2 ms·

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 beca

• czep 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.