41–50 of 206 posts
Salary based on your "experience" as measured by the number of years you survived sitting by the computer. This is absolutely, fucking dumbest idea I ever heard. Say you have two engineers that both have 10 years of experience, one is barely scraping by and one is working his ass off and significant contributor to the team. They earn the same money and, more importantly, they both know it. And the team knows it. And…
But it doesn’t seem to address the real issue (to which I also don’t have a final answer): the jock/nerd thing is still playing out.
If, as I believe is mostly true, A16 is pretty on the money with the software eats the world thing: hackers “should” today and inevitably will be the highest paid people possibly excepting the best salesperson.
If you worked successfully on an optimizing compiler all day, anything that an MBA teaches is borderline boring.
COVID/WFH only turbocharges this: tall white guys have way less edge over Zoom.
It’s going to be a painful, but ultimately necessary transition where everyone whose math stopped at calc has their TC stop at 150-200k, and that money/seniority/prestige goes to the only truly irreplaceable people, again with the notable exception of the sales guy.
There’s a huge loyalty tax being paid here. Although the transparency is nice to have, it’s simply not a sustainable model. People grow at all sorts of rates professionally. Some people can grow from a formal level to another in a year as they get a hang for their responsibilities/job. Some people have extremely hard years due to external factors too. This type of system incentivizes nobody. Why work hard? Why do cha…
This is topical but your comment reminded me of Deming’s New Economics. Rewards in a system with intrinsic variance are harmful and unjust.
This is sort of well-articulated and someone thought about it a lot. The salaries seem fine, as long as there’s 1MM in liquid equity to go with the L7 one like Google does. But it doesn’t seem to address the real issue (to which I also don’t have a final answer): the jock/nerd thing is still playing out. If, as I believe is mostly true, A16 is pretty on the money with the software eats the world thing: hackers “shoul…
Optimizing compiler is a great example of a niche that a few guys should be in that really shouldn't be paid well. The big bucks earned at Google/FB aren't earned because they have better compilers or low level libraries, its because of the business strategies they have.
Recruiters and managers out there: I read "competitive" compensation as somewhere around median compensation. That will be attractive to undercompensated employees and employees in their early careers. It's hard to get good candidates to leave current roles without some sort of pay bump (20%, say?) unless there's some sort of serious dysfunction or mismatch with their current employers.
Daily's plan is to shoot for median-ish compensation and get "enough great candidates" to reach the next phase of growth. I'm glad they're planning on revisiting in a year or so, though it's easy to kid yourself. Especially when you're taking what current employees are willing to tell you as proof positive. For one, selection bias is certainly happening. Also, in my experience, people tell you what you want to hear. Daily employees that are significantly unhappy with compensation are a bad fit for Daily now given the blanket compensation policy. The best way to address that is to discretely look for other offers.
Strong disagree with basing salary on years of experience. I see almost no correlation between output, skill, and years of experience. I actually consider this an anti-pattern that actively encourages coasting.
Its hard though when people see my work history they only let me interview for very senior roles which I usually aren't good enough to do.
This is sort of well-articulated and someone thought about it a lot. The salaries seem fine, as long as there’s 1MM in liquid equity to go with the L7 one like Google does. But it doesn’t seem to address the real issue (to which I also don’t have a final answer): the jock/nerd thing is still playing out. If, as I believe is mostly true, A16 is pretty on the money with the software eats the world thing: hackers “shoul…
Don't expect an "ultimately necessary transition" because it'll likely go in the opposite direction.
This is sort of well-articulated and someone thought about it a lot. The salaries seem fine, as long as there’s 1MM in liquid equity to go with the L7 one like Google does. But it doesn’t seem to address the real issue (to which I also don’t have a final answer): the jock/nerd thing is still playing out. If, as I believe is mostly true, A16 is pretty on the money with the software eats the world thing: hackers “shoul…
Why do you leave out class analysis? This has far more relevance than arguably either height or race.
White working class boys, at least in the UK, are the demographic least likely to go to university.
The story is likely to be the same in other countries. If you're working class, you're not going to be the intake for an MBA.
This is sort of well-articulated and someone thought about it a lot. The salaries seem fine, as long as there’s 1MM in liquid equity to go with the L7 one like Google does. But it doesn’t seem to address the real issue (to which I also don’t have a final answer): the jock/nerd thing is still playing out. If, as I believe is mostly true, A16 is pretty on the money with the software eats the world thing: hackers “shoul…
> If you worked successfully on an optimizing compiler all day, anything that an MBA teaches is borderline boring. Optimizing compiler is a great example of a niche that a few guys should be in that really shouldn't be paid well. The big bucks earned at Google/FB aren't earned because they have better compilers or low level libraries, its because of the business strategies they have.
Everything is math now. Google et al played a this-far successful strategy where they made the “know your shit” engineer TC 1MM so the hackers wouldn’t rebel and take the whole cake, like they could.
I believe these systems produce a "dead sea effect". High performer will leave, being able to get better deals elsewhere. Low performers will stay, since they can' find a better deal elsewhere.