5 ms·

Why do you think they should be paying significantly less just because they are a non-profit? I'm sure they can pay a bit less because people join because of th

Why do you think they should be paying significantly less just because they are a non-profit? I'm sure they can pay a bit less because people join because of their values and not just because of the money but I suspect they still have to stay somewhat competitive. I can see people being okay with making 10-20% less working for a company whose values they really like, but 50% less? Doubt it.

reaperducer 6y ago
When I worked for a non-profit, the rule was that salaries could be no more than 90% of the general going rate for the same job in the same location (we had offices across the country). I don't know if it was a rule specific to this organization, or if it's an industry-wide rule of thumb. Because of this 90% rule, the company never set any salaries. After you passed the interview and they wanted to hire you, they sent your resume and job description to an outside consulting firm, which would then calculate what your salary would be. The consulting firm contacted you directly and let you know what your compensation would be if you accepted the job, and why. It might be common, but it was very new for me.
- ivalm 6y ago
  90% of going rate in bay is >>200k for senior dev. Check out levels.fyi
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Maybe they should not be in SV then (especially if they expect to survive from donations from people from all over the world). You can find developers just as good all over for 1/4th the cost.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Even if they aren’t in the Bay , they still have to compete with Bay salaries. Especially, if more of BigTech starts allowing remote work.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        Do they though? There are many good unemployed or poorly paid programmers all around the globe. Even if they do start allowing more remote work this will not change much as they will still have around the same number of employees.
        scarface74 6y ago
        What’s your definition of a “good developer”? I’m the first person to call out companies that think they need “ninja, rockstar developers” to build their Node CRUD app. But, how many developers are there that are out of work that could actually contribute meaningfully to Firefox? Writing a modern browser engine/Javascript engine and the related underpinnings is hard. Not even Microsoft - the third most valuable company in the US - wanted to keep taking that on. Every other company in the world besides Mozilla who wanted their own browser thought it was better just to use Webkit or Blink. Even though I am a developer and work for Big Tech, I got in through the backdoor via cloud consultancy. I looked at what it would take to even be competitive to not embarrass myself during the interview process and decided I wasn’t interested. I’m assuming that Netscape has similar standards . I can’t imagine that anyone who is good enough and disciplined enough to get through the process can’t get a job.
    - dblohm7 6y ago
      Google’s recruiters and their truckloads of money are happy to reach out regardless. You want the talent capable of building and maintaining a web engine? Be prepared to pay for it.
- damnyou 6y ago
  For the quality of people that work at Mozilla, going rate for a senior dev is more like 350-400k in the SF Bay area. Mozilla pays well below 90% of going rate.
  - roca 6y ago
    As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer, this is absolutely correct.
  - 20after4 6y ago
    Seriously 350-400k? The SF Bay area is really ridiculously inflated even more than I had realized.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      The way I think about it is the engineers Mozilla hires could almost all get cushy jobs at a FAANG, but it pays tier 2-3 salaries. Mozilla doesn't just build CRUD apps. The problems its engineers have to solve are really hard ones, often completely novel.
- fzzzy 6y ago
  Moz Corp is not a nonprofit
bscphil 6y ago
> Why do you think they should be paying significantly less just because they are a non-profit? I'm sure they can pay a bit less because people join because of their values and not just because of the money but I suspect they still have to stay somewhat competitive. I don't necessarily disagree with you about this, but the logic is kind of telling. If you're right, the only possible conclusion to draw is that non-profits shouldn't, and effectively don't exist in a modern capitalist economy. Why? Because a non-profit still has to compete on both the labor market and the commodities market, which means salaries about as high as their for-profit competitors, and making something they can sell (ideally to ad tech companies, since they have the real $, not ordinary people). Even if profiting off the business isn't supposed to be the motive, most people are going to be profiting. And perhaps it's no surprise that the people in charge of making these decisions are the ones who profit the most. Decisions are going to be made in almost exactly the same way as they would be made at a for-profit company. But this process of decision making is the thing we're trying to escape when we talk about something like Mozilla. Maybe the problem is that we think of Mozilla as a typical case of non-profit organizational structure. Would an alternative structure be possible, for example Mozilla existing only to organize teams of volunteers, not to produce something that could be sold (i.e. to advertizers) but to make something good that people want? (Obviously, the people who run Mozilla have a strong material interest against ever finding this out.) I think we're imaginatively limited when we talk only about "businesses" as the fundamental actor in the modern world. Maybe being non-profit (even "anti-profit") should be about more than that.

