15 ms·
The whole point is the compensation is not based on how hard you work but the value you provide and what the market will support. Of course upper management wor
by throwaway1777 5y ago
The whole point is the compensation is not based on how hard you work but the value you provide and what the market will support. Of course upper management works roughly the same hours as everyone else, but they also have far more responsibility.
- wccrawford 5y agoActually, compensation is based on what the company has to pay. There are some other rules, like they have to (overall) pay less than they make from the output. But in general, a company never pays their employees more than they think they have to. 10x programmers don't make 10x the pay. They might make slightly more, but not even 2x what a 1x programmer (of the same level, no comparing seniors to juniors) makes at the same company.
- machiaweliczny 5y agoSad truth.
- throwaway1777 5y agoYou’re not wrong, of course the company will pay the minimum it can get away with. My point was a bit broader regarding the market value between an executive versus a programmer.
- bentlegen 5y agoIf a company is doing its job correctly, a 10x engineer should not be leveled the same as a 1x engineer. (It's more complicated than that but, y'know.)
- loeg 5y agoYeah, but you have to go up quite a few levels to make 10x the pay. E.g., a Google L5 makes (ballpark) $360k. An L8 makes (ballpark) $1M. That's only 3x higher, and you probably need a lot more than 10x impact to go L5 -> L8. An L4 makes $270k, still within ~1/4 of an L8. L3s are paid almost 200k, which is still ~1/5 of an L8. I don't know what L9s or 10s are paid; it's probably highly variable and the total number are probably a handful.
- johnhowardstein 5y agoAdvancement at Google is tied heavily to being on the right projects to the extent that I think you're way overselling the extent to which the higher levels will be better at their jobs.
- loeg 5y agoThat seems plausible; I don’t work there. I think that further supports the argument that “10x engineers” are not paid 10x.
- 8note 5y agoif the company is doing its job correctly, its paying the 10x engineer even less than the 1x engineer. if the engineer is doing their job correctly, they are negotiating to be paid more than tne 1x
- soperj 5y agothat's one way to get a lot of 1x engineers...
- cutemonster 5y ago> paying the 10x engineer even less than the 1x engineer Why is that a good idea? Isn't there a risk that s/he will then quit?
- abledon 5y agobest solution is to stay a 1x developer then devote most of your energy to sidegigs and stock investing
- quickthrower2 5y agoyes. or better be a 10x for 4 hours a week. i feel like 10x is about flow not stress, so doing 10x might be easier than 1x ironically. there is a disconnect about how companies mildly or jot so mildly “gaslight” employees into burning all of their energy on the job. Its more cultural than profit-seeking. The profit seeker would want to maximise the effectiveness of the worker, by for example thinking hard about what work is worth doing. The biggest waste i see is cancelled projects that could have easily been pre-cancelled. The next is features that are hardly used. Followed by technical debt and its impact on velocity.
- pembrook 5y agoActually, the best strategy is in fact to stay a 1x performer at work, AND to stay a 1x performer in your investing life via set-and-forget index funds. Minimize risk and time spent in efficient markets with millions of participants (the developer talent pool, the stock market). These places are treadmills. Instead, spend your free time in inefficient markets by starting a business with the rest of the time you’ve now freed up. Most B2C and B2B markets don’t have millions of competitors, and hence are much less efficient than the developer talent pool and stock market (which do). This is the optimal strategy.
- digianarchist 5y agoIn my last two jobs I fail to see that my employer got more value out of me than the expenses of paying me.
- vadym909 5y agodon't feel too bad. There are a lot of CEOs that get $20M salaries for doing nothing. If the company succeeds due to market conditions they are seen as heroes- if the company fails for market conditions they are seen as losers. They may have some impact but mostly its luck.
- didibus 5y agoAh yes, the incredible value of providing feedback on proposals and signing off on initiatives.
- ulkesh 5y ago> but they also have far more responsibility This is relative. In my experience, many people in upper management have held little to no real responsibility because they were the types that if all goes right, it's their doing, but if anything goes wrong, it's the fault of someone below them. I find this more true for middle managers, but I have seen this with upper management numerous times. Again in my experience, the higher in rank one achieves, the less real work they end up doing when compared to their subordinates. Delegating isn't that hard to do and takes very little time -- and there are some master class delegators out there. That all being said, I do respect and love working for upper management who understand, who care, and who do as much as the rest of us. I currently work for such individuals and it's part of the reason I've stayed as long as I have.
- int_19h 5y agoCompensation is based on how much economic rent the employer can extract from the value that its employees produce. Thus, roles who produce the same amount of value can still receive drastically different compensation. Furthermore, in case of upper management, the value produced is negative in many cases - numerous examples of companies run into the ground, with the people responsible still getting their golden parachutes etc.
- mbrodersen 5y agoThey in general seem to accept credit for other peoples work and delegate blame to others as well. I don’t call that being responsible.