The Programmer Salary Taboo • Hacker News Board

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#291

Post by jalpino » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:33 PM UTC

danssig wrote: post #251

billpaetzke wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and his bonus nearly matched the new guy's salary, which was an insulting $60K Is it common to get ~$60k yearly bonus as a programmer? Was this for a finance-industry job? All I've seen (either myself or others) so far is a few hundred dollars to a few thousand.

Avoid bonus systems. Bonus systems do not work out well for non-executives. Look at the story again: the kid made out better than anyone because his $175/hr is his for as many hours as he works no matter how the company performs that year. He gets his "bonus" every hour he works. The senior dev has a whopping 30% of his yearly comp tied up in a nebulous bonus that probably gets paid out far enough into the next year…

"The bonus system was originally set up for high up executives to tie their comp more exactly to company performance since they are responsible for it. As a dev you are not responsible for company performance."

As a dev, we might not be "responsible", but we sure as hell have an impact on the performance of the company.

So many people overlook the fact that we design, build, implement, enhance and support the products that earn the company revenue. The products might not be our idea, but we are the ones executing them. And in true HN fashion, we all know an idea is nothing without the execution.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#292

Post by danssig » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

AretNCarlsen wrote: post #27

viggity wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try contracting. Seriously. Go to a local user group and talk with people who contract and see what the going rate is in your area. Its probably 2x to 2.5x of what you're getting now.

Though you have to pay your own taxes -- probably 30%, in the end -- and your own medical.

My tax guy always tells me: the US hates employees. There are more loopholes if you contract or (even better) have your own business (which could be a contracting business).

Plus you don't get taxed at source so you can take that extra 30%+ you get each paycheck to pay a tax person to figure this all out for you in time to save up for the tax hit at the end of the year.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#293

Post by llimllib » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:43 PM UTC

praptak wrote: post #273

ajg1977 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the best way to obtain your newly-discovered market worth is to leave and find another job. In almost every job your only chance of negotiating a competitive salary is before you start. Sure, you can talk to HR and your manager and perhaps see some form of bump in salary, but if you're significantly underpaid then a) it's likely other people are too and they won't want to rock the boat, b) there's a decent…

This is a sad fact. There are huge (irrational?) barriers for giving employees big raises or bonuses. Take Borland for example - they'd rather sue Microsoft for brain-drain (i.e. paying the employees more) than match the offers: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-279561.html

> There are huge (irrational?) barriers for giving employees big raises or bonuses.

Since they exist at almost every company, I think it seems probable that it's rational. Here's a simple possible argument for their rationality:

Creating big barriers to large raises/bonuses discourages employees from sharing salary info, since there's little they can do about it. Furthermore, the more your employees are worrying about their salary, the less they're working.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#294

Post by masterzora » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:43 PM UTC

danssig wrote: post #275

masterzora wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly. And this difference is exactly what we're seeing a lot of here. Rational: "I am unhappy with $60,000 because it does not meet my needs." Entitlement: "I was happy with $60,000 until I found out Fred was making $61,000."

Wrong. Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what ever the company offers me and be happy" Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or…

No one said that you should take whatever the company offers and just be happy; that would be ridiculous. In fact, as someone who's weighing multiple offers right now, step one is negotiating with these companies to see who can meet my needs and, after that's met, see who can better meet my wants.

However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty enough for me to be happy and then some, there is no reason for me to be unhappy if I find my coworker is making $Y + 10%. If I needed that 10% to be happy, I shouldn't have been happy with $Y.

Now, where such a thing is rational is if I'm not happy with $Y but I don't believe I can get a better offer so I take it and then later find out I probably could have gotten more. In this case, I'm already unhappy about $Y (although less unhappy than $0), so I continue to be unhappy when I find out I might have been worth $Y + 10% but am not receiving it.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#295

Post by JabavuAdams » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:49 PM UTC

wging wrote: post #94

MrFoof wrote: post #62

Salaries never stay secrets forever. Hiding them only delays the inevitable. Last year we were having a discussion at lunch. Coworker was building a new house, and when it came to the numbers it was let loose that it was going to cost about $700K. This didn't seem like much, except to a young guy that joined the previous year and had done nothing but kick ass and take names. The new guy was arguably the most talented…

$175/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $350,000/year, for anyone else (like me) who can't immediately estimate equivalent yearly rates.

