3 ms·

The problem is that unemployed or underemployed PhDs usually have all of the technical skills, but none of the tradecraft. Things like how to work with a versio

The problem is that unemployed or underemployed PhDs usually have all of the technical skills, but none of the tradecraft. Things like how to work with a version control system, working knowledge of one or two commercially used development frameworks, security basics, etc. Those skills can be learned. Incidentally, I'm not especially impressed by most PhDs... but I do think they've shown enough intellectual mettle to learn how to use Github. Companies in the valley expect their developers to be rockstar coders who know a lot of languages and tools (Scala, Docker, nodejs, etc) that have very little commercial adoption outside of startup culture. At the same time, few startups have the time to let you learn on the job That suggests that talent has a very weak bargaining position. If talent had leverage, being able to learn on the job would be part of the deal they struck. There may be a strong bargaining position inured to one with the luck of a 100% match between one's technical experience and the trendy technologies du jour, but banking on always having a 100% match to the trends isn't a sustainable career strategy. Companies demand purple unicorns because they believe they can get them, and that people will work 80 hour weeks or steal time from their employers (risking job loss before they get the next gig) in order to meet their pre-existing knowledge requirements, and that's probably because people do. This indicates a low bargaining position for software talent (not some startup exigency that is largely fictional). Everyone else gets to learn on the job. We don't, because even though what we do is important, we suck at organizing for our own interests. so they'll overpay someone who does have the skills. Overpaid software engineers are very rare. Most of the good ones are underpaid relative to what they can do. A good engineer is easily worth $250,000 per year (and, I'd argue, several times that) and very few get even close to that number. They probably know Java pretty well, along with a few commercial frameworks, but you wouldn't expect them to have the architecture skills that many developers in the valley are expected to have. Whatever the expectation may be of them, I actually find the average Valley developer to be pretty unimpressive. The Valley may have more of the Jeff Deans, but the 90th-percentile Silicon Valley programmer isn't any better than the 90th-percentile programmer in the general population.

exelius 12y ago
> That suggests that talent has a very weak bargaining position. If talent had leverage, being able to learn on the job would be part of the deal they struck. There may be a strong bargaining position inured to one with the luck of a 100% match between one's technical experience and the trendy technologies du jour, but banking on always having a 100% match to the trends isn't a sustainable career strategy. I would argue that a significant portion of that compensation is essentially a gamble that the company is going to blow up and become huge. Companies with momentum or a founder with previous success have a lot easier time hiring good people at the same salaries because there is this expectation of explosive growth. That's the area where people do have leverage, because startups are cash flow constrained and can't afford huge salaries - but that doesn't mean you won't get rich (that's the line they sell us, anyway). > Overpaid software engineers are very rare. Most of the good ones are underpaid relative to what they can do. A good engineer is easily worth $250,000 per year (and, I'd argue, several times that) and very few get even close to that number. They're not that rare - there simply aren't enough founders to support the astronomical housing prices in the valley otherwise.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I would argue that a significant portion of that compensation is essentially a gamble that the company is going to blow up and become huge. Sure, because many engineers don't ask "the tough questions" about what their equity actually means, or even how many shares there are. They gamble poorly, taking a $40,000 pay cut, and working long hours, for equity less than 0.1% of the company. My attitude toward equity is that, unless you're a founder, you shouldn't let it change what salary you accept, how hard you work, or how you prioritize your career goals. If you want to work 70-hour weeks because it's helping your career, go ahead. But don't make sacrifices unless you're a founder. Otherwise, it's not going to be worth it. These days, founders and VCs don't offer equity at a level that would justify any attitude other than free agency. That's the area where people do have leverage, because startups are cash flow constrained and can't afford huge salaries - but that doesn't mean you won't get rich (that's the line they sell us, anyway). Of course, there are people who get rich on startup equity. It happens often enough to keep the myth alive. However, there are much better and surer ways to get rich. Valley engineers take it as an extremely fortunate windfall. VCs take it for granted. And honestly, I don't think there's much to recommend the VC-funded founder career over being a VC if you've got the connections for the latter. A founder is a mid-level product manager in what is the first postmodern corporate organization; but VCs are executives. Silicon Valley is a fine place to spend your 20s while you figure out what you want to do with your life, but if you want to stay in that world for the rest of your career, the best way is to become a VC and be a real first-class citizen. They're not that rare - there simply aren't enough founders to support the astronomical housing prices in the valley otherwise. Software engineers aren't buying those houses. That's a mix of VCs, career executives in the startup world (who don't program and don't found, but get paradropped in, by their buddies in VC and private equity, to companies with executives) and house-rich natives and corrupt overseas officials. Sure, there are a lot of rich people (managers, founders, VCs) in Silicon Valley. There are also a lot of programmers in Silicon Valley. The intersection between the two groups is very small. From Game of Thrones: "there are old sellswords and bold sellswords, but no old bold sellswords." The Valley is constrained by the extreme NIMBYism and that, combined with price inelasticity and low interest rates, is what makes house prices so high.
aswanson 12y ago
Funny you mention not having the leverage to learn on the job. Hedge funds like D.E. Shaw will go so far as to create a job for you if you have shown exceptional talent. Just goes to show the difference in career channeling for given domains that this weird market we are in has created.

