I prefer inequality when it comes to pay because I will work harder than the majority.
My coworkers are the busiest people on the planet.
151–160 of 228 posts
I prefer inequality when it comes to pay because I will work harder than the majority.
My coworkers are the busiest people on the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that a lot of companies offer stock options for two reasons: 1. Software engineers have come to expect it 2. It provides a very cheap incentive for the engineer to remain at the company for the N number of years required to vest And in the end, they may still end up being worthless
If you want to use "software engineers" to describe everyone in the US who writes code, I don't think #1 is accurate at all. Half of the developers in the US make less than $100k/yr. Most of these people work for banks, small mom-and-pop companies that have 1-3 developers. Public companies with bigger teams who don't give stock to anyone below the VP level. If your entire exposure to software development has been sta…
Looking casually at jobs lately I would say that 80% of them have posted salary ranges. This has been enormously helpful in a) helping me avoid jobs with inflated titles but low pay and b) attracting me to jobs I might not otherwise consider because of very competitive pay.
Seems like a win-win in most cases.
I wonder if this will result in remote job applications excluding candidates from New York, as we've seen with other states. Although once a critical mass of states start requiring this, that won't really be an option any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same work should bring the same payment, period. Everything else just ends up rewarding those with the best "negotiation" skill which is completely unrelated to one's actually work-relevant skills.
Now define “same”, particularly for creative work where value created can be a factor of 10 or more off. There are qualified, employed SWEs that I’m 3x as good as. There are other SWEs who (correctly) look at me and draw that exact same conclusion.
(Hint: it's those things, but at 1x.)
We just post the actual compensation, not a range, and we stick to it. It’s worked pretty well, you discuss it in the first steps of the process to make sure they get that’s actually how it’s going to work and then you spend your time interviewing people who are OK with the comp. If the candidate pool isn’t any good then change the comp. And sure if you want to recruit a hotshot candidate or something nothing is stop…
Why not just list every job title where there are at least 3 employees with that title and the average salary for that title.
For a European person, I wonder if our fellow Americans would bother helping understand the rationale of such laws...?
Typically the highest paid labourers are all people with relatively transparent salaries. - CEOs - Athletes Also things with salary transparency (i.e. Unions / Guilds) results in hirer wages for their members compared to similar workers without the things. It's also in line between with the basic principals of capitalism. The basic supply-demand graph assumes perfect information which is obviously not true when a job…
Why not just list every job title where there are at least 3 employees with that title and the average salary for that title.
Start out as: "Senior XYZ-Division Backend Software Developer" at ZYX Corp
Then as you start touching more and more of the database, you get a new title to become the: "Senior XYZ-Division Backend Database Software Engineer" at ZYX Corp
At which point you get bored and switch departments to become the: "Senior CBA-Division Backend Performance Optimization Software Developer" at ZYX Corp