
The Programmer Salary Taboo - andrewmunn
http://www.thurn.ca/the_programmer_salary_taboo
======
MrFoof
Salaries never stay secrets forever. Hiding them only delays the inevitable.

Last year we were having a discussion at lunch. Coworker was building a new
house, and when it came to the numbers it was let loose that it was going to
cost about $700K. This didn't seem like much, except to a young guy that
joined the previous year and had done nothing but kick ass and take names. The
new guy was arguably the most talented guy in the company by a considerable
margin, so he thought someone building a $700K home might've been
overextending themselves. The person buying the home retorted that it was
reasonable and asked the new guy why he wouldn't buy the Porsche Boxster he
considered his dream car. The new guy responded that would never be prudent.
That didn't seem right, as several of us at the table could've nearly swung a
Boxster with just our bonus.

The conversation ended up in numbers. Coworker building the house pulled about
$140K base (median for a programmer was probably $125K), and his bonus nearly
matched the new guy's salary, which was an insulting $60K -- and got cut out
of the bonus and raise in January for not being there a full year, only 11
months.

Turns out he was a doormat in negotiating, though his salary history was
cringeworthy. It pained everyone to hear it, considering how nice of a guy he
was. In all honestly, $60K was a big step up for him. Worst of all, this
wasn't a cheap market (Boston). The guy probably shortchanged himself well
over a half-million dollars in the past decade. This was someone who
voluntarily put in long hours and went out of his way to teach others, and did
everything he could to help other departments like operations and other teams.
On top, he was beyond frugal. Supposedly he saved something around 40% of his
take home pay, despite living alone in Boston. He grew up in a trailer park.

He spent the next day in non-stop meetings with HR, his manager and the CTO.
That Friday he simply handed in his badge without a word, walked out and never
came back.

Until 3 months later. As a consultant. At $175/hour.

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

~~~
techiferous
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 is
similar to being employed at $175K/year.

EDIT: The U.S. federal self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% (15.3% was for
2010).

~~~
ratsbane
A minor correction: it's not as bad as 15.3%. The self-employment tax is
really just the company share of FICA withholding (6.2%) plus Medicare
withholding (1.45%) If you're an employee you pay 6.2%+1.45%=7.65% and your
employer pays the same. If someone else (employer) is not paying the 7.65%
then you do.

However, for 2011 the FICA rate for employees is 4.2% instead of 6.2%, so the
self-employment tax remains effectively 7.65%. But that's only for the first
$106,800 in earnings - everything above that is not subject to FICA and
Medicare for employer and employee.

~~~
nopassrecover
As "bad" as 15%? Tax is at least 38% here in Au for that wage (was 60% not so
long ago).

~~~
arohner
That's "only" for social security and medicare. You still pay federal income
tax on top of that.

~~~
watchandwait
And on top of that the state income taxes in most states, and sales taxes that
usually approach 8 or 9%, and property taxes on real estate (and autos where I
live). Also if you manage to save anything after all that, you can look
forward to paying dividend or capital gains taxes (a form of double taxation).

It is a myth that America is a low tax nation.

~~~
barrkel
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.

~~~
artsrc
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.

~~~
nopassrecover
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.

------
nostromo
Here's a trick I once heard to share salary with your coworkers without the
uncomfortableness of finding out you are over or under-paid.

Over beers with several of your coworkers, each write down your salary on a
piece of paper and then mix them up. Randomly draw them out of a hat and then
read them to each other.

If you're all roughly peers, then you get all the benefit of knowing the
salary range of the group, with none of the downside of feeling embarrassed
about making much more or less than your peers.

~~~
madcaptenor
Another method I've heard: person 1 picks a large random number, adds their
salary to it, writes down the resulting number, and passes it on to person 2.
Person 2 adds their salary to the number, writes down the new sum, and passes
it on to person 3. This continues until the result gets back to person 1. You
end up with the large random number plus the sum of everyone's salary. Person
1 then subtracts the large random number and reports the sum of all the
salaries.

This depends on people being able to do arithmetic after a few beers, though.

