Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up) • Hacker News Board

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#91

Post by omlette » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:19 PM UTC

veyron wrote: post #48

I have no clue why people are obsessing over 250K. If you care about money as a programmer, you are better off working at a hedge fund. My programmer friends at hedge funds (all between 22 and 26) are averaging 500K salary with 100K bonuses (note: as a programmer, base is much higher but bonus is lower). So if google isn't paying those types of numbers to people, then money cannot be the only factor at play.

the idea was that you had to take a 5x pay cut to do interesting work in a good environment with smart people. it's interesting that it has reduced to a 2x paycut.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#92

Post by drats » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:20 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #78

spacemanaki wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "cartelicious" mean? All that Google turns up is a lot of stuff on MySpace and Xanga...

It is a made-up word (a portmanteau, if you want to get technical) meant to suggest that the activities of the tech companies were similar to those of a cartel. I frequently use non-standard English constructions for comedic effect when writing or speaking informally.

I don't know why you were being downvoted or why it's hard for people to see 'cartel' and 'delicious' in that. Some of these po-faced downvoters are in dire need a humour transplant. It's one thing to not find one of a few examples funny, it's another thing to downvote someone when they are trying to explain when someone has honestly asked for a clarification.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#93

Post by bane » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:21 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #47

HN has a curious relationship to money some of the time. a) Many of us watched our classmates go into management consulting, investment banking, finance, medicine, law, etc. These are all fields where $250k is not exactly outlandish for a 29 year old. b) We have a lot of friendly, accessible fellow posters who write computer code and are financially very successful. c) We talk about $X million valuations and $YY mill…

Or put another way, the stagnant salaries for developers has incentivised/pushed many of us into starting our own companies so that we can make money commensurate with what we believe we should be making.

$250k developer salaries invalidates much of that pressure.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#94

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:23 PM UTC

iradik wrote: post #79

I don't understand the article, the author says the current googler was one of his "ex-employees" but he is "the guy he just met". Am I missing something here?

"the guy I just met" can be someone you never knew before or someone that you've just had a meeting with.

I thought from the context that it was clear I meant the second version.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#95

Post by tomkarlo » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:24 PM UTC

mvc wrote: post #73

Woost wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't as simple as "push for equity". There are plenty of companies where equity makes no sense (say, a private consulting company, or a company with no plans to sell a la 37signals) What other options are there? Guaranteed end of year bonuses? Commissions in the form of profit sharing?

Presumably, equity in these companies would be like being a "partner" in a law/accountancy firm.

I hope not. If you talk to folks in law, in particular, the partnership system is broken. It basically results in a situation where it's in the interest of the existing "partners" to have as many "non-partner" employees as possible, dangle the carrot of partnership in front of them so they work really hard, but in reality only promote 1% or so to partner. That maximizes the return to existing equity holders but it means life sucks for everyone junior.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#96

Post by veyron » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:25 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #85

veyron wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a portmanteau, because a portmanteau is a combination of two real words whose meaning draws from both constituents (and it's not clear what real word that ends in 'icious' that is relevant to this context) According to OED (oxford english dictionary): "A word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings. Also more generally: a term or phrase which encompasses two or…

Portmanteaus can be composed of morphemes as well as words. -icious is a morpheme. If you try to parse it as a combination of two words, which a lot of people do, the ambiguity as to which -icious I could mean (delicious or vicious might spring to mind) helps to heighten the comedic effect.

Can you give a citation for that definition?

(had to dig out a dictionary :/) According to OED (oxford english dictionary) a portmanteau is:

"A word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings. Also more generally: a term or phrase which encompasses two or more meanings."

The key conditions here (each of which must be satisfied) are:

- constituents must be words

- blending sounds from the words

- combining meanings of the words

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#97

Post by mechanical_fish » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:29 PM UTC

veyron wrote: post #81

patio11 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a made-up word (a portmanteau, if you want to get technical) meant to suggest that the activities of the tech companies were similar to those of a cartel. I frequently use non-standard English constructions for comedic effect when writing or speaking informally.

it's not a portmanteau, because a portmanteau is a combination of two real words whose meaning draws from both constituents (and it's not clear what real word that ends in 'icious' that is relevant to this context) According to OED (oxford english dictionary): "A word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings. Also more generally: a term or phrase which encompasses two or…

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=licious

If we believe the miscellaneous crowdsourcers of Urban Dictionary it comes to us by way of Beyoncé's coinage "bootylicious", which makes it pretty obvious that it derives from "delicious".

I'm amused by this part:

Parents and middle-aged talk show hosts often use this to parody the ghetto culture, much as they latched onto the suffix "izzle".

I do believe the Urban Dictionary has just called me a clueless white talk-show host! Oh well, if the shoe fits... ;)

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#98

Post by tptacek » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:32 PM UTC

Woost wrote: post #64

veyron wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why business types see engineers as cost centers is because engineers have positioned themselves that way. Engineers pushed for higher salary in lieu of the variable upside. What engineers really need to do is to put more skin in the game. Push for more equity, even if it means accepting a smaller salary. All too often I see programmers who just want a 9-5 that pays 6 figures even if the company is seeing…

This isn't as simple as "push for equity". There are plenty of companies where equity makes no sense (say, a private consulting company, or a company with no plans to sell a la 37signals) What other options are there? Guaranteed end of year bonuses? Commissions in the form of profit sharing?

Private consulting companies have all sorts of var comp plans; the most common is profit sharing.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#99

Post by 3pt14159 » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:32 PM UTC

nateberkopec wrote: post #43

Economics! During a boom time, wages rise. Wages are "sticky", meaning they lag behind the current state of the economy. Wages for programmers have really gone out the roof in the last few years due to lack of US computer science graduates, stingy visa provisions, etc. In a few months, the funding wave will start to level off and dip, but wages will still be as high as ever. That's the crunch. Winter is coming. EDIT:…

Economics again though!

In 2009 servers were more expensive, and programmers handling your cloud were both less experienced AND had inferior tools. There is a small funding glut, but 7 vs 10 isn't a fair compensation. It's more like 7 people that work 20% more effectively, so 8.4 vs 10.

Re: Programmers' salaries at Google $250k (and up)

#100

Post by mbesto » Sun, Nov 06, 2011, 5:34 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #85

veyron wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a portmanteau, because a portmanteau is a combination of two real words whose meaning draws from both constituents (and it's not clear what real word that ends in 'icious' that is relevant to this context) According to OED (oxford english dictionary): "A word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings. Also more generally: a term or phrase which encompasses two or…

Portmanteaus can be composed of morphemes as well as words. -icious is a morpheme. If you try to parse it as a combination of two words, which a lot of people do, the ambiguity as to which -icious I could mean (delicious or vicious might spring to mind) helps to heighten the comedic effect.

The nerdery in this thread is amazing!