4 ms·

Your question kind of reflects the backwards thinking that causes the situation the OP was talking about, IMO. Instead of going into it with the mindset of "We

Your question kind of reflects the backwards thinking that causes the situation the OP was talking about, IMO. Instead of going into it with the mindset of "Well, I want to hire a software developer for $80k because that's what they should make" the thinking should be more based on "how much value will be added to the company/product/etc if this particular software developer we are seeking is hired, and what number can we afford to offer him or her based on that?" People can argue until they are blue in the face if the best developers are 2x, 5x, 10x or 100x better than the worst, but whatever it is, there is certainly a wide variation in productivity and overall talent. Assuming that there should be a nearly fixed salary number based on years of experience is as ridiculous as assuming that all NBA players should make some flat rate based on years in the league or whatever else. The software industry pays a lot of lip service to "meritocracy" but then they often throw the idea out the window when it comes to compensation of non-founders, which is goofy.

jmillikin 13y ago
I want to hear what HN thinks the minimum software developer salary should be. A college graduate with no work experience from an unremarkable school is a decent proxy for that, because they'll likely be in the bottom percentiles in terms of both raw skill and trenches experience. If a fresh grad is making $80k, then a junior developer (say 2-3 years experience) will probably be making $160k (x2), a senior developer might pull $400k (x5) or more, and beyond that you start to get into the world-famous engineers who receive whatever they ask for. According to Google's financials at http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html, they have approximately $220k of unallocated profit per employee. Even if they were to take all of that and convert it into salary, it would likely only bump the fresh grad's compensation to around $100k because the junior and senior developers will demand percentage-equivalent increases in their own pay. > Assuming that there should be a nearly fixed salary > number based on years of experience is as ridiculous > as assuming that all NBA players should make some flat > rate based on years in the league or whatever else. Years of experience is useful as a rough approximation of value, because someone who is not constantly improving their skillset is unlikely to be promoted and will eventually leave their position for greener pastures.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  "I want to hear what HN thinks the minimum software developer salary should be." I doubt you'll get that from anyone, too many variables to set a minimum, IMO. "If a fresh grad is making $80k, then a junior developer (say 2-3 years experience) will probably be making $160k (x2), a senior developer might pull $400k (x5) or more, and beyond that you start to get into the world-famous engineers who receive whatever they ask for." It doesn't really work like that. I mean, sure there are articles about how Google pays $3 million or whatever to keep a top developer, but if you read past the headline you see it isn't salary, mostly one-time RSUs or such and the person is actually more of a project manager or even executive rather than a developer. The industry's issues with compensation extend up into the higher end too where there's somewhat of a loose glass ceiling at around $150k-175k or so (which can vary quite a bit based on region/cost of living, but the general idea of a glass cap is pretty universal) beyond which it is very difficult to go without being a Linus-level name brand, or going into management or founding your own company and hitting the startup lottery. Of course there are exceptions to this that prove the rule, like people doing HFT/financial software can make quite a bit more because they are compensated like financial sector workers instead of like software industry workers. "Years of experience is useful as a rough approximation of value, because someone who is not constantly improving their skillset is unlikely to be promoted and will eventually leave their position for greener pastures." As someone who is 40 and still an active non-managerial software developer, I should find this somewhat flattering, but I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests you are simply incredibly optimistic about the efficiency of the industry at weeding out those who aren't productive or talented.
- thedufer 13y ago
  In what world are 2-3 years of experience going to double your salary? And $400k is not what your average senior dev is making. I don't know where your 2x/5x numbers came from, but I've never seen anything close to that.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    From your profile I see you live in New York. Silicon Valley is a different world, where the total compensation (salary+stock+bonus) for a senior developer can exceed a million per year: http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/399839/man-or-myth-3-million-google-engineer http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/399839/man-or-myth-3-...

jmillikin 13y ago

I want to hear what HN thinks the minimum software developer salary should be. A college graduate with no work experience from an unremarkable school is a decent proxy for that, because they'll likely be in the bottom percentiles in terms of both raw skill and trenches experience. If a fresh grad is making $80k, then a junior developer (say 2-3 years experience) will probably be making $160k (x2), a senior developer might pull $400k (x5) or more, and beyond that you start to get into the world-famous engineers who receive whatever they ask for. According to Google's financials at http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html, they have approximately $220k of unallocated profit per employee. Even if they were to take all of that and convert it into salary, it would likely only bump the fresh grad's compensation to around $100k because the junior and senior developers will demand percentage-equivalent increases in their own pay. > Assuming that there should be a nearly fixed salary > number based on years of experience is as ridiculous > as assuming that all NBA players should make some flat > rate based on years in the league or whatever else. Years of experience is useful as a rough approximation of value, because someone who is not constantly improving their skillset is unlikely to be promoted and will eventually leave their position for greener pastures.

georgemcbay 13y ago
"I want to hear what HN thinks the minimum software developer salary should be." I doubt you'll get that from anyone, too many variables to set a minimum, IMO. "If a fresh grad is making $80k, then a junior developer (say 2-3 years experience) will probably be making $160k (x2), a senior developer might pull $400k (x5) or more, and beyond that you start to get into the world-famous engineers who receive whatever they ask for." It doesn't really work like that. I mean, sure there are articles about how Google pays $3 million or whatever to keep a top developer, but if you read past the headline you see it isn't salary, mostly one-time RSUs or such and the person is actually more of a project manager or even executive rather than a developer. The industry's issues with compensation extend up into the higher end too where there's somewhat of a loose glass ceiling at around $150k-175k or so (which can vary quite a bit based on region/cost of living, but the general idea of a glass cap is pretty universal) beyond which it is very difficult to go without being a Linus-level name brand, or going into management or founding your own company and hitting the startup lottery. Of course there are exceptions to this that prove the rule, like people doing HFT/financial software can make quite a bit more because they are compensated like financial sector workers instead of like software industry workers. "Years of experience is useful as a rough approximation of value, because someone who is not constantly improving their skillset is unlikely to be promoted and will eventually leave their position for greener pastures." As someone who is 40 and still an active non-managerial software developer, I should find this somewhat flattering, but I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests you are simply incredibly optimistic about the efficiency of the industry at weeding out those who aren't productive or talented.
thedufer 13y ago
In what world are 2-3 years of experience going to double your salary? And $400k is not what your average senior dev is making. I don't know where your 2x/5x numbers came from, but I've never seen anything close to that.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  From your profile I see you live in New York. Silicon Valley is a different world, where the total compensation (salary+stock+bonus) for a senior developer can exceed a million per year: http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/399839/man-or-myth-3-million-google-engineer http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/399839/man-or-myth-3-...