~~~
michaelochurch
This is better because it determines the average but not distribution. Imagine
what would happen if there were five $70k salaries and one $165k salary for
six people doing the same work. People would suddenly get very uncomfortable.

One technical gripe: you forgot that the arithmetic needs to be modular to
guarantee anonymity. Let's just say the large random number is chosen between
0 and 9,999,999. (You need a range because there's no such thing as a "random
uniform" integer.) Now let's say that Person 1's salary is 100,000 and that
large random number is 9,999,935. Now Person 2 gets handed 10,099,935 and
knows that Person 1 makes at least $99,936, because the "large random number"
couldn't have been any higher than 9,999,999. If modular arithmetic is used,
with the modulus being the upper bound on the "large random number", then
nothing like this is ever given away. Person 2 gets handed 99,935... which
could be 9,999,935 + 100,000, or 4,935 + 95,000, or 9,099,935 + 1,000,000, or
99,934 + 1. (Of course, the modulus needs to be big enough that there's no
doubt that it's going to be larger than the sum of the salaries.)

~~~
run4yourlives
>Imagine what would happen if there were five $70k salaries and one $165k
salary for six people doing the same work. People would suddenly get very
uncomfortable.

Isn't that the entire point of the first exercise however? If the 165k salary
isn't completely obvious, then it should make people feel uncomfortable - they
are being shafted.

~~~
michaelochurch
If you're getting the $165k, you're not going to be very enthusiastic about
this exercise.

The modular-arithmetic alternative is better, at least in terms of political
stability: they figure out that there's an average of $86k. Then the people
making $70k all negotiate up to $90k and, even if getting shafted, people are
happier.

~~~
kelnos
> If you're getting the $165k, you're not going to be very enthusiastic about
> this exercise.

Why not? I'd be completely fine being the odd one out, especially if it helped
to encourage my lower-paid co-workers to renegotiate their salaries.

The whole point of this exercise, IMO, is to determine if there's inequity,
and how much. I'd want to know the full salary range, not just the average.
Companies rely on you knowing very little about your peers' salaries; more
information can only help you, even if it might make you feel a little bad.

~~~
neworbit
More money going to raises for your comrades generally means less available
for you

~~~
gaius
Nah, it means less money available to the tier above you and/or the
shareholders and/or the non-LOB parts of the company, e.g. HR.

------
harryh
Consider a hypothetical scenario for the person on the other side of the
table:

You are hiring up an engineering team and hope to hire up a team of 10
engineers paying 100k/yr each. So far you've hired 9 people at 100k and are
working on filling that last slot. You find someone perfect but he has a
competing job offer and is asking for 110k/yr instead of just 100. He's no
better than the other 9 people you have already hired.

In a situation with relatively secret salaries it might make sense to go ahead
and pay the 110k. It's only a 1% increase in your yearly budget which probably
isn't a deal breaker.

But in a situation with relatively public salaries you're in a bad spot. You
can either not hire him thus prolonging your search, or you can hire him and
face potential moral/teamwork problems. Maybe you can hire him and bump
everyone else's salaries up to 110k but a 10% budget increase might not be
feasible. So the company is a bit screwed in this situation. And to the extent
that the companies success is also the success of individual employees the
individual employees might be a little screwed too.

I've made this scenario simpler than what reality would generally look like
but the same principal holds.

In nearly every situation in which I've had insight into engineer's
compensation I know for a fact that fairness has always been a top priority.
But it's worthwhile to see that it sometimes can't be the only priority and to
understand how the salary taboo fits into this.

~~~
euroclydon
Here's what I though you were going to say:

You're hiring up an engineering team. You have five slots. Four are filled at
market salaries. The four people range in productivity from marginal to good-
at-stuff-no-one-else-likes, but none of them are that great. You almost have
to keep the four folks, because they're entrenched in deliverables and plus,
they've shown their dedication to the company.

In walks a candidate who's got the skills to single handedly deliver a major
component of a product you have committed to make. You don't have but 50-60K
left in the salary budget and the hires you've made so far don't exactly make
you look like a genius.

