skill that the company is desiring, the cheap price tag is often great. Now I know this is a complex topic, but as a remote worker and someone who has hired many remote workers for a company with real, limited non-VC income, salary matters. Even in just the candidates I've interviewed, if they were all the same price tag I would have different coworkers today. Which isn't to say that my coworkers are bad or that we hired poorly, we hired based on variables at the time, and we made the right decision. Price has nothing to do with candidate skill, but is still often top tier variable in choosing a candidate. It is not a scam. It is reality.

codegeek 6y ago
Very well said.
one2know 6y ago
The labor market is not as efficient as your one data point makes you think. At big corporations hundreds of millions are thrown around like paper. All you need is a large corporation, some intense groupthink, and some kickbacks and the company is going to be paying $1MM for a remote worker barely better than a recent graduate. With monetary persuasion people are able to make management buy into calling someone who is nothing a purple squirrel critical to the company.
- asdkhadsj 6y ago
  What does that matter to the conversation, though? My point was merely that compensation is merely a variable. As with any variables different companies will value different things. In your example the company has almost no concern for compensation amounts. My reply was to the idea that cost is irrelevant and merely a tool to scam employees out of money. That is ridiculous. As I mentioned, I personally have valued the compensation variable heavily. And I (or rather the group of people I work with) are certainly not some evil masterminds trying to scam employees out of potential earnings.

neonate 6y ago

If you have to invoke a fabricated scenario to make your point, it suggests that your argument is weak.