4 ms·

I think the most interesting question is not what the "average" programmer (this study is likely skewed) whats, but what they're willing to do to get it. That 9

I think the most interesting question is not what the "average" programmer (this study is likely skewed) whats, but what they're willing to do to get it. That 93% would take a significant cut to work somewhere is better is staggering to me (although I'd do the same). Money certainly does not buy happiness.

nbclark 15y ago
I'm not surprised by taking a 10% paycut for a better fitting role. I was surprised that having equity or options in the company was one of the least important "wants".
- cheez 15y ago
  That's because options are worth less than the paper they are written on, in the end.
- spamizbad 15y ago
  I took the survey and rated equity/options pretty low. My rationale (which may very well be wrong): 1) Options offerings are typically a fraction of 1%: even for the first engineer at companies with no technical co-founders. This (I think) is a carry-over from the dot-com era where IPO exits came hot and heavy. These days, if you're lucky, you're looking at a low-7 to mid-8 figure exit. And to become fully vested, you're going to have to stick around for 3-4 years. 2) Even with a big successful exit, you never know if the company will pull a Skype/Zynga on you. With that said, I wouldn't scoff at them, I just won't be weighting them heavily in compensation talks.
  - nbclark 15y ago
    Yeah I agree. I would not sacrifice (much) salary for equity, but would certainly negotiate to have as much equity as I could. Regardless of how it all shakes out, I would like to think that I am somewhat vested in the eventual outcome of the company.
  - mjwalshe 15y ago
    Well even big companies with bog standard share save schemes can be very lucative one of BT's 5 year scheams if maxed out would have netted you $70k (efectivly tax free) and that is the scheme open to every one. Plus we use to get $400 or so of shares per year as profit share
  - michaelochurch 15y ago
    I don't think anyone solid would take a sub-1% slice as Engineer #1. A pre-funding, pre-code startup is worth $4 million, tops (and that's generous). Vested over four years, that's not nearly enough to compensate for the lower compensation and higher risk of a business at that point.
- mdkess 15y ago
  I worked at a major tech company, which gave pretty good stock options. The problem was, they then counted their value toward your salary if it went up while determining raises. Stock goes up, no raises this year - look at how much you made! Stock goes down - standard raise this year! (And presumably, stock falls off a cliff, layoffs). Because the company was doing well, new hires out of college were making more base salary than people who had been there for several years and performing well. So it's just unstable income, effectively.

nbclark 15y ago

I'm not surprised by taking a 10% paycut for a better fitting role. I was surprised that having equity or options in the company was one of the least important "wants".

cheez 15y ago
That's because options are worth less than the paper they are written on, in the end.
spamizbad 15y ago
I took the survey and rated equity/options pretty low. My rationale (which may very well be wrong): 1) Options offerings are typically a fraction of 1%: even for the first engineer at companies with no technical co-founders. This (I think) is a carry-over from the dot-com era where IPO exits came hot and heavy. These days, if you're lucky, you're looking at a low-7 to mid-8 figure exit. And to become fully vested, you're going to have to stick around for 3-4 years. 2) Even with a big successful exit, you never know if the company will pull a Skype/Zynga on you. With that said, I wouldn't scoff at them, I just won't be weighting them heavily in compensation talks.
- nbclark 15y ago
  Yeah I agree. I would not sacrifice (much) salary for equity, but would certainly negotiate to have as much equity as I could. Regardless of how it all shakes out, I would like to think that I am somewhat vested in the eventual outcome of the company.
- mjwalshe 15y ago
  Well even big companies with bog standard share save schemes can be very lucative one of BT's 5 year scheams if maxed out would have netted you $70k (efectivly tax free) and that is the scheme open to every one. Plus we use to get $400 or so of shares per year as profit share
- michaelochurch 15y ago
  I don't think anyone solid would take a sub-1% slice as Engineer #1. A pre-funding, pre-code startup is worth $4 million, tops (and that's generous). Vested over four years, that's not nearly enough to compensate for the lower compensation and higher risk of a business at that point.
mdkess 15y ago
I worked at a major tech company, which gave pretty good stock options. The problem was, they then counted their value toward your salary if it went up while determining raises. Stock goes up, no raises this year - look at how much you made! Stock goes down - standard raise this year! (And presumably, stock falls off a cliff, layoffs). Because the company was doing well, new hires out of college were making more base salary than people who had been there for several years and performing well. So it's just unstable income, effectively.