The kid has no idea what he's worth, which is north of $130K, and asks for
$55K. What do you do?

Ask the board for more money to give him what he's worth?

Fire someone else to give him what he's worth?

Or, hire him for $55K?

~~~
cookiecaper
The first step should be giving some disclosure to the candidate. Say, "55k?
You're so silly. We'd hire you for much more than that, we only pay fair
salaries here. Let me talk to my people and see what we can make available."

If the other people aren't providing a value commensurate with their
compensation, you should fire them whether you have an expensive replacement
on tap or not. If they are providing such a value, it's probably better to
keep them in place. Too often people overestimate new hires and underestimate
the value of institutional knowledge. But if you have people that need to be
fired anyway, that'd be a good opportunity to do it.

If your bosses think you're an idiot, you should leave. If you ask the board
for more money and they have more money to give, they'll probably give it,
unless they think you're an idiot, and then you should quit.

If there's no way you can get the additional allocation, just tell the
candidate that you'll hire him at 55k for now if he's still interested and
give him a bump when the money for a raise materializes.

If you're upfront with people, life is much easier, and you'll find yourself
looking over your shoulder much less. :)

~~~
billybob
I think the "surplus effect" here would also be nice. If he was willing to
accept $55k and you say, "tell you what, let's make that $75k because we
really like you," you're going to get a very happy employee, because he
perceives that you just gave him $20k he wasn't expecting. Whereas if he just
threw out $75k and you said "fine," it doesn't feel like a gift.

You could get a similar, cheaper surplus effect with all your employees by
throwing in perks. "Now that we've agreed on salary, we also want to give you
an extra personal day each month," or a laptop, or a trip to a conference, or
a weekly lunch, or something else that's nice but not incredibly expensive.

------
lukev
As a developer who, admittedly, has never had trouble finding a salary I'm
satisfied with, and who is comfortable negotiating, I'm not a fan of
transparency. It seems like it would cause more problems than it solves.

If salaries are private, then salary is purely a function of negotiation
between employer and employee. Presumably both are happy, or at least happy
enough not to terminate the relationship.

If salaries are public, however, then a ton of other variables get thrown into
the mix. For example, it's possible to end up in a situation where I'd be
happy to stay for a certain salary, and my employer would be happy to give me
that salary to keep me, but because they can't offer all my peers the same
salary, it doesn't work out, and nobody is happy.

And that doesn't even take into account all the extra interpersonal conflict
and rivalry that transparent salaries could cause.

The mitigation for both of these issues is, of course, is to base compensation
on objective performance rankings. But that's a nontrivial problem. How do you
compare a sales guy to a developer to a DBA? Even if you did come up with a
mostly fair solution, it would still invite endless discussion and
dissatisfaction from people who feel the system wasn't evaluating them
properly.

~~~
okaramian
The problem is that when you're hiding salaries you can't really evaluate the
market. Really by hiding that information you're giving the salary giver most
of the power and those shopping around for a higher salary need to do a lot
more work to evaluate how much they're worth on the market.

I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid
significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss"
standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.

~~~
lukev
Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid?

That's ultimately the motivation for my argument - in which system are the
greatest number of actors likely to be content?

~~~
shangaslammi
This is my thoughts exactly. I'm happy with my salary because it enables me to
live comfortably and purchase the things that I want. What other people make
doesn't directly factor into it at all (not withstanding the fact that prices
usually follow the average income, which affects my purchasing power).

Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making
just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long
run.

~~~
danssig
>Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making
just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long
run.

I couldn't disagree more. The first career company I worked for, I got
transfered up from a less-than-level-one position into a high end dev position
through my own sweat [1]. Due to company policies about how much a maximum
raise could be I found myself making less than 1/5th of what that position
would normally get. For the first year or two I wasn't bothered because I
didn't have too much experience. 5 years later when every piece of software we
had deployed was my architecture, using my libraries, etc., etc. I started to
be bothered seeing other people have all these possessions while being so
frugal and getting no where. Even though I had no idea what other people were
making, it was totally obvious I was getting screwed but I didn't know how
badly. I didn't know what my market rate was.

