

Ask HN: Propaganda for creative salary manipulation? - dnsworks

Every once and a while (at least once a week) I stumble upon some essay heralding the euphoria of working in a good team, or on a good project, or of spending your life solving projects. They all seem to have the same underlying tone, that engineers don't care about money, they care about the work they do. Sometimes I wonder if these articles are some creative, subtle, under-handed manipulation to convince young engineers to feel guilty for demanding to get paid a fair wage for the value of their services.<p>Am I the only engineer out here that wants to scream, "fuck you, pay me" whenever somebody rambels on and on about how wonderful it is to drink the kool-aid at flickr, google, twitter, or zynga? (and for the record, all of my friends at these 4 companies feel very under-paid).
======
anigbrowl
No, you're not - and kudos for articulating that feeling of frustration so
exactly. Without criticizing any particular company o industry, this sort of
thing is rampant nowadays. It's just as bad, if not worse, in my business
(independent film), to the point where I'm now surprised when someone makes me
a good offer or accepts my price without significant haggling. As with coding,
it's such a cool profession to be in - and intense pressure and challenge can
make for such strong team bonds - that it's almost _infra dig_ to say you also
need to make a decent living, or that you might want to spend money on
something quite unrelated.

For a while I'd argue on the basis that being freelance is more expensive,
equipment is expensive (substitute training courses or whatever), taxes and
cost of living all force me to set a price X...but I realized that this kind
of argument was putting me in an inferior position and giving the power to the
buyer. So now I just say that I like really, _really_ high quality hookers and
blow, and that such luxuries don't come cheap. Although this is a joke, it
serves two purposes: first, it reminds the recruiter/ producer/ publisher that
you have concerns of their own, about which they know nothing and which they
are not competent to evaluate; and second, it's aggressive enough to make the
other person uncomfortable, by demonstrating your lack of shame about your own
worth, which is a great negotiating tactic.

It doesn't have to be hookers and blow of course, that's just a funny cliche
in my business. It could be solid-gold golf clubs or putting juice in your
Ferrari or whatever. The point is that you're a busy person and you are the
sole arbiter of how your time should be valued, and that for some kinds of
things, the price is what it is. If you can't pay, then you don't get to play.

~~~
grinich
_The point is that you're a busy person and you are the sole arbiter of how
your time should be valued, and that for some kinds of things, the price is
what it is. If you can't pay, then you don't get to play._

I wish somebody had told me this when I started freelancing.

~~~
anigbrowl
So do I. For that matter, I might need you to remind me at some point in the
future :)

------
nostrademons
"Am I the only engineer out here that wants to scream, "fuck you, pay me"
whenever somebody rambels on and on about how wonderful it is to drink the
kool-aid at flickr, google, twitter, or zynga? (and for the record, all of my
friends at these 4 companies feel very under-paid)."

I'm one of those engineers that drank the kool-aid. Yeah, I could probably
make more elsewhere. However, I'm at the stage of my career where I'm
optimizing for experience, not for earnings. I'd rather trade salary for
skills now, so that those skills can bring more salary later. That's
capitalism.

Besides, I honestly don't see the point of going from $100K to $200K (made-up
numbers, but presumably the ballpark we're talking about). I save half my
take-home pay anyway; I can't really think of what else I'd like to buy with
it. When I choose to optimize for earnings, I'd rather be in the tens of
millions, i.e. found a company and grow it - which also happens to be quite
satisfying, although lots of hard work. There's a material difference between
"never has to work again" and "still a wage slave". There isn't one (to me)
between "can afford a Beemer" and "can afford a Honda Civic."

~~~
flog
Wait? What? Which engineers are getting paid $200K?

If that's the ballpark I must have been playing a different sport for the last
6 years.

Anyhow, I've also had a swig of the kool-aid over those years and is now the
basis of my new-found freedom and upstart dreams... time will tell if that
investment paid off however.

~~~
tptacek
I don't know about the bay area, but there are definitely devs in NYC making
over 200k.

