4 ms·

At face value, I can see why you think that. Supply and demand, as supply dwindles and demand increases, the price increases as well, right? Simple economics. I

At face value, I can see why you think that. Supply and demand, as supply dwindles and demand increases, the price increases as well, right? Simple economics. I understand it and I get it, but I don't think the instance of developers that it is fair that bigger companies with larger profits and reach should be able to take all of the talent in the area by offering above average salaries to get them to sign. Smaller companies with half the profits and budgets shouldn't have to compete or die, it just is not fair. While I agree that companies should not see it as an excuse to hire cheap talent elsewhere, when there is nobody to pick from in the pool (nobody decent) then where do you go? When the likes of Google are actually offering students jobs before they've even graduated and entered the job market, how does little ACME Corp or Joe Startup compete when workers are being plucked before they even enter the workforce? Forget the money for a moment, when there is nobody to pick from or you are constantly entering into a bidding war with Application A who has received an offer from Google for $250k per year and all you can offer is $125k and perhaps some other perks, is that fair? Google aren't paying $250k because they think the applicant is worth it or that is the going market rate, they are paying this much because they know the application nine times out of ten will say yes to a ridiculous sum of money, because they need a developer and the cost is irrelevant to them and because they can. Proper average market salary and inflated market salary are two different things, wouldn't you agree? And people ask if we are in a tech bubble? When graduate developers fresh out of college are being offered the kind of salaries close to what the prime minister of Australia earns (about $500k AUD for reference) you have to ask yourself, is it fair for smaller companies to compete or die because some big companies have set the bar way above average market rate? But like I said, I know there are companies that take advantage of overseas workers. I have heard stories of people being forced to work ridiculous hours because they are on a H1-B and know that if they fire the employee, everything they have just packed up and moved thousands of miles will have to be packed up and transported again back home. But not all companies are like that, just like not everyone is a racist. It's always a handful of people that ruin it for everyone else.

robwilliams 12y ago
>Forget the money for a moment, when there is nobody to pick from or you are constantly entering into a bidding war with Application A who has received an offer from Google for $250k per year and all you can offer is $125k and perhaps some other perks, is that fair? Google aren't paying $250k because they think the applicant is worth it or that is the going market rate, they are paying this much because they know the application nine times out of ten will say yes to a ridiculous sum of money, because they need a developer and the cost is irrelevant to them and because they can. How is this not fair? If Google can offer more money to hire a skilled developer, they will. To get top talent you have to pay for it. >Smaller companies with half the profits and budgets shouldn't have to compete or die, it just is not fair. Yes it is. Compete or die is the entire basis of the US economy, isn't it?
aidenn0 12y ago
If Google regularly pays people more than the value they create, they will eventually run out of money.
cableshaft 12y ago
Going off of what another poster said: I'd agree to that $125k salary if I could work remotely. I'm in the Chicago area, and it's significantly more difficult to find jobs that are willing to pay that much out here (most jobs that advertise their ranges are more in the $80-100k area), whereas it's trivial to get a job offer as low as $125k if I were to move to the west coast (I was interviewing for jobs advertising $140k+). But I've been trying to stay in the Chicago area because that's where my social network and family are, and I actually want to consider buying a house someday, instead of it being a silly pipe dream out there. I'm sure I'm not the only person like this. Hiring managers don't immediately have to go "hey there's no one local, let's go overseas!". If you're willing to open yourself up to having employees that work remotely (and programming jobs require people to be left alone by themselves 90% of the time anyway), then you may find it easier to find candidates.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
>Proper average market salary and inflated market salary are two different things I don't think you can have "inflated market salary." Instead what you have is the true market salary (for an experienced engineer that's good, that's a minimum of $200k at this point), and then you have the amount that most companies are willing to pay (which typically caps at $125-150k). In the US, until the 1970s, average income (in constant dollars) rose at a pretty compelling rate. After the 1970s, a number of factors have combined such that we've not seen the same rise in real income -- despite the fact that productivity, as in, the amount of value we're adding to companies' bottom lines, has been rising. This is why the gap between the rich and the rest has been growing so quickly. The added productivity is enriching the few at the expense of the many, except for a very few exceptions; one of those is exceptional software developers, who can take advantage (at the moment) of their rarity to actually negotiate salaries commensurate with their productivity. I'm one of those who was able to secure a $250k+ offer from a big company, which is awesome, and I'm really lucky to be in this position. But the reality is that I know a lot of developers who are really good and who should be making over $200k/year, at a minimum, but who make $125k or less. Importing H1-B workers in large quantities keeps those salaries lower than they should be. Instead companies need to raise compensation to keep up with demand. Maybe it means they can only afford half as many developers, but they're likely better off with fewer good developers anyway. :)

robwilliams 12y ago

>Forget the money for a moment, when there is nobody to pick from or you are constantly entering into a bidding war with Application A who has received an offer from Google for $250k per year and all you can offer is $125k and perhaps some other perks, is that fair? Google aren't paying $250k because they think the applicant is worth it or that is the going market rate, they are paying this much because they know the application nine times out of ten will say yes to a ridiculous sum of money, because they need a developer and the cost is irrelevant to them and because they can. How is this not fair? If Google can offer more money to hire a skilled developer, they will. To get top talent you have to pay for it. >Smaller companies with half the profits and budgets shouldn't have to compete or die, it just is not fair. Yes it is. Compete or die is the entire basis of the US economy, isn't it?

aidenn0 12y ago

If Google regularly pays people more than the value they create, they will eventually run out of money.

cableshaft 12y ago

Going off of what another poster said: I'd agree to that $125k salary if I could work remotely. I'm in the Chicago area, and it's significantly more difficult to find jobs that are willing to pay that much out here (most jobs that advertise their ranges are more in the $80-100k area), whereas it's trivial to get a job offer as low as $125k if I were to move to the west coast (I was interviewing for jobs advertising $140k+). But I've been trying to stay in the Chicago area because that's where my social network and family are, and I actually want to consider buying a house someday, instead of it being a silly pipe dream out there. I'm sure I'm not the only person like this. Hiring managers don't immediately have to go "hey there's no one local, let's go overseas!". If you're willing to open yourself up to having employees that work remotely (and programming jobs require people to be left alone by themselves 90% of the time anyway), then you may find it easier to find candidates.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago

>Proper average market salary and inflated market salary are two different things I don't think you can have "inflated market salary." Instead what you have is the true market salary (for an experienced engineer that's good, that's a minimum of $200k at this point), and then you have the amount that most companies are willing to pay (which typically caps at $125-150k). In the US, until the 1970s, average income (in constant dollars) rose at a pretty compelling rate. After the 1970s, a number of factors have combined such that we've not seen the same rise in real income -- despite the fact that productivity, as in, the amount of value we're adding to companies' bottom lines, has been rising. This is why the gap between the rich and the rest has been growing so quickly. The added productivity is enriching the few at the expense of the many, except for a very few exceptions; one of those is exceptional software developers, who can take advantage (at the moment) of their rarity to actually negotiate salaries commensurate with their productivity. I'm one of those who was able to secure a $250k+ offer from a big company, which is awesome, and I'm really lucky to be in this position. But the reality is that I know a lot of developers who are really good and who should be making over $200k/year, at a minimum, but who make $125k or less. Importing H1-B workers in large quantities keeps those salaries lower than they should be. Instead companies need to raise compensation to keep up with demand. Maybe it means they can only afford half as many developers, but they're likely better off with fewer good developers anyway. :)