4 ms·

>If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at Amazon and do whatever possible to las

>If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year so I could put that Amazon name on my resume for future prospects. I don't disagree with your assessment, but this illustrates just how broken the software labor market is. If you'd work in a dumpster fire culture as a capable developer just for resume padding to open doors, something is wrong with software labor and hiring (which, there's a lot wrong, this is but one more example of how perverse the market is). A lesser known, less prestigious, and lower pay position shouldn't effect your future opportunities if the market is really selecting on talent that it claims it is. Now if your lesser known/prestigious location happens to have you doing CRUD work circa 2000, then sure, but that's definitely not the case for a lot of places that simply can't pay the rates Amazon can afford to pay.

dcolkitt 5y ago
Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to revenue per employee. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Companies that can’t afford to pay FAANG wages, typically don’t have FAANG productivity levels. Productivity in software is closely tied to how effective the technology and processes are. Most of those factors are fairly portable across companies. So, I would say that an engineer working at a high total comp firm is likely acquiring more valuable human capital. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. If a company can afford to pay engineers $300k, they’re probably doing something right, in a way the company who pays $75k isn't.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to revenue per employee. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. I don't know of any theoretical reason that would be true nor see any evidence of that in practice.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    In microeconomics, it’s a pretty foundational tenet that wages normalize to marginal worker productivity.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I don't remember that from any of my microeconomic courses. I mean, maybe you mean society wide (aka macro), but that's only as average worker productivity rises, and has nothing to do with particularly efficient single firms.
      - brutus1213 5y ago
        Simple thought experiment. Firms will continue to hire until wage = marginal productivity .. otherwise, you leave money on the table. Usual BS assumptions on perfect information/competition, cetrus paribus, and all that stuff.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        In your simple thought experiment, why are wages going up for that one firm? You're hiring more people, not raising the wages of the existing people. And I'm not sure why you think unit economics apply to software with it's almost 100% fixed costs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dcolkitt 5y ago

Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to revenue per employee. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Companies that can’t afford to pay FAANG wages, typically don’t have FAANG productivity levels. Productivity in software is closely tied to how effective the technology and processes are. Most of those factors are fairly portable across companies. So, I would say that an engineer working at a high total comp firm is likely acquiring more valuable human capital. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. If a company can afford to pay engineers $300k, they’re probably doing something right, in a way the company who pays $75k isn't.

HWR_14 5y ago
> Generally, compensation is pretty closely tied to revenue per employee. Not always, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. I don't know of any theoretical reason that would be true nor see any evidence of that in practice.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  In microeconomics, it’s a pretty foundational tenet that wages normalize to marginal worker productivity.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I don't remember that from any of my microeconomic courses. I mean, maybe you mean society wide (aka macro), but that's only as average worker productivity rises, and has nothing to do with particularly efficient single firms.
    - brutus1213 5y ago
      Simple thought experiment. Firms will continue to hire until wage = marginal productivity .. otherwise, you leave money on the table. Usual BS assumptions on perfect information/competition, cetrus paribus, and all that stuff.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        In your simple thought experiment, why are wages going up for that one firm? You're hiring more people, not raising the wages of the existing people. And I'm not sure why you think unit economics apply to software with it's almost 100% fixed costs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]