------
staunch
No one is choosing between company A offering $60k, B offering $100k, and C
offering $350k for the same work, and then choosing A or B. Most people get
1-5 offers all within a relatively small range. The fact that people choose
the company with the best environment/project should not be surprising.

~~~
gorbachev
Last time I did a wide job search I had offers ranging from $25 to $150 /
hour.

I still can't figure out how the hell the company offering $25 / hour thought
they could get anyone hired.

~~~
yalurker
That's $52k per year, which is comfortably middle to upper-middle class in
much of America. If that was in the Bay or NYC then it's low, but if it was in
Omaha or Des Moines it's a good salary for an entry level dev.

------
j_baker
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but I agree with Joel on this one:

"They don’t care about money, actually, unless you’re screwing up on the other
things. If you start to hear complaints about salaries where you never heard
them before, that’s usually a sign that people aren’t really loving their job.

...

That doesn’t mean you can underpay people, because they do care about justice,
and they will get infuriated if they find out that different people are
getting different salaries for the same work, or that everyone in your shop is
making 20% less than an otherwise identical shop down the road, and suddenly
money will be a big issue."

An employer could _really_ take advantage of me monetarily if they provided a
work environment that was _that cool_. Aside from that, as long as I make
enough to make a decent living, I don't care. When I'm considering working for
a new company, money really is a secondary issue.

~~~
wheaties
Joel is awesome, althought I don't agree with him on everything. He's got it
nailed. When you're working a dead-end job, being paid less than everyone at
other companies, in an environment where even your chair is falling apart,
doing the same thing you did last year and the year before, money becomes a
very big issue. It's why they pay people big bucks at banks to do COM/ATL
programming. No one wants to do it and everyone recognizes it. I wish
companies would take a deeper look at themselves and say "Am I really making a
difference to my employess?"

------
pg
The phenomenon isn't limited to engineers. People in all fields are willing to
take less money for work they enjoy more. There are some kinds of work people
like so much they'll do it for free: e.g. writing open source software.

~~~
nostrademons
Work that people enjoy more probably pays less _because_ people enjoy it more.
It's supply and demand: there's a greater supply of labor for jobs that people
want to work at. Most people consider having a nice work environment to be
worth $X to them, so their indifference curves get shifted over.

~~~
gaius
Yes, economists these days don't talk about compensation so much but "utility"
which is the aggregate of salary, cow-orkers, short commute, nice office,
meaningful work, yadda yadda. People will always act to maximize utility.

------
patio11
_Am I the only engineer out here that wants to scream_

Perhaps a more constructive approach is to say "I'm glad your corporate
culture is wonderful. I'm sure we can do business together if you can offer a
salary competitive with my best options."

------
dzlobin
Sorry, your friend at google feels under-paid? No offense to your friend or
you, but It's hard for me to really understand that because of several
reasons. First of all, he/she likely makes at least what..80k? 90k? I
understand it's not a million dollars a year but that's not a bad salary.
Second of all, there are people that would accept a lot less than that simply
to work at google. I used to cook professionally, and was at one point working
for FREE at Corton, in NYC, solely so that I can say I worked and learned
there. All the cooks who work in fine dining get paid horribly but work there
to learn from the best. This should be the same for hackers. Of course your
friends from these great companies wouldn't have a hard time finding a wall
street job for a lot more pay, but you'd have to agree that they are learning
a LOT more than they would there, and that has to be worth something.

~~~
gaius
$80-90k doesn't go very far in Mountain View or Manhattan.

~~~
dzlobin
Believe me I know, I'm from NYC. But that's the average STARTING salary for
hackers at the big companies, and surely it will be a nice stepping stone to
bigger, better places.

