Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

daily.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#151

Post by hdjjhhvvhga »

blitzar wrote: post #124
humanrebar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you felt you were underpaid, leaving is fair. I don't really understand the requirement that all bosses are paid more than those they supervise, though. I mean, emotionally I can understand feeling that way. But I don't think it's a rule of nature or something. For instance, coaches often make less than their star players. Directors and producers often make less than star actors. Hospital directors seem to make le…

Telling or managing a player to kick the ball into the back of the net is a lot easier than actually kicking it in the back of the net. Telling or managing a team of 20 people to put products on shelves is a lot harder than putting products on shelves.

> Telling or managing a team of 20 people to put products on shelves is a lot harder than putting products on shelves.

After 20 years of experience I can tell you it depends on many factors, but first of all on the people you work with.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#152

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

ldoughty wrote: post #132
3pt14159 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My boss doesn't know how much I'm paid. I like it that way. He communicates how he feels I'm doing to the people that need to know and it's working out ok.

I find that interesting, and also concerning.. but I suppose it depends on the office culture. I tried to ignore my peers and direct reports salaries when I first moved into management... I lost an employee after 2 years when another place offered him a 80% raise. At that point, I realized I couldn't count on a 3rd party to properly evaluate an employee's worth, and I started to take an active role in ensuring people…

> I lost an employee after 2 years when another place offered him a 80% raise.

First, I'd say it's quite normal in non-profits.

Second, I believe that in a structure when you don't know the salary of your reports, there is always someone they can discuss it with if they feel they deserve more - and that person would definitely consult your opinion then.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#153

Post by throwaway2037 »

thebackup wrote: post #129

It’s interesting to see these salary levels. A senior developer (10+ years of experience) here in Sweden is paid less than their entry level salary. The difference in pay between Europe and the US seems huge. I wonder why.

I am disappointed this comment does not receive more comments! I feel the same. From far away, it seems like Berlin is bursting with great technical talent, as well as Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Helsinki, yet the salaries are terribly low. (I see you Oslo, but not the same reputation!) Oh hey, please include France. They have such great, underrated technical universities... do amazing comp-sci research... but their commercial software industry is so small!

Some theories:

* High taxes actually means lower gross pay? (I am someone who strongly supports the "social safety net" -- do not read that question as some kind of weirdo libertarian / low-tax promoter.) As a counterpoint, usually high taxes means higher quality of life.

* Or: Labour mobility is higher in US than many high-tax, strong-labour countries in Europe/Japan/Korea/Taiwan. In short: It's easier to hire and and fire in US. As a result, I see massive income inequality in US, but much less in wealthy European countries -- and Japan/Korean/Taiwan.

Another way to think about it: If software engineers are paid 50% of Silicon Valley in Helsinki, then Starbucks baristas are paid 100% higher in Helsinki. (I have no hard references to offer... but my point: Lower skill jobs pay living wages in Northern Europe/Japan/Korea/Taiwan, but less in US.)

Personal question: Would you prefer to live in Sweden with your current wages, or a place with "up 100% wages for you", but much higher income inequality? When you answer, please assume much higher personal crime rates and visible poverty (or working poor).

I live in a place with simply appalling incoming inequality. The visible poverty and working poor are so depressing. I would easily take a 25% pay cut to build more social housing and help the elderly who collect cardboard to retire immediately and play with their grandchildren all day long!

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#154

Post by uberduper »

benreesman wrote: post #64
cindarin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right about many things you said, but this comes off as though you've got a complex about something.

I’ll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume your intention is to be helpful. Can you be a little more specific and thus potentially actionable?

I'm just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude. But I'll give it a shot.

You come off as having an inflated sense of the value you provide while being very bitter that you're not recognized for it. You seem to project the meritocracy playing out in your head on the "inevitable future."

