5 ms·
I posted this in response to a comment the last time this came up. That article was killed, so I'm reposting: Whereas the reason there are open positions for
by jcnnghm 13y ago
I posted this in response to a comment the last time this came up. That article was killed, so I'm reposting:
Whereas the reason there are open positions for programmers at high tech companies is that these companies want star programmers
Maybe they should try paying like stars. What percentage of engineers that aren't founders or within the first five employees make over $300,000 a year? The money is in Silicon Valley, Google's 2011 net income was $299,874/employee [1], but the vast majority of engineers aren't going to be the ones to get it.
How about paying a market wage, instead of offering a "free lunch" to people that cannot negotiate. I am not interested in playing video games at work, I have a house for that. Last I looked at it, the difference in pay between finance and stem jobs is enough to hire a personal chef to deliver lunch to you at work every day, and cook for you at home, and buy all the games you want, with a bunch of money left over. Apple and Google are both posting ~25% net profits because engineers are willing to work for peanuts, and a free lunch. On top of that, cost of living in the bay area is outrageous, we're talking $35,000/year for housing, unless you want to live like a college student.
An average (median) engineer should be making $200,000 a year, and the "rockstar" (>80th percentile) engineers that everybody is trying to hire for $85,000 and 0.5% of equity, should be making $350,000+. These are hard jobs that few people can do at all, and fewer can do well. Great engineers can create millions of dollars of value a year.
It seems that the industry has shifted focus, now that the collusion agreements have been squashed, toward importing cheap labor. This problem has been solved in other industries through partnerships and professional societies (e.g. in the legal industry, with large partnership firms and bar associations). In the interim, it seems like the best way to capture value is to build companies to flip in talent acquisitions, while planning to leave to do it again as soon as you're vested.
[1] Goldman Sachs 2011 net income was $162,913 per employee. Average pay was $367,057. It's harder to get data on Google, but it looks like the mid-career median salary is $141,000.
Google's Gross Profit (Total Revenue less Cost of Revenue) was $24.7B in 2011, and GS's was $24.5B. At the same time, Google had 32,467 employees to GS's 35,700. Yet, the Google net income was $9.7B compared to $4.4B on the GS side. The difference seems to be made up entirely by the difference in employee compensation.
- samspenc 13y agoI've always wondered about this. Is the standard deviation of Google's salaries less than that of GS's? Does GS have more of a long-tail?
- jcnnghm 13y agoThat is an excellent question, and I wish I knew the answer. I have tried finding data on that before, but was unable to. My inclination is that GS has a much higher standard deviation than Google, with the data skewed right.
- jbooth 13y agoHow about paying a market wage, instead of offering a "free lunch" to people that cannot negotiate. Who can't negotiate? It's your fault if you can't/won't negotiate. I'd posit that the reason finance pays more for engineers than STEM is because most of us think that the atmosphere at a finance company will suck and as a result they have a smaller labor pool (I've literally never responded to a single financial recruiting email).
- jcnnghm 13y agoWho can't negotiate? It's your fault if you can't/won't negotiate. If there is a pool of labor willing to accept a free lunch and campus-like atmosphere, coupled with cheap imported labor, in lieu of perhaps $100,000 in pay, it depresses wages across the entire industry. I'd posit that the reason finance pays more for engineers than STEM is because most of us think that the atmosphere at a finance company will suck and as a result they have a smaller labor pool (I've literally never responded to a single financial recruiting email). And this is the funny part. Do you really believe working somewhere like EA is different than working somewhere like Goldman Sachs?
- jbooth 13y agoI'd never work at EA, either. Although they're the other side of the same economics, because young nerds who don't know any better and like video games will work there for less than an average tech firm, and less still than it would take to get them into finance. As far as people who take low salaries screwing up your salary: If they're willing to do the job for that and they're not appreciably worse than you at that particular job, maybe that's what you're worth for that role, too? Almost every industry out there has it much worse than software when it comes to the 'race to the bottom'.