~~~
polynomial
Starting salary for hackers? My ex made starte in that range with just her
modest fluency with html. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think
that number is really low for NYC, in my personal exp.

~~~
GFischer
Oh crap - stop posting those salaries :P

I'm in the 3rd world right now making 12000 U$D a year - and taxed like hell
for being in the upper range.

I'll most probably emigrate within the next year, but I know it won't be a bed
of roses...

------
coffeemug
In the case of startups I think that there are two issues to be aware of. The
first is that (in my experience) most early stage startups are severely
underfunded. After the dot com bust (back then the startups were severely
overfunded) the investors swung back to a different extreme. So don't jump to
conclusions and blame the founders - I think most founders are trying to do
the best they can with the resources at hand.

The second issue is how the founder presents the situation to potential
employees. I was once offered 10,000 options by what's considered to be a very
successful startup. When I politely mentioned that this figure is meaningless
and that I need to know the percentage of the company it represents in order
to properly evaluate the offer, the founder said that "investors don't like
giving away this information - I promise you that it's enough that you'll
become a millionaire". If you're in a situation like that where the management
has no respect for your time, I'd say run. But if they're honest about why the
salary is lower than average, well, it's really up to you.

I think in general the economics works out because it's easy for investors
(and in turn, founders) to prey on young, gullible people who have a
romanticized idea of the startup scene and potential returns. If you look at
the statistics, the expected value is just bad, and young inexperienced people
generally aren't able to properly evaluate it. So investors put in too little
money because enough people are willing to work for pizza and beer, and in
turn employees are underpaid because enough people are willing to work for
less in exchange for the "startup experience". It's a crappy situation, but
like with most things in the world, I'd say don't worry about fighting battles
that aren't worth fighting. If you're clever enough to realize this, work for
Wall Street or Microsoft - in my experience you'll find much smarter people
there than in most startups anyway.

Regarding Google underpaying engineers, in my opinion it doesn't jibe with
their "don't be evil" mantra. They really should know better.

------
ovi256
Stockholm syndrome and the entitlement effect also play a role here. The
authors (rationally) know they have sacrificed salary, so they try to
rationalize by explaining to their readers and to themselves what they have
won.

~~~
motters
It really depends upon what your goals are in life - your "top level
motivator".

------
gyardley
In my personal hiring experience, developers - especially junior developers -
rarely negotiate salary. This is too bad, because the people doing the hiring
expect you to negotiate, and therefore intentionally offer you something lower
than the actual amount they're willing to pay. When you buy the spiel and
accept the first offer, so much the better for the company. If later you feel
compelled to write a blog post that justifies your decision to yourself, so
much the better for the company.

Every person out there should read 'Secrets of Power Negotiating' and 'Secrets
of Power Salary Negotiating' by Roger Dawson. Yes, both the titles of the
books and the contents inside absolutely scream 'sales toolbox', but I'd ask
you to ignore this and power through it - the lessons you'll learn are
indispensable.

------
alanthonyc
The correct response is not to say _"fuck you, pay me."_ It is _"wow, that's
awesome, pay me."_

Working at a good company, on a good team, on a cool project - those are true
benefits, that's why people talk about them. But in this context, they're just
a negotiation tactic. Therefore, don't feel like you have to take a wage below
what you feel is justified. Decide what you think you're worth and ask for it.

On the other hand, if you don't get what you want, then either you're not very
good at negotiating or your market value doesn't match your perception.

(On the other other hand, you could just apply to Netflix where they make it a
policy[1] to pay you the highest salary in the range for your position. No
negotiating needed.)

* [1]<http://www.netflix.com/Jobs?id=5366#reason4> _

------
Sukotto
Don't confuse the dollar amount of your salary with your _total_ compensation.
Salary is only one term in the overall equation.

Consider, for example, a company that buys you lunch. Here in NY, lunch costs
about $10 if you buy it yourself. If you're in the 25% tax bracket, that's
worth $3,300+ in salary.

Do they provide daycare? Transportation costs? Paying for conferences? 401k
matching?

Your friends that feel underpaid did a poor job of negotiating their total
compensation. Next time they should sit down and do something along the
following lines:

\- list out every possible benefit a company might offer

\- group the ones they personally care about (don't have kids? Then the
daycare benefit is worthless)

\- for the ones they care about, think about how much each one is worth in $
to them.

\- think about what the minimum they would accept for that benefit, how much
would make them happy, and how much would make the ecstatic.

\- for the ones they don't care about, thik about how much it costs the
company to pay for each

When it comes time to negotiate your compensation, always think in sets.
Always word things in terms of how moving any one piece requires movement on a
different piece. Give up the things in the "don't care" set for the equivalent
value of something in the "want" set.

