3 ms·

Ehh I dunno. Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. The bigger problem is the risk of corrupti

by ummonk 5y ago

Ehh I dunno. Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. The bigger problem is the risk of corruption when you start hiring 500k engineers.

ethbr0 5y ago
The bigger problem is when their manager, and their manager, makes <500k. The manager-should-make-more rule gets squirrelly for technical stuff.
perl4ever 5y ago
A regional bank headquartered in my area of upstate NY, which is also a publicly traded company, paid, in 2019, three out of their five C-level executives whose salary is disclosed, a base salary of $500K or less. Do you or have you worked in a place where "engineers" make $500K? Have you thought about what they outsource to people making 1/10th or less, and why?
bavila 5y ago
> Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. That sounds reasonable, unless you're an elected government official in a state where salaries of government employees are public information. Local media outlets and your political opponents will have a field day over a government employee making a half-a-million dollar salary. The public won't ever be able to understand or accept why one talented person should be made so wealthy in relation to the value they provide. However, the public will be fine with the same amount of money being spread out across 10 employees, since it still keeps all recipients in the poor house together with everyone else.
bruce511 5y ago
Having a dept of 1 engineer is not great [1]. You'd want ideally 3 or 4. Whick is kinda no-man's-land between 50k and 500k. Say 125k,which would get you good, but not stellar. (and would be an improvement over 10 somewhat incompetent.) [1] having just 1 creates lots of bigger issues ; Availability (what happens when he's sick or on vacation). Technical documentation (there is none, its all in his head). Role transfer (when he leaves there is short intense handover, then nothing). Opinioned design - he does it his way, no discussion necessary - some will be good, but some will be bad. When he leaves, you can't replace him. 500k engineers won't work for a place where you just maintain the system the last guy designed and wrote - they want to design and write their own stuff from scratch. I could go on, but programming depts of 1 are usually a bad idea...

by ummonk 5y ago

Ehh I dunno. Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. The bigger problem is the risk of corruption when you start hiring 500k engineers.

ethbr0 5y ago

The bigger problem is when their manager, and their manager, makes <500k. The manager-should-make-more rule gets squirrelly for technical stuff.

perl4ever 5y ago

A regional bank headquartered in my area of upstate NY, which is also a publicly traded company, paid, in 2019, three out of their five C-level executives whose salary is disclosed, a base salary of $500K or less. Do you or have you worked in a place where "engineers" make $500K? Have you thought about what they outsource to people making 1/10th or less, and why?

bavila 5y ago

> Hiring a top engineer for 500k would go a lot further than hiring 10 mediocre engineers for 50k apiece. That sounds reasonable, unless you're an elected government official in a state where salaries of government employees are public information. Local media outlets and your political opponents will have a field day over a government employee making a half-a-million dollar salary. The public won't ever be able to understand or accept why one talented person should be made so wealthy in relation to the value they provide. However, the public will be fine with the same amount of money being spread out across 10 employees, since it still keeps all recipients in the poor house together with everyone else.

bruce511 5y ago

Having a dept of 1 engineer is not great [1]. You'd want ideally 3 or 4. Whick is kinda no-man's-land between 50k and 500k. Say 125k,which would get you good, but not stellar. (and would be an improvement over 10 somewhat incompetent.) [1] having just 1 creates lots of bigger issues ; Availability (what happens when he's sick or on vacation). Technical documentation (there is none, its all in his head). Role transfer (when he leaves there is short intense handover, then nothing). Opinioned design - he does it his way, no discussion necessary - some will be good, but some will be bad. When he leaves, you can't replace him. 500k engineers won't work for a place where you just maintain the system the last guy designed and wrote - they want to design and write their own stuff from scratch. I could go on, but programming depts of 1 are usually a bad idea...