4 ms·

But don't sell yourself short just because you're not Vint Cerf! You don't have to be a celebrity programmer to demand to be compensated what you're worth. Le

by czep 11y ago

But don't sell yourself short just because you're not Vint Cerf! You don't have to be a celebrity programmer to demand to be compensated what you're worth. Let them decide if you're capable of adding value on top of what they pay you, but don't try to do the math for them and try to short sell yourself. In the long run $30k won't break them, if it does then they have bigger problems. Most firms that intend to gain a competitive advantage realize they should pay a little extra to attract talent. Be that talent.

pandaman 11y ago
What I am saying is only a celebrity programmer can keep a job where he or she is producing less value than his or her salary. This math won't go away just because you did not do it.
- czep 11y ago
  But neither you nor they can do that math with sufficient precision. Certainly not to the degree of accuracy where 150k vs 130k will make or break them. There are a lot of unknowns: your raw talent + their code base + how well you will work with others + market opportunities + experience you have that could help them break into new markets + your ability to mentor and hire friends from your network + a lot of other factors. Your job is to present yourself as top of market, worth the gamble to pay you extra to secure your talent. Again you don't have to be a celebrity. And they simply can't reduce your potential value so accurately.
  - pandaman 11y ago
    I did not notice where "twice" became 20% in the course of this discussion but I agree, it's hard to estimate the maximum affordable salary with 20% precision. It's quite easy to estimate within 100% though if you had been in the field long enough. More importantly, it does not even have to be in any error band as all it takes to suffer from anxiety over being paid too much is to believe your own estimate. It is not worth it for me as there are plenty of jobs where I'd get just as much or more and be confident the company can afford it.
- eropple 11y ago
  "Value" is spectacularly subjective, though, and there are lots of people who can talk up their perceived value enough to be on the happy side of this calculus.

by czep 11y ago

pandaman 11y ago

What I am saying is only a celebrity programmer can keep a job where he or she is producing less value than his or her salary. This math won't go away just because you did not do it.

czep 11y ago
But neither you nor they can do that math with sufficient precision. Certainly not to the degree of accuracy where 150k vs 130k will make or break them. There are a lot of unknowns: your raw talent + their code base + how well you will work with others + market opportunities + experience you have that could help them break into new markets + your ability to mentor and hire friends from your network + a lot of other factors. Your job is to present yourself as top of market, worth the gamble to pay you extra to secure your talent. Again you don't have to be a celebrity. And they simply can't reduce your potential value so accurately.
- pandaman 11y ago
  I did not notice where "twice" became 20% in the course of this discussion but I agree, it's hard to estimate the maximum affordable salary with 20% precision. It's quite easy to estimate within 100% though if you had been in the field long enough. More importantly, it does not even have to be in any error band as all it takes to suffer from anxiety over being paid too much is to believe your own estimate. It is not worth it for me as there are plenty of jobs where I'd get just as much or more and be confident the company can afford it.
eropple 11y ago
"Value" is spectacularly subjective, though, and there are lots of people who can talk up their perceived value enough to be on the happy side of this calculus.