Now as a contractor I know very closely what my market rate is because I get
to test it at least twice a year (as opposed to once every 2-5 years before).
I know what other contractors are making, I'm the lowest of my circle of
friends or close to it. That doesn't bother me because we all do different
things and they've all been contracting longer.

I know exactly where I stand and I see an obvious growth path and target. I
have _real_ (or at least the chance of it) feedback into where I stand instead
of made up nonsense in some yearly meeting where your raise was set by someone
you don't even know weeks ago and the things you have to "improve" on your
yearly review are structured to justify it. Did my new contract rate go up,
down or stay the same? Based on contacts and job ads, did I follow the market
or diverge? If market rates went up and my rate didn't that's a real call to
action. "Demonstrates acceptance of company vision - needs work" is not.

[1] Not trying to toot my own horn, others did as well. It was probably an
artifact of how awful it was where we were.

------
jrockway
I've always wanted to write exactly this blog post. Keeping your salary
confidential is great for big companies, but it benefits you in no way. You
should be making what your coworkers make. If you make less, you're being
fucked, plain and simple. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can
remedy the situation. Sadly, some people go their whole careers without doing
so.

FWIW, my first programming job only paid $45,000 a year. What a ripoff.

~~~
xnxn
> only paid $45,000 a year

Reading this kind of thing on HN makes me feel ill; my W-2 says $47k. Maybe I
need to make some changes.

~~~
tjarratt
Really depends on where you work. There are some managers that make $47k in
some parts of the US and live very comfortably.

Aside from that, contracting can help get bump your salary up. Fresh out of
college I was making less than $47k and then easily tripled my salary within a
year of contracting (although I was working insane hours and basically used
all of my allotted overtime hours). It isn't always great for mental health or
work/life balance, but it can be a great shot in the arm in terms of providing
needed work experience and money.

~~~
xnxn
Thanks -- I've toyed with the idea in the past, and I think it might be time
to just dive in.

So if anyone has resources for a web developer in Portland looking to break
into contracting, I'd love to hear from you.

------
obiefernandez
One of my earliest memories of the Salary Taboo was at the first Java One I
attended as a freshly-minted Silverstream "Field Application Engineer" (must
have been '99)

Four of us in equivalent positions, including one woman got together in my
room and started pounding down screwdrivers. After the fourth of fifth, we
started talking salaries. All of the guys were making around $120k and the
girl... (wait for it...)

$80k !!! Despite having more education and arguably better qualifications.

We had a big problem on our hands. I'll never forget we were in a room near
the top of the tall St. Francis hotel tower and she was angrily threatening to
jump out the window.

~~~
shamrock
So did she ever end up making 120k?

------
joezydeco
My teeth always grind when I read articles like this.

Yes, you can make $100K at Google. In _Mountain View, California._ How does
that correlate to someone doing the same job in Austin, Seattle, Chicago, or
Cleveland? The cost of living swings greatly when you depart the west coast.

Decent wage databases will add another variable to the position and experience
axes: the geographic area where the job is offered. (Example:
<http://www.erieri.com/>)

~~~
teej
A cost of living adjustment is one of the easiest calculations to do. Is it as
simple as this
([http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mount...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mountain+view,+austin,+seattle,+chicago,+and+Cleveland)),
or did I misunderstand your point? It doesn't seem that complicated to take a
$100k salary point and normalize for cost of living.

~~~
smokinn
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...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+in+mountain+view%2C+austin%2C+seattle%2C+chicago%2C+toronto+and+montreal+)

~~~
elai
Higher Taxes. Quebec has generally higher taxes vs. the rest of canada, and
places like washington have no state income tax. Also the locations it could
be comparing could be downtown metro area's and their costs. 3km away from the
downtown core and you get a huge drop in price.

~~~
afterburner
The taxes aren't _that_ much higher. And the rent is cheaper than Toronto.

~~~
teamonkey
You're looking at approx 30% deducted at source for 50k in Quebec, I think.
You get quite a lot for your tax dollars in Canada though.

------
kwantam
<http://www.glassdoor.com> can be a helpful resource in this regard. It needs
a bunch more critical mass before it's truly useful, but some information is
usually better than no information.