reaperducer 6y ago

When I worked for a non-profit, the rule was that salaries could be no more than 90% of the general going rate for the same job in the same location (we had offices across the country). I don't know if it was a rule specific to this organization, or if it's an industry-wide rule of thumb. Because of this 90% rule, the company never set any salaries. After you passed the interview and they wanted to hire you, they sent your resume and job description to an outside consulting firm, which would then calculate what your salary would be. The consulting firm contacted you directly and let you know what your compensation would be if you accepted the job, and why. It might be common, but it was very new for me.

ivalm 6y ago
90% of going rate in bay is >>200k for senior dev. Check out levels.fyi
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Maybe they should not be in SV then (especially if they expect to survive from donations from people from all over the world). You can find developers just as good all over for 1/4th the cost.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Even if they aren’t in the Bay , they still have to compete with Bay salaries. Especially, if more of BigTech starts allowing remote work.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Do they though? There are many good unemployed or poorly paid programmers all around the globe. Even if they do start allowing more remote work this will not change much as they will still have around the same number of employees.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        What’s your definition of a “good developer”? I’m the first person to call out companies that think they need “ninja, rockstar developers” to build their Node CRUD app. But, how many developers are there that are out of work that could actually contribute meaningfully to Firefox? Writing a modern browser engine/Javascript engine and the related underpinnings is hard. Not even Microsoft - the third most valuable company in the US - wanted to keep taking that on. Every other company in the world besides Mozilla who wanted their own browser thought it was better just to use Webkit or Blink. Even though I am a developer and work for Big Tech, I got in through the backdoor via cloud consultancy. I looked at what it would take to even be competitive to not embarrass myself during the interview process and decided I wasn’t interested. I’m assuming that Netscape has similar standards . I can’t imagine that anyone who is good enough and disciplined enough to get through the process can’t get a job.
  - dblohm7 6y ago
    Google’s recruiters and their truckloads of money are happy to reach out regardless. You want the talent capable of building and maintaining a web engine? Be prepared to pay for it.
damnyou 6y ago
For the quality of people that work at Mozilla, going rate for a senior dev is more like 350-400k in the SF Bay area. Mozilla pays well below 90% of going rate.
- roca 6y ago
  As a former Mozilla distinguished engineer, this is absolutely correct.
- 20after4 6y ago
  Seriously 350-400k? The SF Bay area is really ridiculously inflated even more than I had realized.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    The way I think about it is the engineers Mozilla hires could almost all get cushy jobs at a FAANG, but it pays tier 2-3 salaries. Mozilla doesn't just build CRUD apps. The problems its engineers have to solve are really hard ones, often completely novel.
fzzzy 6y ago
Moz Corp is not a nonprofit

bscphil 6y ago

> Why do you think they should be paying significantly less just because they are a non-profit? I'm sure they can pay a bit less because people join because of their values and not just because of the money but I suspect they still have to stay somewhat competitive. I don't necessarily disagree with you about this, but the logic is kind of telling. If you're right, the only possible conclusion to draw is that non-profits shouldn't, and effectively don't exist in a modern capitalist economy. Why? Because a non-profit still has to compete on both the labor market and the commodities market, which means salaries about as high as their for-profit competitors, and making something they can sell (ideally to ad tech companies, since they have the real $, not ordinary people). Even if profiting off the business isn't supposed to be the motive, most people are going to be profiting. And perhaps it's no surprise that the people in charge of making these decisions are the ones who profit the most. Decisions are going to be made in almost exactly the same way as they would be made at a for-profit company. But this process of decision making is the thing we're trying to escape when we talk about something like Mozilla. Maybe the problem is that we think of Mozilla as a typical case of non-profit organizational structure. Would an alternative structure be possible, for example Mozilla existing only to organize teams of volunteers, not to produce something that could be sold (i.e. to advertizers) but to make something good that people want? (Obviously, the people who run Mozilla have a strong material interest against ever finding this out.) I think we're imaginatively limited when we talk only about "businesses" as the fundamental actor in the modern world. Maybe being non-profit (even "anti-profit") should be about more than that.