If they want to give you less money, you say you could agree to that, if they
give you X number of vacation days. Or if they say they have free daycare, you
say that you appreciate that, but since you don't have kids you would rather
have "work at home Fridays" and a slightly larger 401k match.

Consider the total You are much more likely to get a larger total if you don't
focus only on the money.

[edit: bad math]

    
    
      (salary equivalent) = (daily cost * 5 days/wk * 50 wks/yr)
                            ------------------------------------
                                       ( 1 - tax rate )
    
      25% tax bracket 
      $ 5 lunch = (5 * 5 * 50)/(75%) = $1,667 salary
      $10 lunch = $3,333
    

So if the company gives you lunch each day, it's worth $333 in salary for
every dollar you _would_ have to spend to buy the same lunch. That ignores the
fact that your income tax rate changes depending on your salary.

~~~
olegk
How the hell a $10 lunch is worth $10,000? Even if you work every single week
(no vacation), 5 days a week, 52 * 5 * $10 = $2600.

Plus, you don't have to spend $10 for lunch. There's a bunch of places in NYC
where you can eat a decent lunch for $5-8.

~~~
Sukotto
Corrected, thanks.

Yes, prices vary wildly from area to area. My point is that you should try and
figure out, given each possible benefit, the range of how much it's worth to
you. Be aware of what things you want, what each is worth at various levels,
and what you're willing to give up to get those things.

------
proexploit
I think as long as money isn't your #1 priority, it's great to push for a fair
wage. For me personally, making more money is better than not making more
money, but there's plenty of things that come before that; doing something I
love, happiniess, time commitment, morals, etc. You should decide how much you
want to make at a minimum before you negotiate salary for any job and stick to
your guns.

To answer your first questions, I don't think it's propaganda. I think the
underlying idea is that money shouldn't be the #1 thing to you.

#Sarcasm I haven't had a lot of success whenever I've decided to yell, "fuck
you, gimme a raise". Maybe a more creative approach is in order.

~~~
dnsworks
I'm a capitalist. And apparently a bad one, since I choose engineering instead
of finance. I'm also an experienced entrepreneur with an understanding of the
value of my time and labors. Most startups today are selling advertising. No
matter how great their corporate culture is, that means in order to work for
them I have to shower twice in the morning, and twice at night to get skim the
filth off of me. Therefore, in this startup market, money is my #1 goal,
because no amount of happy hippy engineering juju makes up for whoring myself
out to the advertising industry. Money helps.. it means I can put more into my
daughter's college fund and hope she has the opportunity to do something with
her life that's less disgusting than what I'm doing with mine.

~~~
ehsanul
And what exactly is "filthy" about advertising?

~~~
orborde
I can't speak for the parent, or anyone else for that matter, but it does not
appeal to me to burn ingenuity trying solely to figure out how better to get
people to buy stuff. It's an arms race, where you expend more effort simply
for a better chance at winning a zero-sum game. I'd prefer to work on projects
where, rather than fighting to capture scraps of consumer disposable income, I
become the spring that sources a mighty river of created value.

~~~
ntoshev
Is advertisement a zero-sum game? I don't think so, if you figure out how to
better match products with customers, you create value for everyone. This is
what Google did in a big way.

~~~
cynicalkane
A large amount of advertising is oriented towards getting customers to buy
things they don't want and don't need.

This is negative sum.

I won't even get into the cognitive imbalances created by being constantly
assaulted with demanding stimuli in media.

------
sanswork
I wouldn't say the only one but there are certainly a lot that aren't like
that.

I personally given the option between Job A and Job B where Job B pays less
but has more interesting problems/more freedoms I will take Job B every time.
I can say that with confidence because I've done it twice already and in one
case where Job A was paying almost twice as much.

Why? Well in any case Job B is going to still be paying me a lot compared to
most people so its not as if I will be suffering by working for less. Secondly
my time doing something I don't enjoy is a LOT more expensive than my time
doing something I enjoy and lastly because at Job B I'll often get to improve
myself and try new technologies/products/ideas that will better prepare me for
the future that I never get to try at Job A. The cost to do those things in my
free time would often add up to quite a bit making the difference in salary
smaller with the other difference being made up by the lower end moving up
with your new found skills.

------
fdenkens
Probably Maslow's hierarchy of needs is part of the explanation. Pay comes in
pretty low, so when the base-needs are fullfilled, it becomes more personal as
to what you consider important next. This might me more money, quality of
life, growth within, etc.

