4 ms·

Are you actually complaining about 240k? If that isn't myopia, idk what is. Most people would kill for that salary.

GVIrish 13y ago
That's the rub though, 240k may be a lot to you, but what if that data scientist is delivering 100 times that value to the company? Who's to say that person shouldn't be paid $500k or $1 million a year. The Yahoo COO who just got let go was paid $109 million in two years. He got a $29 million severance package. Would it be too crazy to suggest that maybe a brilliant engineer who was a major contributor to the success of a problem is worth more than $100-250k a year?
- mnglkhn2 13y ago
  It can be tricky and getting murkier quick: what if Google comes back with an argument that that data scientist would not have been able to produce those $2-3 mil without the resources and the infrastructure made available by Google? Would that employee be as productive anywhere else? If the answer is yes, then that employee deserves a larger share of the pie. If the answer is unclear or no, then the employee will receive whatever the market will bear. This is why traders and IT devs on Wall Street get better compensated: it is way easier to see the exact impact and it is very likely that those guys would be able to easily replicate it in any other firm.
  - frandroid 13y ago
    You compare Apple to Orange. First you ask if the employee could generate this revenue on her own, and then you compare that to a trader that could generate the same revenue at another firm. Are you comparing employee productivity with and without company resources, or employee productivity between companies A and B?
ForHackernews 13y ago
A lot of these people seem to think they should be paid like Wall Street traders. To which I say, "Fine, go be a trader."
- pm90 13y ago
  I know you have been downvoted to hell, but I completely agree with the point you are making. We engineers might think that traders are not adding any value at all, and it true to a certain level. But they make money where they can, show what they made and demand a reasonable compensation. If all software developers had the social skills of traders, we would indeed be paid much more than what we are now.
scarmig 13y ago
So what? Most people in the world would kill to make $30k a year. The issue isn't the absolute level of compensation, but the relative split between labor and management/capital. Exploitation is exploitation: a Roman house slave, though better than the majority of slaves, is still exploited and still a slave. And why are you complaining about engineers wanting to get paid closer to the value they provide the company? It's no skin off your back: sure, it might eat into shareholder and upper management salaries, but they get paid in the millions, which even more people would kill for.
- sjg007 13y ago
  The adage is that those that risk capital reap the rewards..
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Adages only go so far. "A day's work for a day's pay." "To each what he deserves." Every economic function involves risk, to both labor and to capital. There's no reason, however, that the majority of the value should go to capital. The economics of relative scarcity, possibly. But that's not the situation here: market forces didn't decide compensation packages and the return to capital, here. Collusion did, which is a distortion of the market from a situation of perfect competition.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Consider the cost of living in the Bay Area.
jazzyk 13y ago
Compared to what other members of the professions make, yes, it is reasonable to complain. How come when a lawyer charges $400/hr or a surgeon makes $800K/year nobody bats an eyelid, but when an engineer gets $240K he should be deliriously happy, because it is more than the median salary in the USA. Most of us are very smart men/women, who typically have college degrees in hard sciences - why do we compare our salaries to median wages? BTW, in the Boston area, senior people make $160-$170K, not even close to $240K.

That's the rub though, 240k may be a lot to you, but what if that data scientist is delivering 100 times that value to the company? Who's to say that person shouldn't be paid $500k or $1 million a year. The Yahoo COO who just got let go was paid $109 million in two years. He got a $29 million severance package. Would it be too crazy to suggest that maybe a brilliant engineer who was a major contributor to the success of a problem is worth more than $100-250k a year?

mnglkhn2 13y ago
It can be tricky and getting murkier quick: what if Google comes back with an argument that that data scientist would not have been able to produce those $2-3 mil without the resources and the infrastructure made available by Google? Would that employee be as productive anywhere else? If the answer is yes, then that employee deserves a larger share of the pie. If the answer is unclear or no, then the employee will receive whatever the market will bear. This is why traders and IT devs on Wall Street get better compensated: it is way easier to see the exact impact and it is very likely that those guys would be able to easily replicate it in any other firm.
- frandroid 13y ago
  You compare Apple to Orange. First you ask if the employee could generate this revenue on her own, and then you compare that to a trader that could generate the same revenue at another firm. Are you comparing employee productivity with and without company resources, or employee productivity between companies A and B?

ForHackernews 13y ago

A lot of these people seem to think they should be paid like Wall Street traders. To which I say, "Fine, go be a trader."

pm90 13y ago
I know you have been downvoted to hell, but I completely agree with the point you are making. We engineers might think that traders are not adding any value at all, and it true to a certain level. But they make money where they can, show what they made and demand a reasonable compensation. If all software developers had the social skills of traders, we would indeed be paid much more than what we are now.

scarmig 13y ago

So what? Most people in the world would kill to make $30k a year. The issue isn't the absolute level of compensation, but the relative split between labor and management/capital. Exploitation is exploitation: a Roman house slave, though better than the majority of slaves, is still exploited and still a slave. And why are you complaining about engineers wanting to get paid closer to the value they provide the company? It's no skin off your back: sure, it might eat into shareholder and upper management salaries, but they get paid in the millions, which even more people would kill for.

sjg007 13y ago
The adage is that those that risk capital reap the rewards..
- scarmig 13y ago
  Adages only go so far. "A day's work for a day's pay." "To each what he deserves." Every economic function involves risk, to both labor and to capital. There's no reason, however, that the majority of the value should go to capital. The economics of relative scarcity, possibly. But that's not the situation here: market forces didn't decide compensation packages and the return to capital, here. Collusion did, which is a distortion of the market from a situation of perfect competition.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Consider the cost of living in the Bay Area.

jazzyk 13y ago

Compared to what other members of the professions make, yes, it is reasonable to complain. How come when a lawyer charges $400/hr or a surgeon makes $800K/year nobody bats an eyelid, but when an engineer gets $240K he should be deliriously happy, because it is more than the median salary in the USA. Most of us are very smart men/women, who typically have college degrees in hard sciences - why do we compare our salaries to median wages? BTW, in the Boston area, senior people make $160-$170K, not even close to $240K.