exelius 12y ago

> That suggests that talent has a very weak bargaining position. If talent had leverage, being able to learn on the job would be part of the deal they struck. There may be a strong bargaining position inured to one with the luck of a 100% match between one's technical experience and the trendy technologies du jour, but banking on always having a 100% match to the trends isn't a sustainable career strategy. I would argue that a significant portion of that compensation is essentially a gamble that the company is going to blow up and become huge. Companies with momentum or a founder with previous success have a lot easier time hiring good people at the same salaries because there is this expectation of explosive growth. That's the area where people do have leverage, because startups are cash flow constrained and can't afford huge salaries - but that doesn't mean you won't get rich (that's the line they sell us, anyway). > Overpaid software engineers are very rare. Most of the good ones are underpaid relative to what they can do. A good engineer is easily worth $250,000 per year (and, I'd argue, several times that) and very few get even close to that number. They're not that rare - there simply aren't enough founders to support the astronomical housing prices in the valley otherwise.

michaelochurch 12y ago
I would argue that a significant portion of that compensation is essentially a gamble that the company is going to blow up and become huge. Sure, because many engineers don't ask "the tough questions" about what their equity actually means, or even how many shares there are. They gamble poorly, taking a $40,000 pay cut, and working long hours, for equity less than 0.1% of the company. My attitude toward equity is that, unless you're a founder, you shouldn't let it change what salary you accept, how hard you work, or how you prioritize your career goals. If you want to work 70-hour weeks because it's helping your career, go ahead. But don't make sacrifices unless you're a founder. Otherwise, it's not going to be worth it. These days, founders and VCs don't offer equity at a level that would justify any attitude other than free agency. That's the area where people do have leverage, because startups are cash flow constrained and can't afford huge salaries - but that doesn't mean you won't get rich (that's the line they sell us, anyway). Of course, there are people who get rich on startup equity. It happens often enough to keep the myth alive. However, there are much better and surer ways to get rich. Valley engineers take it as an extremely fortunate windfall. VCs take it for granted. And honestly, I don't think there's much to recommend the VC-funded founder career over being a VC if you've got the connections for the latter. A founder is a mid-level product manager in what is the first postmodern corporate organization; but VCs are executives. Silicon Valley is a fine place to spend your 20s while you figure out what you want to do with your life, but if you want to stay in that world for the rest of your career, the best way is to become a VC and be a real first-class citizen. They're not that rare - there simply aren't enough founders to support the astronomical housing prices in the valley otherwise. Software engineers aren't buying those houses. That's a mix of VCs, career executives in the startup world (who don't program and don't found, but get paradropped in, by their buddies in VC and private equity, to companies with executives) and house-rich natives and corrupt overseas officials. Sure, there are a lot of rich people (managers, founders, VCs) in Silicon Valley. There are also a lot of programmers in Silicon Valley. The intersection between the two groups is very small. From Game of Thrones: "there are old sellswords and bold sellswords, but no old bold sellswords." The Valley is constrained by the extreme NIMBYism and that, combined with price inelasticity and low interest rates, is what makes house prices so high.

aswanson 12y ago

Funny you mention not having the leverage to learn on the job. Hedge funds like D.E. Shaw will go so far as to create a job for you if you have shown exceptional talent. Just goes to show the difference in career channeling for given domains that this weird market we are in has created.