~~~
radu_floricica
Maslow's hierarchy was discredited a long time ago. It survived only because
it seems to make so much sense.

~~~
ambition
What do you mean by "discredited"? People don't really need food, shelter, and
self-fulfillment? What has replaced it?

~~~
radu_floricica
Well, it does seem to make a lot of sense but I don't think there is much
research to actually support it. I don't remember where I read that now it's
not considered very useful (I do remember it was in at least a couple of
places), but the wikipedia page lists mentions at least one reference against
it (Wahba, A; Bridgewell, L (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research
on the need hierarchy theory"), and not so many references in its favor.

As for what has replaced it, AFAIK it wasn't one "thing" as simple as the
hierarchy was, but simply more research about the issue. There is a lot of
literature on the subject, and a lot of it by Maslow himself.

------
ible
I find the type of salaries discussed here downright surreal. I live in
Vancouver, BC which has some of the best 'quality of life' according to
various random surveys. This translates into an median annual FAMILY income of
~$60k CAD and a median house price approaching 1 million CAD. My wife and I
both work in tech, and both make more individually than the average family
income, but not a whole lot more.

The salary range in Vancouver seems to top out around $150k, and that is
uncommon. New grads can expect something between $50k and $80k. The
intangibles definitely make a difference to expectations. I sacrifice both
salary, and to some degree interesting work (at least at my day job) to live
here.

~~~
mattm
I'm from Victoria and these six figures salaries being thrown around as "not
that much" seem crazy to me too. Victoria is a smaller version of Vancouver
but take off about $50k for the highest salary range and about $20k from your
range for a new grad.

The quality of life is great though. It takes me 10 minutes to bike to work
and I'm home by 5.

I've come to realization lately that if I want to earn a lot as a software
developer, I will need to move to a large US city.

------
JoachimSchipper
As a data point, I'm currently trying for a PhD instead of a "regular" job.
That does involve trading immediate and lifetime earnings for more interesting
work.

I'm by no means unique.

~~~
Deestan
It's one thing to work for "free" for Science.

It's another thing to work for "free" for company owners who already own three
yachts and a personal helicopter.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Although this may not apply to the institute I'm applying to, the people in
charge of the university where I am currently studying certainly do not lack
income. I will not speculate on whether or not this is earned, just point out
that I've rarely heard anything positive about their policies.

------
rms
I don't think it is intentionally propaganda, though it may influence opinion
because if you're forced to sell yourself into wage slavery it really does
help to work on something fun for a company that has free catered meals.

If money is so important to you, maybe you should start a startup.

------
gaius
Absolutely. Remember, _someone's_ getting paid for your work, for the value
you create. If not you, then who? What're they creating?

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Risking capital.

~~~
ytinas
So they have a lot less to risk than you do (for most investors, losing the
entire investment wouldn't hurt them bad enough to force them into the work
force. If you lose your job however...)

~~~
aaronblohowiak
That is terrible logic. They have less exposure to personal tragedy for a
given loss, but that does not in any way impact the market value of their
loss. In fact, an investor experiences a real loss of assets (decreased net
worth) whereas an unemployed person merely ceases monetary gain. The fact that
your financial situation is dependent upon continual injection of capital is
immaterial to the comparison of value lost.

If you're trying to make a social justice argument about capitalism as an
economic model, that isn't relevant.

~~~
ytinas
You say things like "investor experiences a real loss of assets (decreased net
worth) whereas an unemployed person merely ceases monetary gain" and say _my_
logic is terrible? The investor, in most cases, lost some number in a computer
somewhere. The employee may lose his home. How can you possibly suggest that
the investor lost more? In fact, if he's properly diversified it is possible
that while this investment failed, he made extra somewhere else.

If you think the investors losses are more damaging to the market as a whole I
still disagree. The employee was likely injecting most of their income right
back into the economy. An investor is probably just buying stock from other
stock holders (much safer way to make money than a business venture). Unless
the stock holder is the company, this is just money changing hands between
rich people, i.e. _zero_ gain for the economy.

------
motters
As an engineer I'm not particulartly concerned about money, provided that I
get paid some "living wage" which allows me to not have to worry about paying
bills, rent, etc. I'd rather spend my time working on interesting projects
with some modest but liveable wage than do something boring (or of
questionable ethical value) on a high wage.

