3 ms·

This is another perception issue that I keep encountering. The job description you've written above is for an extremely senior engineer, what some would call a

by FD3SA 13y ago

This is another perception issue that I keep encountering. The job description you've written above is for an extremely senior engineer, what some would call a product architect (e.g. your co-founder), not a fresh graduate. In fact, being a new graduate is now, by your own admission, considered to be an unacceptable level of training for a "Facebook engineer". This is corporate bullshit, and you've fallen for it. If companies want someone who has mastered a technological stack, this is not an "engineer". This is an architect. And this position should be paid significantly more than an engineer. Although you may not consider yourself a competent engineer by the "Facebook standard", not only are you a competent engineer, but a senior engineer by every definition of the word. The fact that your evaluation of your own competence is so warped by corporate PR is extremely worrisome. What I see here is that the bar for the definition of "competent engineer" keeps going higher and higher, without a commensurate increase in salary. This is a classic symptom of excess supply.

mbesto 13y ago
> This is corporate bullshit I spent 4 years at the largest business software company in the world and have spent 3 years on and off in very small (3 employee) startups. I would presume my bullshit meter is fairly well tuned. > you've fallen for it. I haven't. I tried finding a technical co-founder that didn't cost me an arm and leg, and it's taken me 6 years to do so. (YMMV) > This is an architect. And this position should be paid significantly more than an engineer. This is laughable. I've seen more architects in my day than most people have seen sales people. Just type in "SAP Architect" on any job search and compare it to the number you get for "Rails Architect". Architects are the bullshit powerpoint pushers I used to see day in and day out in Enterprise IT, who, after 5 years of never coding or implementing, fell short of guiding their dev teams because they couldn't keep up with the ever-changing technology stack. You know who should be paid more than anyone else? The person that can build a small team, make crazy revenue in a very short (relative) amount of time. It doesn't matter what you call those people, but they do exist, are in short supply and should be compensated equal to their productive output. > What I see here is that the bar for the definition of "competent engineer" keeps going higher and higher, without a commensurate increase in salary. Actually this has more to do with time than anything. The Next Big Startup™, can't afford to spend 6 months on software, when they can higher Rockstar Dev Mcgee™ who can create it for them in 1-2 months. Lastly, I'm failing to see the motive behind "corporate bullshit" you speak of. Google and Facebook do not want to pay these insane salaries, so it's in their interest to actually (1) have a large supply and (2) promote that there is a large supply, not the opposite. Their compensation packages are a direct effect of the shortage of supply of qualified talent. If this "corporate bullshit" is being lead by a small amount of vocal developers who are artificially padding their salaries by crying "supply shortage", then this is far from being "corporate". The question ultimately becomes, what is our idea of "competent". From what I've seen, there is massive demand for people to create the next AirBnB/Dropbox/etc, which requires some very talented individuals to run and maintain. The other 99% clones of those companies that fail are because they don't have those competent people. So it's a loser's game with a bunch of people who demand that they win. Thus, the situation we are in. EDIT: This video by Gabe Newell says it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU#t=12m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU#t=12m20s (from about 12:20 to 16:00 - these "least correctly valued" people are no longer incorrect valued, that's my point)
- FD3SA 13y ago
  > The person that can build a small team, make crazy revenue in a very short (relative) amount of time. It doesn't matter what you call those people, but they do exist, are in short supply and should be compensated equal to their productive output. Precisely. I realize that we're using our definitions loosely, but this is exactly what I'm referring to when I mention Product Architect. My next point is, what makes you think Google/Facebook/etc. have anything they can offer this person? The reality is, this eponymous engineer is a future billionaire, not a stock employee you can just hire with 120k a year and free pop. If this is what big corps mean when they say "competent", then excuse me as I laugh my ass off at their excellent "compensation package". >From what I've seen, there is massive demand for people to create the next AirBnB/Dropbox/etc, which requires some very talented individuals to run and maintain. You have to realize that it is absurd to expect someone like this to accept a job at a big corp. Just as a recent example, look at the Whatsapp founders. Which brings me to my initial assertion: there is no skills shortage. Just a superstar shortage at bargain basement prices.
  - noname123 13y ago
    1) I think there's only a couple of hundred billionaires in the world. 2) 120K is a lot of money for an average American. 3) I don't think 'crazy revenue' is built by the merit and efficiency at which you can complete your tech stack. Case in point, FB during year 1 of its PHP stack; or Digg or Reddit year 1. Personally I think luck has a lot to do with it. Which brings me to my assertion: There is no superstar programmer. Just a delusion sold by capitalists to get the proletariat to consume more information on an advertising-driven business model. I just want to be a ramen-sustainable programmer (but not ramen-sustainable startup).
    - GFischer 13y ago
      I'm with noname on this one. 99.99% of those excellent engineers are NOT going to be billionaires. They'll be lucky to be millionaires (and I'll envy them if I can't join them). For those marvelous engineers to become millionaires, they need to have the luck to be paired with an excellent business team, build the right product and have a large dose of luck. I'd rather have a not-so-brilliant engineer and an excellent team, vision and execution (as in build the right thing at the right time and produce value), for most products (very especially for your AirBnB or Facebook examples) you don't need top-tier talent to build it (you do need some to scale). Edit: some of these marvelous people, which have actually built a succesful startup, tried again and FAILED. So it's not just the person, the idea must be right, the timing must be right and luck has to be on his side.