Yearly revenue = hourly rate * 2 (in thousands)

$40/hr => 80k/y $120/hr => 240k/y

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#296

Post by danssig » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 2:53 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #262

quanticle wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2011-04-13, 18000 pounds sterling is 29421 US dollars. Despite what you say about "getting your foot in the door", I would hesitate before taking a job that paid so poorly. For the record, my internship paid $25 per hour. That translates to $42000 per year [1]. I'm not an exceptional programmer, and my grades in school weren't that stellar either. I would strongly encourage you to negotiate before selling your…

I see ads for 'Senior developers' that want to pay £25-33k. Granted there also ones paying better but the highest advertised I've seen is £40-45k p/a. Obviously it will be higher in London though, and there are lots of ads for contractors at £300 per day. Meanwhile I know people who finished their CS degree and never got a programming job. I know one guy who's a decent programmer, only got a couple of interviews, one…

1. Move

2. Go contracting

If no one would put up with these low wages they would be forced upward.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#297

Post by infinite8s » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 3:21 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #262

quanticle wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2011-04-13, 18000 pounds sterling is 29421 US dollars. Despite what you say about "getting your foot in the door", I would hesitate before taking a job that paid so poorly. For the record, my internship paid $25 per hour. That translates to $42000 per year [1]. I'm not an exceptional programmer, and my grades in school weren't that stellar either. I would strongly encourage you to negotiate before selling your…

I see ads for 'Senior developers' that want to pay £25-33k. Granted there also ones paying better but the highest advertised I've seen is £40-45k p/a. Obviously it will be higher in London though, and there are lots of ads for contractors at £300 per day. Meanwhile I know people who finished their CS degree and never got a programming job. I know one guy who's a decent programmer, only got a couple of interviews, one…

You need to find positions where they don't look at you as cost-center, and instead as someone providing value to the bottom line. 300 pounds a day is ridiculous. Most contractors make double that in day.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#298

Post by danssig » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 4:08 PM UTC

masterzora wrote: post #294

danssig wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what ever the company offers me and be happy" Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or…

No one said that you should take whatever the company offers and just be happy; that would be ridiculous. In fact, as someone who's weighing multiple offers right now, step one is negotiating with these companies to see who can meet my needs and, after that's met, see who can better meet my wants. However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty enough for me to be happy and then some, the…

So you, like the OP, are assuming everyone posting in this thread about getting more money are petty losers who just go "waaaah! He get's $500 more a year than I do! THAT'S NOT FAIR!". Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it sound fair? Why would you assume that instead of assuming they understand the market and that salary is simply the market value of your time?

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#299

Post by danssig » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 4:13 PM UTC

jalpino wrote: post #291

danssig wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoid bonus systems. Bonus systems do not work out well for non-executives. Look at the story again: the kid made out better than anyone because his $175/hr is his for as many hours as he works no matter how the company performs that year. He gets his "bonus" every hour he works. The senior dev has a whopping 30% of his yearly comp tied up in a nebulous bonus that probably gets paid out far enough into the next year…

"The bonus system was originally set up for high up executives to tie their comp more exactly to company performance since they are responsible for it. As a dev you are not responsible for company performance." As a dev, we might not be "responsible", but we sure as hell have an impact on the performance of the company. So many people overlook the fact that we design, build, implement, enhance and support the product…

You can affect it, but that's not what the bonus system is about. It it were you would "deserve" a bonus for simply not destroying the place, since this is the only thing really somewhat under your control.

Everyone, down to the cleaning service, has some effect on the company. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Should a big chunk of everyone's compensation be based on company performance? If you do that then we're all suddenly big risk takers, and therefor vastly underpaid.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#300

Post by roc » Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 4:33 PM UTC

ido wrote: post #131

michaelochurch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're getting the $165k, you're not going to be very enthusiastic about this exercise. The modular-arithmetic alternative is better, at least in terms of political stability: they figure out that there's an average of $86k. Then the people making $70k all negotiate up to $90k and, even if getting shafted, people are happier.

Why would you, as an employee, care about "political stability"?

Because you have to actually work with those other people?

Of course other employees should aim angst about unfairness at management. But they won't. Not entirely. And that overflow can be enough to nudge relationships from friendly to strained/tense-professional, or not-particularly-friendly-but-professional relationships straight into unproductive-leaning-towards-toxic territory.

I was in a group of developers who had the hat method essentially performed for them [1]. Relationships changed [2]. Even after the discrepancies were largely corrected, the relationships remained strained.

[1] The short version goes: the comptroller's office was compiling stats on salary ranges for comparison to regional averages (back during the bubble, when management was paranoid about being behind the curve on pay and losing talent). Someone either needed help with a formula from, or just directly leaked the data to, a developer friend. That developer, upon seeing the wide variance, shared with the group.

And let's just say it was surprisingly trivial to map the outlying data points to names.

[2] Which is why I'd recommend the calculated average method over the hat method. It's better to see your position relative to the group, than to see the raw data that can impact interpersonal relationships.