Live data from Hacker News

Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

blog.stackoverflow.com

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#281
post #271
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, how should you handle it if the company tells you there will be vegan options at a lunch meeting and then there aren't any? You plan your lunch around that happening and it doesn't happen. Bring your own lunch. Also this whole thing is irrelevant to the original topic of how to tell a recruiter that their free lunches are not relevant to how you perceive their compensation. If telling HR that you don't…

It's unfortunate to see that you rage-replied item by item, not bothering to read the overall context before firing off irrelevant commentary that was addressed later. Manager types definitely do systematically have a dehumanizing agenda, as was well-researched in e.g. Moral Mazes , among other places.

I read through this and you sound like a really high maintenance employee. Sorry Im on your side and sympathize with people having different dietary needs or choices but you are making far too big of a deal about food.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#282
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can say as a hiring manager, engineer, and friend of recruiters -- these salaries are a little low compared to top tier tech companies at every level, at least for developers. By top tier here I mean Google, Facebook, etc. They're not horribly low, and they're probably in range for 2nd-tier companies that you'd recognize but that I don't want to name because I don't have recent salary data for them. Honestly I thin…

I believe you 100%. You're comparing top tier companies to 2nd tier companies though. Stack Overflow is a second tier company. I mean that in terms of size and wealth level, not in terms of quality, obviously. Google et al pays WAY above market compared to smaller tech companies. whenever these threads come up there's a lot of cognitive dissonance that goes on. a lot of Googlers or Facebookers will come in and say "W…

Its not that they don't realize. It is that they don't want to accept they would be paid less at some other companies.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#283
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate to see that you rage-replied item by item, not bothering to read the overall context before firing off irrelevant commentary that was addressed later. Manager types definitely do systematically have a dehumanizing agenda, as was well-researched in e.g. Moral Mazes , among other places.

I read through this and you sound like a really high maintenance employee. Sorry Im on your side and sympathize with people having different dietary needs or choices but you are making far too big of a deal about food.

The way it plays out with dietary issues is just one topic. I happen to be sensitive about it because I've experienced several companies treat me (and other non-meat-eating employees) pretty inconsiderately over it, and fail to address the problems at all even when asked politely.

But in a bigger sense the problem is that anytime an employee sticks up for herself or himself because they feel the company is treating them badly, they are labeled "high maintenance" as you say, or "not a team player", or in the most egregious cases, the mythical "toxic employee" -- all just code words for "why won't this person just be quiet and accept the shitty treatment like everyone else does?"

It's not high maintenance at all to stick up for yourself and be pedantic about things that really affect you and matter to you. But we're so conditioned that we have to be good little workers, displaying fealty to paternalistic companies, to whom we should be soo grateful to be so lucky as to be employed at all, that anytime someone talks plainly about the dehumanizing way the HR and managerial apparatuses are designed and made to interface with employees, then that person is treated like some kind of conspiracy theory wacko who can't just lighten up and deal with the company's bad behavior like everyone else.

If a company factors the value of a food benefit into your dollar value of total compensation (and they absolutely do and will often try to tell you that directly in negotiations when talking about salary), then you absolutely should counter them if you have a dietary preference that changes the picture.

There is nothing "high maintenance" about that whatsoever. It's simply called sticking up for yourself so you're paid fairly.

But here we are, having to argue even about whether an employee can raise the issue that that kind of benefit fails to count as actual compensation without thereby being a nutcase who is high maintenance.

This, by the way, is exactly the "red flag" kind of thing I mentioned, that the other commenter went on and on about how people won't care enough to actually think or act on it. But I mean if even just another casual observer on an HN thread is conditioned to think it's "high maintenance" then how much more will HR think so? Of course HR will think so.

Which brings me full circle back to my original comment, which is that I don't bring this stuff up in interviews even though I believe, ethically, I absolutely should -- because I try to conform and look like the no-weird-stuff "team player" just like everyone else.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#284
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, how should you handle it if the company tells you there will be vegan options at a lunch meeting and then there aren't any? You plan your lunch around that happening and it doesn't happen. Bring your own lunch. Also this whole thing is irrelevant to the original topic of how to tell a recruiter that their free lunches are not relevant to how you perceive their compensation. If telling HR that you don't…

> about your special food needs special food choice. This is a choice not a need.

It is an ethical conviction for me, based on animal rights. I do not consider it a "choice" any more than a religion is a choice. In a sense they both are, but when making the choice you absolutely do have a reasonable expectation that others will reasonably accommodate it. Though they do not literally have to, as they do with some aspects of religion, it's still a significant moral failing of the company if they don't automatically do it.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use various resources (public data, information from VCs) to figure out the base market rate for each position. Even though the base salary is less because our information says the market rate is less, we don't think developers are more important than SREs. The same benefits, equipment, remote work, autonomy, opportunities to speak and contribute to open source, etc are the same.

> We use various resources (public data, information from VCs) to figure out the base market rate for each position. So you're basically paying what everyone else is paying (on aggregate) rather than figuring out yourself if SREs and developers are worth to you as a company. This seems like a lazy-ish approach to me and negates most of the positivity that salary transparency has. I realize though that you're never go…

as a business that has to turn a profit, of course you will not pay significantly more than you have to. Base Salaries are demand and supply driven which also means that if i can pay more, i can also get more skilled/experienced people for that money.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#286
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time SF housing prices come up, someone comes out of the woodwork to say how (Boston | Seattle | Austin) is just as expensive or even worse. They then compare some 1500 sq ft penthouse in the nicest, newest tower in their city to some slightly less expensive 19th century shithole of the same price in SF and say, "LOOK! Look! It's more expensive in my city! And MILK is 50% more here too, so it's way more expensi…

I did enjoy the fact that "like for like" somehow explicitly means the best of the best in Boston.