~~~
cpeterso
+1

I've found glassdoor.com to have pretty accurate (though anonymous) reports of
employers' salary ranges and employee satisfaction.

------
chrislomax
I'm at a company as a senior developer. I know the other senior developer is
on more money than me but it doesn't bother me. He is more experienced than me
and brings a lot to the table. I have been at the company longer and got the
development team going, I even hired the guy. I will continue to be "above"
him in a respect as I am part of the decision making team about which routes
to go down.

I value the development work more than the decision making though so I stand
by the fact that it doesn't bother me he is on more.

You wouldn't accept a job if you were not happy with the conditions, its a two
way street. If they offer you a job then you decide whether you want to take
it or not, they don't force your hand.

I know I could get 10k more than I am on now if I moved to another company but
I'm not in my MD's office telling him I'm leaving because I know this fact. I
believe in company values, I am helping a company grow. We are relatively
small and I have a chance to make a big difference.

When your work is your life (If you are a dev then your work IS your life),
then it's more about the experience than the cash.

But if someone came along and offered me £100k to do my job, I would take it.
I'm loyal enough to stay but I'm not stupid enough not to go.

I once worked for a company where I bragged about a massive pay rise, I was
young and stupid. It led to a lot of hard feelings. I had been promoted to
manager and given some great responsibilities. I ended up losing a lot of
friends short term (they got over it) but I learnt a valuable lesson, even if
they money you were offered comes from a position above you, you are condemed
for taking it.

A lot of people hate to see other people do well for themselves, all the
people who say that they should openly discuss their wages are either on a
decent package or they genuinely do not care what other people are on. All the
people that want to keep it private understand that it only leads to upset and
arguments.

If you can be close enough to a work colleague for them not to take it
personally then go for it, I would not say an open forum of discussing wages
is a good idea though.

------
anon-e-moose
I graduated with a CS degree and am making about $32k a year, before paying
for insurance, at an IT job.

Where can I sign up for one of these horribly low paying $45-75k/year
programming jobs?

~~~
Tangaroa
You need to buy insurance for your IT job? Please describe. I've never heard
of this before. Are there different standards for employee fault in different
states? Are there any notable court cases?

I did once work at a place where employees were financially liable for the
cost to the company of any mistakes they made, but I assumed that was legally
along the same lines as the company's policy of not sending employees 1099s
until we threatened to report them to the IRS. We were all hourly, scheduled
"independent contractors" too.

(And I hear you on the salaries since I'm making $0 a year and looking for one
of those $32k a year jobs. I can understand kick-ass coders with experience
making $80k and up, but to imply that I should expect that amount with my
degree but no talent or experience? I'm not seeing it in the market.)

~~~
krakensden
He probably means health insurance.

~~~
anon-e-moose
Correct.

~~~
potatolicious
You're going to have to tell us more about your situation - where are you,
what sort of company is it, and what is your general experience in software?

~~~
nvarsj
I'm not the OP, but I have had some experience with this when looking for my
last job. I made the mistake of posting my resume on a popular tech job site,
and the vast majority of contacts were from shady recruiters trying to get me
to work 2 hours away in a "contract to hire" position where I would have to
pay my own insurance. Making less than I was currently making, still employed
at the time.

Perhaps this is similar to the OP. It was a complete ripoff - I think they
were trying to take advantage of the massive layoffs going on in the tech
industry in my area. The arrogance of these guys was unbelievable.

------
ig1
Or you can look at actual data:

<http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151031.htm>

Average salary for a software engineer is $90k, for California $103k (this
excludes "programmers" who just implement fully spec'd code).

~~~
kenjackson
_who just implement fully spec'd code_

Fully spec'd code? I hope the PMs are getting a raise, as I've yet to see such
a thing!

~~~
Shamiq
Ouch...

 _edit_ maybe if you implemented to spec...

------
tzs
Wait...Google _starts_ at $100k/year for people fresh out of college with an
undergraduate degree? So what do they go up to for people with experience?

