4 ms·

"The kind of people that tend to read about tech for fun, and have enough of an opinion on it to post, tend to be lean above average?" Sure, but they also tend

"The kind of people that tend to read about tech for fun, and have enough of an opinion on it to post, tend to be lean above average?" Sure, but they also tend to understand the importance of data and bias. So things like looking at the median instead of making assumptions would be expected more on here than other places.

Aeolun 2y ago
But even knowing the median, that would just mean that you are objectively in a good position relative to the median. You aren’t likely to compare compare yourself to the median, but to those whom you consider your peers. If you peers all have higher compensation, you’ll feel bad, regardless of the fact you are objectively in the top 90% of compensation for your role.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Maybe if someone is doing shotty analysis or is a narcissist. It's unlikely anyone knows what their peers are making without estimates relative to the median. It's also unlikely someone can even self-evaluate accurately without employment/comp data. Even something like levels.fyi doesnt go into actual attributes but basically what level someone is at a company. As an example, how does the defined benefits package in the military compare with the 401k model, especially considering for someone leaving the military and getting into the 401k model late (reduced compounding)? In many cases, a rational person in that sort of situation may see that the lower pay might not actually result in lower total compensation. The real point is that you can still pull competent professionals under $200k because that's an attractive number to the majority of cyber warfare operators or cyber security professionals being that it's at least $50k over the median for either. Reducing that to $150k is still somewhat to slightly over the medians for either, and thus still a financially attractive number to the majority of the candidate pool. Money isn't the real issue here, it's the other restrictions, culture, etc.

Aeolun 2y ago

But even knowing the median, that would just mean that you are objectively in a good position relative to the median. You aren’t likely to compare compare yourself to the median, but to those whom you consider your peers. If you peers all have higher compensation, you’ll feel bad, regardless of the fact you are objectively in the top 90% of compensation for your role.

giantg2 2y ago
Maybe if someone is doing shotty analysis or is a narcissist. It's unlikely anyone knows what their peers are making without estimates relative to the median. It's also unlikely someone can even self-evaluate accurately without employment/comp data. Even something like levels.fyi doesnt go into actual attributes but basically what level someone is at a company. As an example, how does the defined benefits package in the military compare with the 401k model, especially considering for someone leaving the military and getting into the 401k model late (reduced compounding)? In many cases, a rational person in that sort of situation may see that the lower pay might not actually result in lower total compensation. The real point is that you can still pull competent professionals under $200k because that's an attractive number to the majority of cyber warfare operators or cyber security professionals being that it's at least $50k over the median for either. Reducing that to $150k is still somewhat to slightly over the medians for either, and thus still a financially attractive number to the majority of the candidate pool. Money isn't the real issue here, it's the other restrictions, culture, etc.