

Stack Exchange Developer Compensation [pdf] - swilliams
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/Stack-Exchange-Developer-Compensation.pdf

======
mapgrep
"Our compensation is not based on how well you negotiate or how often you ask
for raises... We don’t have a range of possible salaries for every level, we
have a single salary, so everything about the system is algorithmic."

Bullshit. Politically savvy employees will just move their lobbying from
blatantly asking for raises to arguing that they are on a new "level."

Consider that this document lists 10 different criteria for just the "public
artifacts" portion of the ranking, including writing blog posts, public
speaking, participating in hackathons, being on panels, and "participating in
Stack Exchange." Queue the guy who says his upvotes and tweets bump him to the
next level.

And "public artifacts" is just one of FIFTEEN (!) vague areas on which you are
graded, including "Outreach," which lists some of the exact same criteria as
"public artifacts," like public speaking and hackathons; "Getting Things
Done;" "Ships" (how is that different from Getting Things Done?); "Ideas"
(sounds objective!); "Extracurricular programming learning;" and "Other
engineering type skills."

This sounds like a compensation system that pretends to be far more objective
than it really is, which is actually more dangerous than one that acknowledges
(and thus treats carefully) its own subjectivity.

(Which happens to be a broader issue I have with StackOverflow itself; much as
I love it, the site is plagued by know-it-alls wielding pseudo precise rules
"your question is overlocalized" and "not really a question" to delete
reasonably compliant content. But that's a whole other comment.)

~~~
byrneseyeview
_Bullshit. Politically savvy employees will just move their lobbying from
blatantly asking for raises to arguing that they are on a new "level."_

My previous employer implemented that. And what you predicted is exactly what
happened. The _first salary negotiation_ after the new policy went like this:
"We'd like to offer you $X." "No. I'd have to take at least 15% more than
that." "Oh. We'll have to change your job title, then."

I suppose that some organizations can pull this off, but they're very rare.
Maybe StackOverflow should ask how the military does it.

~~~
GavinB
_Maybe StackOverflow should ask how the military does it._

You're not allowed to quit. It simplifies things a great deal.

------
mwsherman
The PDF is part of a larger blog post:
[http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/how-much-should-you-
pa...](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/07/how-much-should-you-pay-
developers/)

------
almightygod
I believe if people shared their salaries with their co-workers only good
things will come for the individuals.

A) Either you will feel valued and continue happily along your way.

B) You will realize you are not being fully appreciated, find a new job
opportunity, and know now how much to negotiate for.

FYI: I just created a poll "How much do you make as a programmer?"
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2763932>)

~~~
mchusma
No way. Most people would be irritated most of the time because there would
always be some idiot making more than you.

------
spottiness
I thought I was going to see the numbers :(

~~~
awa
I would love to see some stackexchange developers dropping by and give us some
numbers..

------
dolinsky
There is a previous discussion about this from last night here
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2761427>

~~~
swilliams
I looked for both that link and the pdf, but didn't see it in the first 2
pages and New. Nuts. I felt that the pdf had more useful info than the
associated blog post, so I submitted that one.

------
eykanal
I want to meet the guy who's A+++ at modem-whistling.

~~~
dadkins
That'd be Captain Crunch: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Draper>

------
aredington
If they have objective measures and are compensating based on them, there's no
reason not to tell people what the formula is. You can still hide what you
measure people at (Bob's only A+ at LINQ, vs. A+++). Without specifying how
measurements translate into yearly compensation they're just waving their
hands around and saying how scientific they are without actually being so.

