3 ms·

> The work done by a database engineer is different from the work done by a VP marketing, or a director of database engineering. It is not inherently better or

> The work done by a database engineer is different from the work done by a VP marketing, or a director of database engineering. It is not inherently better or worse, easier or harder, more or less deserving of praise and admiration. It is simply different. The big problem is that it is the VPs and directors who are getting together and deciding what everyone should be paid. And, lo and behold, somehow, they almost always decide that VPs and directors should get paid more than database engineers.

jeffbee 6y ago
Eh, market forces are more influential than this. You can't simply decide how much to pay engineers, any more than you can decide what your rent is going to cost.
- bitdizzy 6y ago
  There was a whole scandal about this, wasn't there?
- shuckles 6y ago
  The supply of database marketing VPs seems harder to define than the supply of engineers who could build production features in large database projects. In particular, the former seems a lot more easily manipulated and dependent on who existing VPs consider qualified.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The rule of thumb is “the closer you are to the money, the more you make”. People rarely demand what they are worth since they usually value security over maximizing income, but if you are familiar with the numbers, then you are in a much better negotiating position. People should always keep applying to jobs, even if they don’t intend on accepting them just to keep a pulse on the value of the labor they are selling.
seneca 6y ago
I've been the Director. HR mostly sets salary bands. The recruiter, candidate (via negotiating), and hiring manager can only really move around within those bands. Those bands are largely based on market research.
shard 6y ago
I disagree with the quoted statement, and my disagreement leads to your conclusion as a consequence, but not as a problem. Leaving aside whether the different positions are better/worse, easier/harder, etc, the higher you go, the more influence your decisions have. The engineer, if he does his job well, might be responsible for a few features and best case, be responsible for part of the revenue, and worst case, waste the time of a few engineers. The director, being responsible for perhaps a whole product, is responsible for a large portion of the revenue, and can waste the time of several dozen people if he doesn't do his job right. The VP, responsible for lines of products, can waste the time of hundreds of people. And so on up the chain. As an engineer, implementing the wrong feature probably won't get you removed from your position. As a VP, choosing the wrong product line can definitely get you removed from your position. And this is in addition to the increasing need to be able to negotiate with internal and external stakeholders to get increasingly larger scope of things done the higher you go. It's high stakes, high reward, and that's why the compensation is higher for those who can demonstrate that they can make a significant dent in the bottom line.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  > As a VP, choosing the wrong product line can definitely get you removed from your position. In theory. In practice they'll blame someone else and use the information they control the flow of as proof. Politics matters more than ability to improve things overall. The Director who gets promoted is the one who saves the VP's backside in the previous example and not the one who increased revenue five fold.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    This is why VP's own P&Ls. It doesn't matter if it's someone else's fault. You own the P&L and it's your job to fix it.

jeffbee 6y ago

Eh, market forces are more influential than this. You can't simply decide how much to pay engineers, any more than you can decide what your rent is going to cost.

bitdizzy 6y ago
There was a whole scandal about this, wasn't there?
shuckles 6y ago
The supply of database marketing VPs seems harder to define than the supply of engineers who could build production features in large database projects. In particular, the former seems a lot more easily manipulated and dependent on who existing VPs consider qualified.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
The rule of thumb is “the closer you are to the money, the more you make”. People rarely demand what they are worth since they usually value security over maximizing income, but if you are familiar with the numbers, then you are in a much better negotiating position. People should always keep applying to jobs, even if they don’t intend on accepting them just to keep a pulse on the value of the labor they are selling.

seneca 6y ago

I've been the Director. HR mostly sets salary bands. The recruiter, candidate (via negotiating), and hiring manager can only really move around within those bands. Those bands are largely based on market research.

shard 6y ago

I disagree with the quoted statement, and my disagreement leads to your conclusion as a consequence, but not as a problem. Leaving aside whether the different positions are better/worse, easier/harder, etc, the higher you go, the more influence your decisions have. The engineer, if he does his job well, might be responsible for a few features and best case, be responsible for part of the revenue, and worst case, waste the time of a few engineers. The director, being responsible for perhaps a whole product, is responsible for a large portion of the revenue, and can waste the time of several dozen people if he doesn't do his job right. The VP, responsible for lines of products, can waste the time of hundreds of people. And so on up the chain. As an engineer, implementing the wrong feature probably won't get you removed from your position. As a VP, choosing the wrong product line can definitely get you removed from your position. And this is in addition to the increasing need to be able to negotiate with internal and external stakeholders to get increasingly larger scope of things done the higher you go. It's high stakes, high reward, and that's why the compensation is higher for those who can demonstrate that they can make a significant dent in the bottom line.

marcinzm 6y ago
> As a VP, choosing the wrong product line can definitely get you removed from your position. In theory. In practice they'll blame someone else and use the information they control the flow of as proof. Politics matters more than ability to improve things overall. The Director who gets promoted is the one who saves the VP's backside in the previous example and not the one who increased revenue five fold.
- xxpor 6y ago
  This is why VP's own P&Ls. It doesn't matter if it's someone else's fault. You own the P&L and it's your job to fix it.