4 ms·

If the company is willing to pay someone 250k it means the person is providing them with more value than that. If they successfully replaced that person with a

If the company is willing to pay someone 250k it means the person is providing them with more value than that. If they successfully replaced that person with a 20k engineer, it would just mean that the 20k engineer is now being exploited vs their contribution, not that the original guy didn't deserve his salary. I tend to agree with you that FAANG engineers are overpaid versus the work they do. I disagree that the solution is to offshore to people paid less. These companies make more money than God, where should all that cash go if not to the employees that make it possible? Think of it this way: A waiter in a fancy steak house will make 10x more than a waiter in a mom and pop cafe. They likely have the same skills and put the same amount of efforts in, but their employers bring in a vastly different amount of money.

solardev 3y ago
I don't think the high variance in salary necessarily means an employee is paid appropriately based on merit. It just means there's a lot of investor money floating around and companies can afford to be wasteful. That can only last so long, as we saw. And it creates all sorts of perverse incentives because it destroys the company's original mission and culture and makes it chase unsustainable cancerous growth instead. Maybe it would have been better for society for these companies to have stayed small and for their host cities to not have become gilded dystopias for the tech class.
- throwawayadvsec 3y ago
  It's not wasteful to pay a decent salary to the people keeping your business afloat. You can't expect loyalty, full dedication or even enthusiasm if you're paying a SWE less than 6 figures and you're not a non profit.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I don't think the second part (6 figures) has to be true. I've worked with many awesome people (and been perfectly happy myself) for way less than that. And I think that kind of money also starts to encourage people to join the field for the sheer luxury afforded by it, rather than any real passion. That's on top of the other social side effects above. I don't think simply paying everyone more would make the employees, the industry, or society, better overall. It hyperinflates everything downstream and makes cities unlivable and makes jobs become like celebrity sports, competitive performances for personal gain rather than doing anything user or community serving.
tiberious726 3y ago
The amount you are paid is unrelated to the amount of value you provide, other than it being a lower bound on what a well run organization can afford. It is solely determined by what you can negotiate. Someone being willing to work for less than you absolutely is not exploitation in and of itself. If you think waiters at fancy steakhouses and cafes do the same thing, you either haven't been to a fancy steakhouse, or to a cafe
- november84 3y ago
  How is it not exploitation? Many people dont know their worth and companies will exploit that to pay as little as possible. Maybe im reaching.
  - blitz_skull 3y ago
    Exploitation implies level playing fields and all things being equal. It assumes a manager had the opportunity to hire the $20k dev and haggled them down. No one in the US would agree to work for $20k; it’s insulting. In other parts of the world, it’s not insulting and so they do work for it. It’s even a competitive advantage to some. To others, touting a high price is an advantage. There’s so much psychology going on here. I wouldn’t hire a $20k dev for 2 simple reasons: language barriers and time zones. Could I could $20k devs that don’t have these downsides? Absolutely. But not worth my time looking.

solardev 3y ago

I don't think the high variance in salary necessarily means an employee is paid appropriately based on merit. It just means there's a lot of investor money floating around and companies can afford to be wasteful. That can only last so long, as we saw. And it creates all sorts of perverse incentives because it destroys the company's original mission and culture and makes it chase unsustainable cancerous growth instead. Maybe it would have been better for society for these companies to have stayed small and for their host cities to not have become gilded dystopias for the tech class.

throwawayadvsec 3y ago
It's not wasteful to pay a decent salary to the people keeping your business afloat. You can't expect loyalty, full dedication or even enthusiasm if you're paying a SWE less than 6 figures and you're not a non profit.
- solardev 3y ago
  I don't think the second part (6 figures) has to be true. I've worked with many awesome people (and been perfectly happy myself) for way less than that. And I think that kind of money also starts to encourage people to join the field for the sheer luxury afforded by it, rather than any real passion. That's on top of the other social side effects above. I don't think simply paying everyone more would make the employees, the industry, or society, better overall. It hyperinflates everything downstream and makes cities unlivable and makes jobs become like celebrity sports, competitive performances for personal gain rather than doing anything user or community serving.

tiberious726 3y ago

The amount you are paid is unrelated to the amount of value you provide, other than it being a lower bound on what a well run organization can afford. It is solely determined by what you can negotiate. Someone being willing to work for less than you absolutely is not exploitation in and of itself. If you think waiters at fancy steakhouses and cafes do the same thing, you either haven't been to a fancy steakhouse, or to a cafe

november84 3y ago
How is it not exploitation? Many people dont know their worth and companies will exploit that to pay as little as possible. Maybe im reaching.
- blitz_skull 3y ago
  Exploitation implies level playing fields and all things being equal. It assumes a manager had the opportunity to hire the $20k dev and haggled them down. No one in the US would agree to work for $20k; it’s insulting. In other parts of the world, it’s not insulting and so they do work for it. It’s even a competitive advantage to some. To others, touting a high price is an advantage. There’s so much psychology going on here. I wouldn’t hire a $20k dev for 2 simple reasons: language barriers and time zones. Could I could $20k devs that don’t have these downsides? Absolutely. But not worth my time looking.