by FD3SA 13y ago

mbesto 13y ago

> This is corporate bullshit I spent 4 years at the largest business software company in the world and have spent 3 years on and off in very small (3 employee) startups. I would presume my bullshit meter is fairly well tuned. > you've fallen for it. I haven't. I tried finding a technical co-founder that didn't cost me an arm and leg, and it's taken me 6 years to do so. (YMMV) > This is an architect. And this position should be paid significantly more than an engineer. This is laughable. I've seen more architects in my day than most people have seen sales people. Just type in "SAP Architect" on any job search and compare it to the number you get for "Rails Architect". Architects are the bullshit powerpoint pushers I used to see day in and day out in Enterprise IT, who, after 5 years of never coding or implementing, fell short of guiding their dev teams because they couldn't keep up with the ever-changing technology stack. You know who should be paid more than anyone else? The person that can build a small team, make crazy revenue in a very short (relative) amount of time. It doesn't matter what you call those people, but they do exist, are in short supply and should be compensated equal to their productive output. > What I see here is that the bar for the definition of "competent engineer" keeps going higher and higher, without a commensurate increase in salary. Actually this has more to do with time than anything. The Next Big Startup™, can't afford to spend 6 months on software, when they can higher Rockstar Dev Mcgee™ who can create it for them in 1-2 months. Lastly, I'm failing to see the motive behind "corporate bullshit" you speak of. Google and Facebook do not want to pay these insane salaries, so it's in their interest to actually (1) have a large supply and (2) promote that there is a large supply, not the opposite. Their compensation packages are a direct effect of the shortage of supply of qualified talent. If this "corporate bullshit" is being lead by a small amount of vocal developers who are artificially padding their salaries by crying "supply shortage", then this is far from being "corporate". The question ultimately becomes, what is our idea of "competent". From what I've seen, there is massive demand for people to create the next AirBnB/Dropbox/etc, which requires some very talented individuals to run and maintain. The other 99% clones of those companies that fail are because they don't have those competent people. So it's a loser's game with a bunch of people who demand that they win. Thus, the situation we are in. EDIT: This video by Gabe Newell says it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU#t=12m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU#t=12m20s (from about 12:20 to 16:00 - these "least correctly valued" people are no longer incorrect valued, that's my point)

FD3SA 13y ago
> The person that can build a small team, make crazy revenue in a very short (relative) amount of time. It doesn't matter what you call those people, but they do exist, are in short supply and should be compensated equal to their productive output. Precisely. I realize that we're using our definitions loosely, but this is exactly what I'm referring to when I mention Product Architect. My next point is, what makes you think Google/Facebook/etc. have anything they can offer this person? The reality is, this eponymous engineer is a future billionaire, not a stock employee you can just hire with 120k a year and free pop. If this is what big corps mean when they say "competent", then excuse me as I laugh my ass off at their excellent "compensation package". >From what I've seen, there is massive demand for people to create the next AirBnB/Dropbox/etc, which requires some very talented individuals to run and maintain. You have to realize that it is absurd to expect someone like this to accept a job at a big corp. Just as a recent example, look at the Whatsapp founders. Which brings me to my initial assertion: there is no skills shortage. Just a superstar shortage at bargain basement prices.
- noname123 13y ago
  1) I think there's only a couple of hundred billionaires in the world. 2) 120K is a lot of money for an average American. 3) I don't think 'crazy revenue' is built by the merit and efficiency at which you can complete your tech stack. Case in point, FB during year 1 of its PHP stack; or Digg or Reddit year 1. Personally I think luck has a lot to do with it. Which brings me to my assertion: There is no superstar programmer. Just a delusion sold by capitalists to get the proletariat to consume more information on an advertising-driven business model. I just want to be a ramen-sustainable programmer (but not ramen-sustainable startup).
  - GFischer 13y ago
    I'm with noname on this one. 99.99% of those excellent engineers are NOT going to be billionaires. They'll be lucky to be millionaires (and I'll envy them if I can't join them). For those marvelous engineers to become millionaires, they need to have the luck to be paired with an excellent business team, build the right product and have a large dose of luck. I'd rather have a not-so-brilliant engineer and an excellent team, vision and execution (as in build the right thing at the right time and produce value), for most products (very especially for your AirBnB or Facebook examples) you don't need top-tier talent to build it (you do need some to scale). Edit: some of these marvelous people, which have actually built a succesful startup, tried again and FAILED. So it's not just the person, the idea must be right, the timing must be right and luck has to be on his side.