~~~
nvarsj
I think the best, non-hearsay source for this is anonymous data at
glassdoor.com. Google has quite a lot of data there as well (over 500 reports
from San Jose/Mountain View).

[http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-
San...](http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Software-Engineer-San-Jose-
Salaries-EJI_IE9079.0,6_KO7,24_IL.25,33_IM761.htm)

533 Salaries - Mean is 107,174, with a range of [70, 133]. Median is about
100K.

Bonuses are underreported in comparison. But of 24 reports, the bonus is 18K
on average.

This includes experienced engineers as well. So I think the original link's
claim of 100K starting salary is probably an over-estimate.

~~~
gnosis
_"non-hearsay source"_?

What do they do, let you see people's W-2's?

Remember, people can lie.

And many people feel it's in their interests to lie regarding salaries. How
can you even be sure the people who are reporting some salary figure on
glassdoor.com even ever had the job they claimed to have had, never mind
reported an accurate salary?

------
dbjacobs
When working for the federal government everyone knows everyone else's salary.
So it can be done, and is generally less corrosive than hidden salaries.

~~~
ig1
Are government salaries merit based or tenure based?

~~~
kenjackson
Both. Often times in places like the military merit is only achievable as a
function of seniority. So after x number of years after getting a grade you
qualify to be promoted to the next. Whether or not the promotion happens at
that point in time is a function of merit (and social skills).

------
olalonde
You know what would really solve the problem? If employers publicly announced
the salary they are aiming for in job ads. That way, you wouldn't feel like
you got ripped off because of bad negotiation skills.

------
droz
Not sure how much value this gives existing employees. If you go up and see
that you are making less than your coworkers, then it's a moral destroyer. If
you are making average but feel like you are doing more work than everyone
else, again moral destroyer. If you are making bank, all the sudden you are
now in everyone's cross-hairs- boom! moral destroyer (depending on the kind of
person you are).

~~~
trustfundbaby
It hurts your morale in the short term, but it should give you the impetus you
need to a. work harder b. negotiate harder when it comes to that yearly
performance review and/or possibly c. leave if you feel you're being underpaid
and the company isn't willing to pay you what you think you're worth.

I don't think full salary disclosure will ever happen, but I'm just saying, it
wouldn't be bad if it did. I for one would just like to know, for example,
what a iphone/ipad developer makes on average (then a high and low end) in ...
say ... Austin Tx vs New York or something like that.

------
olalonde
I used to be very good at salary negotiation and being confident in my
skills... until I discovered HN.

------
impendia
In academia, it is common for professors' salaries to be listed in public
databases that are searchable by anyone.

I don't particularly draw any conclusion from this; indeed, there is some
debate as to whether this is a good thing overall. My impression is that it
doesn't make much difference one way or another. In any case, it may be
interesting to HN readers to know that this is the norm in the public sector.

~~~
ender7
Incentives in academia can get pretty complex, however. In terms of bragging
rights, salary tends to factor in way below publications, tenure, chaired
position, etc. Plenty of academics are still lured away to other institutions
with the promise of a better salary, but it's less socially acceptable to
admit that that's the reason you're switching jobs (instead of, say "I would
get to be head of a program/department"). Also, unlike most tech jobs, most
academic jobs are not located in the most exciting places to live, which adds
yet another confounding factor.

------
krosaen
Interesting that all of the examples provided, google, amazon, facebook, MSFT
all apparently provide units of stock with a predictable initial value; with
stock options, all you can do is guess whether the company will grow and by
how much, but if the company didn't grow at all they would be worthless. In
fact, are we sure facebook doesn't grant options? Seems like they are still in
the growth phase to the point where they could offer options instead, whereas
MSFT would have a hard time keeping a straight face offering options at this
point.

------
dezwald
I find that in canada (toronto, ontario) programmers are not paid near the
amounts of programmers in the US.

5 years ago i started at 40K (working in Hamilton). Now living in toronto, and
i find that newly graduate programmers start around 50K-60K, and senior
programmers make anywhere between 80K-100K.

I feel that living toronto/ontario, programmers are utilized as tradesmen,
where they service the industry (corporations, banks, publications, marketing
firms etc...)

I just wish there was more of a tech/startup industry in toronto, like there
is in California, Boston, New York, etc..

