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

The Programmer Salary Taboo

thurn.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#321

Post by bcaulf »

Saavedro wrote: post #243
plus2 wrote: post #221

We need to remember "you are not your salary". Comments like "an insulting $60,000" or "only $100,000" makes me shake my head. Your salary is not something you have to brag about.Your worth is not determined by your salary. A developer can create millions of dollars in value. Think how much value DHH created with Rails or Linus with Git and Linux. Or Damien with CouchDB. Remember Steve Jobs salary is $1 a year. Our g…

Which is all well and good, but to say that salary doesn't matter is bupkis. If you're creating significant value and getting little for it, you're getting the short end of the stick. If you notice you're getting the short end of the stick, you're probably going to feel like crap. Mind that lots of developers, if working for a company, don't own what they create. "Our goal as hackers is to create value, millions of d…

Forgive me, but I think you meant that to say that salary doesn't matter is mishuggeneh. Bupkis is what you'll have in your bank account if you go on thinking this way.

I'm not even Jewish. This is just from years in New York.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#322

Post by jholman »

teamonkey wrote: post #279
smokinn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a good idea but I doubt the data is very accurate. I live in Montreal which is well known to be one of the cheapest places to live in North America (very cheap housing, very cheap energy, etc.) but WA puts Montreal as the most expensive? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mount...

And this is utterly ridiculous. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moving+from+Montreal+to...

I nearly spit-taked when I saw that, it's so distorted... until I noticed that it's for Vancouver, Washington. Ah, well, maybe.

Wolfram Alpha says: "(UN retail price index data in Canada available only for Montreal)"

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#323

Post by masterzora »

danssig wrote: post #317
masterzora wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, as a general rule, in any sort of discussion or debate or argument or whatever you want to call it when there are multiple disagreeing with each other, please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...." Rarely do I see such a sentence that is not a total misrepresentation of the original point, intentional or otherwise, and attacking that point constitutes a strawman. As a specific example, I…

>please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...." No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. So no, what I said was in no way a misrepresentation. Then you came on defending what he said without point…

> No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently).

I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case.

> The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality.

I hold that there are three key differences between what OP and I are actually saying and how you are representing it. One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that. Two, you seem to be representing our statements as saying that anyone who is unhappy after finding out their coworker is making more is entitled when instead is upset for money's sake, which I have been specifically maintaining to be a case I have noticed rather than a universal. Three, while your "petty losers" case could certainly be an extreme case of this entitlement, it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.

> So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread?

I think this is most clearly exemplified by the original article ("That dev's salary is higher than mine") that sparked all of the subsequent "salary taboo" threads. A direct quote from that article: "Part of me was even angrier because if he hadn’t made this mistake I could be blissfully ignorant and wouldn’t have to deal with this mess."

The HN response? Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this and a couple people (including you!) disagreeing with me.

> The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth. This is he entitlement of which we are speaking; thank you for making it so explicit. If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that money cannot help achieve happiness, but if you are already happy, finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.

> Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.

If your definition of rational is "attempting to maximise the amount of money I make" is your definition of rational, sure, but I maintain that is a terrible definition of rationality. For a very obvious example, if you used that definition, we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate, the rest of our life be damned. After all, we need to get more money without worrying about silly things like "health" or "friends and family" or "enjoyment of job" or anything else that really is just "some feeling of happiness" at the end of the day. Since I don't think that either of us subscribe to this view, I think we'd agree that there needs to be some trade-off between money and happiness.

However, I'm not talking about leaving money on the table at any rate. If there exists money I can obtain, I have every right to go after it. It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#324

Post by jholman »

iqster wrote: post #265
GrooveStomp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the difference is like between Canada and the States? It must be lower in Canada, even in Vancouver, BC with all the expenses here. Still, I'm sure I'm making well below what I should be. Well, whatever the situation, I'm happy I'm working at a fantastic place with great people and interesting work! I also make far more money than I need to live comfortably. [edit] I make far less than $100 000.

When I visited Vancouver, the locals mentioned some ridiculously high rents/condo prices for places in downtown near Stanley park (and I'm from the Bay area). I thought the city was gorgeous but couldn't figure out any high paying employers (100K+). What gives? How can a developer afford this?

The simple answer is sometimes the correct one: for the most part, developers do not afford those particular condos. Or many of those who do they're single and childless. Vancouver's one of the most desirable places to live in the world, and so people preferentially migrate here (it's typical for people to be half-seriously astonished to meet a native), and so the market soars (plus there are some weird factors inflating it, arguably).

Although I've certainly known a few developers here to make over $100k. A few I've met professionally, and several of my old high-school friends. But this is not at all typical.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#325

Post by nopassrecover »

artsrc wrote: post #318
barrkel wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most other countries have twice that sales tax, as well as having all those other taxes. The best rough estimate of taxation burden might be proportion of government spending of GDP, which IIRC is about 35% for US, and is lower than eg most European countries.

You need to take into account what you get in addition to what you pay. In American those taxes provide a strong military. Most of the rest of the world are very poorly equipped by comparison. Other countries get health care and education.