~~~
ytinas
Is the work you will be doing on these "interesting projects" the thing you
would pick if you were a multimillionaire and didn't have to work?

If not making as much as you possibly can, with the lowest living standard you
can get away with is a better bet imo. I can't imagine any place letting me
work on what _I_ want when _I_ want to all the time, and even if there were
such a place what happens when I invent something? My name is on a list with a
bunch of other mostly unrelated people?

~~~
motters
If money were no obstacle I'd still be working on similar projects. The
"interesting projects" are things which are on the outside of the envelope of
what we currently think of as possible. Making progress on interesting
projects means expanding the scope of human endeavor.

~~~
ytinas
Fair enough. In your case it makes sense then.

------
Maven911
Am I the only one suprised to hear about 150k-200k salaries as software
developer ? Most people I know are in the 50-100k range

These only seem to be possible in Silicon Valley or NYC-Manhattan

------
blubb
I would guess that a lot of engineers DO care about money. In fact, i would
think that MOST do, because most become engineers in order to make a living,
and nothing more.

The problem is, I think that in engineering and other skilled work, the ones
that are interested in their area of work regardless of whether they get paid
well or not tend to be more skilled and do a better job. The same can be said
for airline pilots (to put it simply, don't become an airline pilot if you
want a safe job with a good salary, become an airline pilot if you LOVE
flying).

So for a company looking to hire people, if a candidate will accept more
interesting work for a lower salary, that is a good indicator that they CARE
about the work they do. Someone who is only more interested in the salary and
less interested in what they do _might_ be the ones that are happy with doing
the bare minimums.

The other side of the problem is that most people think they are above average
intelligent, and therefore most people will feel underpaid if they are not
paid above average.

If you really love your job and you can do it by running your own business,
that's often the best option. As an employee you are only making other people
rich in exchange for some economic stability.

------
wlievens
I was like this four years ago (the first few months after graduating). My
idea, and my plan, was basically "lock me in a box and make me write cool
code, and I'll be happy".

It's not true. I've discovered that I need my input and my work to be
economically validated. Someone (preferrably myself; but someone else is
better than nobody) needs to make money off my work. I don't think that's a
bad evolution :-)

~~~
gridspy
I like to talk directly to the client and see the finished product being used.
It's great to see a delighted client and know that "I made that!"

------
jey
Is money the only goal? I'd rather take an enjoyable job with 20% less salary
over the higher salary mediocre job in a crappy location. There's a lot more
to life satisfaction than money -- as long as you have enough money for your
lifestyle and future plans, why compromise on the rest?

Anyway, salary negotiations are by definition adversarial, and offers are
negotiable. The best negotiating tool is a higher offer from someone else.

------
dabent
I guess I always imagined there was some sort of equity stake at the kind of
companies offering lower salaries. If there isn't, I'm certainly not one to be
sold on the propaganda. There are plenty of places that have great teams and
better salaries out there. In fact, I don't believe the two are mutually
exclusive. A place with a high salary could be a lot of fun to work at and a
low salary gig could be at a total sweatshop.

------
ntoshev
Propaganda for salary manipulation, really? I'd hate if HN started to upvote
conspiracy theories.

------
DenisM
You're on the right path. Keep going.

------
c00p3r
There is always (emerging) market(s) with lots of smart people who want to
work for much less salary because they enjoying of what they are doing. =)

------
olalonde
Who cares? Start a company and profit. If it doesn't work, try again. I'd
rather be poor and get a shot at the big bucks than have a nice & stable
salary.

~~~
olalonde
-1 ? You don't have to share my opinion but I'm not sure it deserves a down vote.

