141–150 of 785 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be careful. Recruiters (even 3rd party recruiters) work for the company. They don't work for you.
Third party recruiters work for themselves . Both sides in the transaction should remember that.
They get paid by the company though. So if I had to pick between the company and the candidate I'd say they're more aligned with the company.
You're definitely right though that they aren't really aligned with the company either.
I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very large tech cos to "garage" startups. Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the av…
I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…
That is not my experience at all. I see big skill differences in my coworkers.
But as an employer, it's real hard to know which candidate is 200% of the average and who is 50% (or -10%), so you end up having to offer everyone an average salary with small variations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nail on the head right here. The price of an employee isn't their MPL, it's no greater than their MPL and is set by how little the next guy is willing to take to do the job. Competitive pressures work to drive down labor prices, too! Nobody is stopping engineers from saying "I'm going to contribute $1.5m to your bottom line this next year, I want you to pay me $1.4m", but they'll be shown the door because there's a g…
> Nobody is stopping engineers from saying "I'm going to contribute $1.5m to your bottom line this next year, I want you to pay me $1.4m", but they'll be shown the door because there's a guy that's willing to contribute the same $1.5m in exchange for $100k in compensation. Which is why you should be an owner/competitor versus an employee if you know the business well enough.
I think a lot of companies who might have previously hired devs would be better off trying not to anymore, with what devs cost today. This is going to mean all sorts of things, including more off-the-shelf stuff vs. home-rolled for companies, smaller software companies that don't get started because people would rather take the BigCo job that pays $200k base plus stock, etc.
Pretty much any business is about taking stuff and making something out of it that can be sold for more than its inputs. With dev salaries being what they are, a lot of opportunities get ruled out quickly because they just aren't big enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…
This reality provides one of the best arguments for a switch from a capitalist economy, in which it is shareholders who have little to do with the creation of value in the economy who ultimately benefit the most from it, to a free market socialist economy (one based on democratically owned worker cooperatives). In an economy based on worker cooperatives, the distinction between "employee" and "owner" is eliminated. I…
Some questions: 1. Wouldn't there still be a need for capital to finance risky ventures that take a long time to create value? How would a forward-looking startup with high capital costs, such as a biomedical device company with unproven technology, work in this economy? 2. How do you measure the value labor creates? 3. Is the allocation of resources among labor proportional to the value it creates? How does that work among a team of specialists that are more than the sum of their parts?
I'd genuinely like to understand whether this could work or has worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, no. This adage is very very true. Sure, you can get a comfortable six figure salary, but that is by no stretch of the imagination "affluent". I'm defining rich as making 7 figures a year. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. You'll never get that working for someone else (especially as an engineer), barring extenuating circumstances. High equity employee #1 or co-founder is the way to go. High risk, high rewa…
You will get affluent in 10-20 years. That's my point. You get rich slowly, not quickly. And wealth is not defined by how much money you make, but by how much money you have.
There are other considerations as well, including cost of living (most high salary jobs are in high-cost areas), liabilities (debt), and so forth. If you want to get rich (again, 7-figure range), this just doesn't seem like a good bet to make.
My personal slant on things is that even if you do become a millionaire, let's say in your 60s, who cares? The point is to get rich while you can still enjoy your money. There's no virtue in being buried with your treasure.
I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very large tech cos to "garage" startups. Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the av…
I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…
If we lived in a just meritocracy, people who created millions of dollars in value with their code would be compensated with millions of dollars, but this is rarely, if ever, the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but this is straight up proletariat bull. You get hired, you get paid. If it doesn't pan out, you go somewhere else. You have 0 risk and a guaranteed career. And sorry, but 100k for a javascript "engineer" is more than the "fair share" in my opinion, but it's a market, so it is what it is.
You say proletariat like it's a bad thing. Of all the social goals that we have (curing cancer, hunger, war, etc.), it amazes me that we haven't added 'work' to that list. Maybe like 5% of people that I know enjoy work more than 50% of the time (and it's probably not 'work' at that point). Work sucks - we should eradicate it and let people spend their short time on Earth doing what they enjoy. Many of our ancestors w…
I can't understand how anyone would be for work ('they call it work for a reason, right?'). The only reasons I can imagine are 1) inflexible ideology, 2) sadism, or 3) love of power hierarchies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This adage is used mostly by snake oil salesmen slinging get-rich-quick schemes. Working for somebody else is probably the best way to get rich. Putting a qualification here, rich is not filthy rich, but affluent to comfortably rich.
Uh, no. This adage is very very true. Sure, you can get a comfortable six figure salary, but that is by no stretch of the imagination "affluent". I'm defining rich as making 7 figures a year. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. You'll never get that working for someone else (especially as an engineer), barring extenuating circumstances. High equity employee #1 or co-founder is the way to go. High risk, high rewa…
You can work at Google for a decade and end up a multi-millionaire, with enough money to retire to most places in the US.
From your other comment, it seems like you haven't done the analysis on this. Top companies are routinely paying $200k-300k these days. That's enough to save a million dollars over a decade even if you have a family.
I love the US and California, the tech scene is amazing and I was lucky to met such talented and friendly people in about every place I worked... from very large tech cos to "garage" startups. Which is why it pains me to see that so many engineers get stuck with such ridiculous salaries (relative to the value and wealth they provide and create). Problem is that some salaries are seemingly high compared to what the av…
I am a developer, so I am all for higher developer salaries, but your posts shows a common misunderstanding about economics. The value someone creates has nothing to do with their salary. Their salary is dictated by how many people need to hire developers and how many developers exist to fill those jobs or in simple terms, supply and demand. I might create millions of dollars in value with my code, but there might be…
If we lived in a just meritocracy, people who created millions of dollars in value with their code would be compensated with millions of dollars, but this is rarely, if ever, the case. It's this fact which makes libertarian arguments about the unfairness of tax and social welfare programs offensive.