Improving foreign policy would be a cheap way to reduce military costs - relying on a militia was the American tradition up until the Cold War and is indeed one of the reasons you have the right to arms.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#326

Post by WhatReally »

techiferous wrote: post #105
wging wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$175/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $350,000/year, for anyone else (like me) who can't immediately estimate equivalent yearly rates.

But remember that there is non-billable work (accounting, etc.) and a 15.3% self-employment tax. And also remember that there are probably not 50 weeks of 40 hours/week at this company but rather short-term or part-time work. And you are paying for your own benefits. I've found a good (albeit a bit conservative) rule-of-thumb is to convert the hourly wage into the yearly salary. Working as a consultant for $175/hour…

Depending on how many hours you bill, maybe. But if you have a steady client or two, bill 35 hours per week (conservative) and work 48 weeks, that's $294k. Yes there are some additional taxes (but only up to the first $105k or something) and keep in mind salaried employees pay half the "self employment" tax too..

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#327

Post by danssig »

masterzora wrote: post #323
danssig wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...." No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. So no, what I said was in no way a misrepresentation. Then you came on defending what he said without point…

> No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case. > The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. I hold that there are three key diffe…

>One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that.

Excerpt from the original post:

"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement."

I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.

>it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.

If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere? Then who cares?

>Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this

There is nothing to call the article out for here. The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value. Now he has to take action. Of course a part of him wishes this uncomfortable situation wasn't in front of him, but to claim he "wants money for money's sake" is pretty judgmental. Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?

>If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement.

This is illogical. Let me try again; we sell our time for a market price. Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother? I have things I'd much rather be doing. I don't want to sell my time. I need money so I sell it at the best market rate I can (complimented with other factors, of course). This isn't entitlement anymore than selling any other product is.

>finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.

Of course it should. You were happy before because you thought you were getting acceptable value. Now you just found out you're getting ripped off.

If you bought a nice car for $5k, of course you'd be happy about such a great deal... until you found out they actually cost $1k new and you just bought it from someone who exploited your market ignorance to get an extra $4k of your money for nothing.

>we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate

Highest possible rate within bounds. There are jobs I'm not willing to do for anything less than FU money. But what you're missing here is that a portion of the market value is what you're willing to do. Willing to travel? Then your market rate is higher than those who aren't. Willing to spend every waking moment on the job? Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that. I just want the best market rate I can get for what I'm offering.

>It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.

I really think the "irrationality" you're seeing is coming from assuming someone (who ever it is) is unhappy about not getting money "for money's sake". I don't see anyone doing that and don't see that as a valid concept. I think it's about market value and companies using their advantages to exploit people's market rate ignorance.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#328

Post by masterzora »

danssig wrote: post #327
masterzora wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case. > The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. I hold that there are three key diffe…

>One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that. Excerpt from the original post: "Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement." I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people post…

> I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.

I put the 'all' into my response because I'm tired of you forcing everything to extremes. I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.

> If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere?

Once again, you keep forcing things to extremes. Most of life, including this, is not all-or-nothing, yet you seem to keep insisting that this is for some bizarre reason. We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.

> The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value.

But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless. He could potentially get more, but he was happy with what he had before he learned of the difference.

> Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?

The previous combined with the fact that he was unhappy with the amount he received after learning he could receive more. The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.

> Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother?

I said nothing about the time; it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money. Selling my time may not be my greatest desire, but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.

> Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that.

How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?

> I think it's about market value

If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake? If that's not what you mean, what the hell do you mean such that it's still possible to be less happy with the exact same buying power?

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#329

Post by inklesspen »

joerobot wrote: post #223
patr1ck wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused – Why wouldn't Apple pay you directly? You shouldn't have to ask for anything, they should present you with an offer. Meanwhile, you should do appropriate due diligence and interview with other companies that interest you and see what other offers you get. If Apple is interested in hiring you, no doubt other companies will be too. Also: keep in mind that relocating will incur at least a few thousand doll…

Thanks, I'll be talking to the recruiter about an offer. Part of the problem is that when I was asked about it, I was basing the salary off of what someone in South Louisiana would make as a junior developer. At the time, I did not have any knowledge of what the salary of someone similar in the Bay Area would be. I was told that the recruiting company (TekSystems) would be paying me. However, I will ask the recruiter…

"The job is a contract job". That's why; you'll be an employee of TekSystems, not Apple. You won't be getting Apple benefits or compensation.

On the other hand, you can still put Apple on your resume, so it's not all bad.

Re: The Programmer Salary Taboo

#330

Post by acodingdude19 »

fsipie wrote: post #256

How does this translate into UK salaries? I'm working at a medium sized company (approx £200 million turnover) and am a senior developer with 15 years experience in stuff like c++/c#/iphone/asp.net mostly MS stack and I'm getting paid £34k. I know I can go contracting for £40/hr but it's alot more hassle. What are other people getting paid here in Blighty?

Depends where you live, apparently that is normal if you are out in the sticks. I was 22 and contracting as a c# developer @ £40/hour in 2004/5. That grew over time so that i had 2 month holiday and still made 80k for the year.

I did have a dud job though with oracle where it was almost impossible to earn anymore. Left Oracle as I didnt believe in the technology. Now on 100k a year, no degree and foreign. Plus I recieve a bonus on top of that.

Post reply on HN