The work you do is no doubt challenging and you seem to find it very rewarding in and of itself. There are presumably few people that choose to do this work, but you need to keep in mind that does not mean there aren't lots of people capable of doing it.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#156

Post by angarg12 »

humanrebar wrote: post #74
angarg12 wrote: post #50

I worked for a very old fashioned company in Germany that used a similar system to pay employees. After about a year I became the lead of my team. But since some of my colleagues had been in the company about 10 years, they were getting paid more than me. Frustrated, I left for a better (and better paying) job. I believe these systems produce a "dead sea effect". High performer will leave, being able to get better de…

If you felt you were underpaid, leaving is fair. I don't really understand the requirement that all bosses are paid more than those they supervise, though. I mean, emotionally I can understand feeling that way. But I don't think it's a rule of nature or something. For instance, coaches often make less than their star players. Directors and producers often make less than star actors. Hospital directors seem to make le…

Is not about bosses and reports, it's about performance. I wasn't anyone's manager. My role as team lead was to organise, coordinate and supervise my colleague's tasks, on top of my IC contributions.

For another example, a guy joined a different team and was killing it, but was getting paid less than another college who was in the company 8 years and was hardly pulling his own weight.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#157

Post by bluGill »

ashtar wrote: post #146
bluGill wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best employees should always be working on the least important projects. Thus they will seem like coasters. By making the best be on unimportant projects you get the following benefits: Nobody worries about interrupting them if they have a problem - who cares if you make the unimportant project take more time. Your second best people get to experience leading important projects and thus you grow them into the be…

This is a great way to lose your best people. Or it's pure /s

Not if handled right. Remember those unimportant projects are often self-assigned as try the latest thing to see if it is useful to us, and they often get high visibility to management as cool things we want to do next.

Of course if this is only treated as unimportant projects they will leave.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#158

Post by rk06 »

ipaddr wrote: post #127
vikingerik wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Evaporative cooling" is another term for the effect. Hot talent leaves, cold talent stays, diminishing your total talent-temperature.

Those who leave are not always the best. Those who leave many places quickly are more likely to be difficult themselves and demand more. Those who leave after many years usually turn out to be great.

Those who leave may not always be the best, but those are best will certainly leave. It makes no sense to Not switch jobs if you get higher salary and have capability to get it.

In tech industry where job hopping gives significantly greater raise than yearly increment, those who switch jobs get more exposure and better worldview. While those who stay get 1 year experience 10 times.

PS: Exceptions are always there

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#159

Post by jandrewrogers »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #153
thebackup wrote: post #129

It’s interesting to see these salary levels. A senior developer (10+ years of experience) here in Sweden is paid less than their entry level salary. The difference in pay between Europe and the US seems huge. I wonder why.

I am disappointed this comment does not receive more comments! I feel the same. From far away, it seems like Berlin is bursting with great technical talent, as well as Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Helsinki, yet the salaries are terribly low. (I see you Oslo, but not the same reputation!) Oh hey, please include France. They have such great, underrated technical universities... do amazing comp-sci research... but their c…

The income inequality in the US is not that visible in day-to-day life. A large fraction of the income inequality is a side effect of the scale of US geography. The States with the highest and lowest median incomes are separated by 2x income and 1500 kilometers. It is also worth pointing out that even the poorest US State (Mississippi) still has a median income that is the same as Germany, so "poor" is relative.

Different States have different economies due to geographic locale, history, and specialization. Consequently, the US has States that specialize in agriculture, manufacturing, services, technology, natural resources, etc which have very different economics and compensation structures which is reflected in local incomes.

The median income is much higher in Washington than Mississippi, for example, but that doesn't imply anything about the distribution of income within those States. It would be like comparing incomes between the Netherlands and Romania.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#160

Post by darkerside »

rr808 wrote: post #46
parkingrift wrote: post #18

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.

As someone with 20+ yoe this is true, I'm probably as good as a guy with 5 yoe and honestly I want to apply for jobs like that. Honestly tech has changed so much I'm skeptical anyone really has 20 years experience now. 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.

I'm gonna be real with you here. You're not as good as a 5yoe employee, because people are expected to grow. Nobody hires a junior dev because they want a junior dev for 20 years. They hire a junior because they think the person has potential to grow into a senior dev over time.

Over 20 years, you've not demonstrated that growth, and so it makes more sense for a prospective employer to assume that lack of growth will continue. Compare to a junior dev who can bring the same productivity today, but could rise to the level of principal or staff over the long term.

For the record, I would bet that this picture doesn't match reality. My guess is that you've developed knowledge and skills that would make you much more valuable than you might think. But, you are expected to demonstrate them and use them on the job. Good luck!

Post reply on HN