~~~
iqster
Absolutely correct. I ended up leaving Toronto after I realized this. I'm not
sure if it was a good decision or bad. I ended up getting fantastic work
experience and a higher number salary. However, my quality of life wasn't the
same (because I left behind family and friends, and miss Canada in general).
Also, I realized that the salary number doesn't mean much when you live in
ridiculously expensive places.

------
glhaynes
Are there parts of the world where it's customary for salaries to be known?

~~~
rweba
In Norway all tax returns are public: <http://skattelister.no/>

In fact I just looked up an old high school classmate and was initially
surprised at how much she was making - until I realized 280,000 Kronor is only
about 50,000 USD.

~~~
michael_dorfman
FYI: 280.000 is a pretty poor salary in Norway. Gasoline here just topped
$10/gal, if that gives you an idea of the cost-of-living-adjustment necessary.
In other words, your friend is not living the life that a $50k salary in the
US would buy (in terms of disposible income.) On the other hand, she gets 5
weeks of paid vacation a year, full health care, and a year's paid maternity
leave with each child.

~~~
InnocentB
Gasoline prices aren't a good indicator of cost of living. They are a factor
to be sure, but their prices are too overwhelmed by political policy (ie
gasoline taxes) compared with other expenses, which introduces too much noise
into the data.

~~~
michael_dorfman
It was just an example; food is equally expensive, and many consumer goods are
roughly double the US equivalent price.

------
zenocon
many years ago, i was a fresh grad with an ms in comp sci working at a bay
area startup. i sucked at negotiations too, and my starting salary was 75k,
which actually wasn't too shabby (or so i thought). long story short: the
company imploded, but i was one of the few people kept around until they
turned off the lights. most of my friends had been laid off, and we had all
revealed our salaries. they made closer to 95-125k, and i was the guy in the
OP's story: they guy that worked tirelessly, did the work of 2.5 of my co-
workers, was well liked, and had a grad degree. i was pretty annoyed, so i
went into the ceo's office and said i was due a salary bump. it was the least
he could do seeing as how the company would be gone in a month, and i could
use that as leverage in negotiations for next time. he complied, and bumped my
salary to 90k. i got a new job about a month later and i negotiated 98k.

usually, you will get some incremental improvement when you move to a new
position.

------
rick888
I believe this is exactly what happens in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.
Salaries aren't public directly, but tax returns are...so you can easily see
what everyone makes.

~~~
jamaicahest
Just fyi. this is not the case in Denmark, tax returns are private here.

------
hugh3
As an academic, this thread makes me feel bad.

~~~
gaius
Why? It's a matter of the total package. What's the value of your job-for-life
and your final salary pension and your summers off? Now are you really worse
off?

------
nathanb
It would be extremely interesting to see whether or not having these data
publicly available (especially in such a context-free fashion as in this
article) is truly helpful or not. It reminds me of another HN story which saw
the front page today:
[http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3930466/...](http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3930466/That-
Developers-Salary-is-Bigger-than-Mine.htm)

