3 ms·
It really depends on the organization, its mission, the employee pool, and the local cost of living. Most software engineers are relatively well-paid compared
by solatic 1mo ago
It really depends on the organization, its mission, the employee pool, and the local cost of living.
Most software engineers are relatively well-paid compared to the wider labor market, even the engineers who are "underpaid". Kahneman's research showed that once you have enough money to pay your bills, making more than that has rapidly diminishing returns for your happiness. It's much more important to fit in - like your boss, like your coworkers, like your work, be recognized, have good work-life balance. None of that really requires above-market compensation.
When a firm pays below-market rates, it's a sign of one of two things: either they're abusing people who can't find work elsewhere, or people are happy to stay in spite of it. The latter are often really good places to work.
HN loves to complain about how money ruined the software industry. Let the people who will chase a raise from $180k to $210k go elsewhere. Let the people who want their moonshot at life-changing wealth go talk to a VC. There are other opportunities for people who realize that money isn't everything in life.
- zipy124 1mo agoI don't think we actually disagree here. I agree broadly with everything you said. My point was mainly I don't see a reason to support that assumption that if pay pushes out low performers, I don't see a reason why it wouldn't equally push out high performers? This goes on the assumption that lower performers optimise more for pay than higher performers?
- solatic 1mo agoLow pay pushes people to leave, regardless of performance. The argument I'm making is that, in such an environment, you retain high performers through non-economic incentives (sense of belonging, appreciation, etc.) and push low performers out by not providing those. Why would anyone ever stay in an environment that also underpaid you and where you also weren't appreciated and gave you subtle hints to leave? Under-paying actually makes it easier to push out the people you don't want. Under-paying does indeed risk pushing out high-performers; my argument is that this is risk and not a guaranteed destiny, and that high-performers may be incentivized to stay by other means.