FWIW I was comparing like for like in both cities. I compared Back Bay new construction to SoMA new construction. Fact is, your money does go further in SF. It isn't intuitive because most of the housing stock in Boston is old, cramped, or needs significant repair...or all 3. But that doesn't come across when you compare aggregate sqft prices, it just looks like Boston is cheaper.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#287
post #126

Similar feedback, starting salaries seem about right, but beyond that seem low, the rating system isn't science and the CoL adjustment only for SF, NYC and London misses other expensive cities. For instance, like for like (new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods), Boston housing is just as expensive as SF and in general your money goes further in SF.

> For instance, like for like (new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods), Boston housing is just as expensive as SF No it's not. It's not even close. The median home in Boston is less than $500k. That's a gut/teardown in SF, where the median is $1.1MM. If you pick brand new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods in Boston, I'm sure you could easily spend north of a million. If you pick comparabl…

Notice that I said like for like. If you compare new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods in both cities[0][1] SF comes out cheaper and/or your money goes further. ie, SF might be slightly more expensive but your building has 24/7 security, roof top pool, common outdoor space, etc.

EDIT: A further comparison of the age of the housing stock, looking at properties currently listed within both city limits, ~33% of them in Boston were built before 1900, 8% of them in SF were built before 1900. To me this means overall the housing stock is more modern in SF which likely benefits the homeowner in energy costs, modern systems, safety, total square footage, etc.

[0] https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/293571/MA/Boston/Back-Ba...

[1] https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/11212/CA/San-Francisco/S...

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#288
post #33

At my self-assessed skill level and years of experience, they're offering $11k/yr more for a "Developer" than a "Site Reliability Engineer". I find it interesting that they value someone in a "Developer" position higher than someone in a "Site Reliability Engineer" position. Having been an Ops person for my entire career and at the same time a competent developer in numerous languages and environments, I find this un…

I'm surprised none of the other respondents have caught this error in Stack Overflow's terminology. Stack Overflow's salary calculator is lumping two very different roles together and is therefore not useful for true SRE pay calculation. I'll explain my reasoning. Notice that there is no entry for "System Administrator" or "DevOps Specialist". Neither of these roles call for software engineering ability. Since Google…

I misread TFA and thought the calculator was based off of jobs posted in the site, not their own salary calculation. Judging by their comprehensive operations articles (DC migration, etc), it appears their ops staff are also software engineers. In that case, it appears they've misinterpreted the market. At least SREs know they should apply to Stack Overflow only for software engineering roles in order to avoid a $10k penalty for extra skills.

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#289
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did enjoy the fact that "like for like" somehow explicitly means the best of the best in Boston.

FWIW I was comparing like for like in both cities. I compared Back Bay new construction to SoMA new construction. Fact is, your money does go further in SF. It isn't intuitive because most of the housing stock in Boston is old, cramped, or needs significant repair...or all 3. But that doesn't come across when you compare aggregate sqft prices, it just looks like Boston is cheaper.

> FWIW I was comparing like for like in both cities. I compared Back Bay new construction to SoMA new construction.

Back Bay is the most expensive neighborhood in Boston. If you want to compare to SF, then SoMA is probably not the appropriate neighborhood. There are several neighborhoods in SF that cost multiples of Back Bay.

* Back Bay: $863,200

* Pacific Heights: $1,877,500

* Noe Valley: $1,652,100

* Russian Hill: $1,593,600

If you actually want to compare "like for like", let's look at a really expensive SF neighborhood.

* Presidio Heights: $4,911,300

> Fact is, your money does go further in SF. It isn't intuitive because most of the housing stock in Boston is old, cramped, or needs significant repair...or all 3. But that doesn't come across when you compare aggregate sqft prices, it just looks like Boston is cheaper.

Isn't most of the housing in every major city old, cramped, and in need of repair? SF has plenty of old, cramped housing that costs a million dollars.

You can't cherry-pick the absolute top-end of the Boston market and compare it to an average neighborhood in SF. With that logic, Seattle is more expensive than SF, too. Windermere price index is $1,239,600 vs $945,000 in SoMA.

--

* http://www.zillow.com/back-bay-boston-ma/home-values/

* http://www.zillow.com/pacific-heights-san-francisco-ca/home-...

* http://www.zillow.com/noe-valley-san-francisco-ca/home-value...

* http://www.zillow.com/russian-hill-san-francisco-ca/home-val...

* http://www.zillow.com/presidio-heights-san-francisco-ca/home...

* http://www.zillow.com/windermere-seattle-wa/home-values/

* http://www.zillow.com/south-of-market-san-francisco-ca/home-...

Re: Salary transparency at Stack Overflow

#290
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, like for like (new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods), Boston housing is just as expensive as SF No it's not. It's not even close. The median home in Boston is less than $500k. That's a gut/teardown in SF, where the median is $1.1MM. If you pick brand new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods in Boston, I'm sure you could easily spend north of a million. If you pick comparabl…

Notice that I said like for like. If you compare new construction in the most desirable neighborhoods in both cities [0][1] SF comes out cheaper and/or your money goes further. ie, SF might be slightly more expensive but your building has 24/7 security, roof top pool, common outdoor space, etc. EDIT: A further comparison of the age of the housing stock, looking at properties currently listed within both city limits,…

SoMA is not the most desireable area in SF. Many areas in SF are considerably more expensive. Presidio Heights is one of the top neighborhoods, and has a home price index on Zillow of nearly $5MM. You can't even compare new construction because there is none for sale.

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/2197/CA/San-Francisco/Pr...

For the record, doing the "most expensive" or "most desirable" comparison is pointless anyway. The most expensive neighborhood is not representative of the typical home price, or even the typical desirable home price.

Post reply on HN