Full transparency could lead to a more equitable distribution of salary, or it
could mean that companies are less able to pay top dollar for great talent
because they know that there will then be a hundred wannabes who are demanding
the same salary.

~~~
abeppu
The state of California releases salary info for all kinds of state employees
(which has shown up on HN before : <http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/>). When I
first found out, I spent 30 minutes looking up the salaries of all my old UC
Berkeley professors, and comparing them to prison doctors and state troopers.
I was saddened to see that salaries and talent/research output/prestige are
often very unrelated, even in the presence of total transparency. George
Smoot, who's a Nobel laureate only around 150k!

I also wondered whether (for example) Martin Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan,
who've collaborated on papers, classes and a book on my to-read list, ever
experience friction as a consequence of salary, given that Jordan appears to
earn roughly 85% more than Wainwright.

I know that state employees and academic salaries are subject to a lot of
forces that aren't present in tech companies -- but this makes me doubt that
transparency is enough to bring about reasonable, equitable salaries.

------
joerobot
Wow, this article comes in perfect timing for me. Hopefully, you, the HN
community could help me.

I am currently being offered a software engineering job at Apple through a
recruiting company. What I want to know is, how much should I be asking for? I
am 4 months out of college (no Ivy league, just a state college) with little
professional experience. So far, I have said $50k, but is that low-balling it?
Should I be asking for more? From what I gather, Apple won't be paying me
directly; it will be the recruiting company that will be issuing my checks.

edit: Forgot to mention that I would be moving from Louisiana to California if
I get the job.

~~~
patr1ck
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 dollars
in expenses (which your future employer should cover as part of the comp
package) and that living in the bay area is very expensive. 50k is do-able,
but won't take you very far.

~~~
joerobot
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 for further clarification.

The job is a contract job and located at the Cupertino campus. So far, I have
not had an interview with Apple and have only completed an assessment for the
recruiting company. The recruiter has been the middle-man between anyone at
Apple and I so far.

When I asked if relocation assistance would be provided, I was given an answer
of no. Any suggestions as to negotiating a way to get assistance?

~~~
inklesspen
"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.

------
plus2
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 goal as hackers is to create value, millions of dollars worth of value.
This salary talk makes us look like programmers not hackers.

~~~
Saavedro
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 dollars worth of value."
    

Screw that. My goal is to enjoy life, have fun, work on interesting stuff and
not feel like I'm getting screwed over in the process.

~~~
bcaulf
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.

------
sceaj
So, I'm most certain that I'm being given the shaft by my employer.

A coworker recently quit, because he felt underpaid (his previous job paid him
over 10% more). Negotiations with HR got him nowhere, so he left.

The coworker and I had identical jobs, and we did them in the same capacity,
with very similar skill levels. When he left, he disclosed everything to me.
Despite being underpaid, he was still being paid significantly higher than I
am (almost 25% more).

Of course, I'm no longer happy with my pay, but don't really know what to do
about it. I don't have the flexibility to just leave town, and I'm in a town
that just isn't hiring developers right now ("metro"=200k). I've applied to
places far away, but just without much luck. I thought if I got an offer, I'd
have some arguing room. But I don't; I don't have anything. Besides, if my
employer doesn't budge, I'm not prepared to take the leap. I can't leave town
because my wife is in school here, now.

I started at a lower pay rate, because they hired me without a college degree.
I've been working for them for three years now, and have been moving up in
pay, but I started so low that it hasn't amounted to much.

I think a huge part of my problem is that I don't have a college degree. I
think that I've obviously shown that I'm capable of doing the job, regardless,
though. How much should the degree _really_ matter? I've seriously been
considering applying to a lower tier school (I mean low tier state school, not
U of Phoenix, etc.) for a degree completion program, just so I can pad my
resume up some. I don't know if that hurts more than it helps, though. I did
already finish up the handful of courses I needed for the A.S. from the local
community college.

~~~
danssig
If you have no other options then that decreases your market value. The good
news is: you now know of the problem and you know what is standing in the way
of fixing it.

I've always heard that a degree is worth 5 years experience.

------
pilib
While not being a programmer, I did work as a sysadmin for a hosting company.
Since I quit around 2 years ago, I was asked by my ex-colleagues on several
occasions would I consider returning there. Now, these questions were raised
by my coworkers and not my boss, but nevertheless, my answer was the same.
Yeah, sure, if they double my salary from 2 years ago, assign me to a higher
tier support level so I don't have to deal with customers in any way.

Simple reason for this was that knowing my peers salary, both those of lower,
equal and higher position, I knew how much I was worth to them, and how much
others were slacking.

So, with public salaries, you get that. With them being private, I would
probably ask for a small raise based on economic situation. I'm not saying I
wouldn't work for the same money as before, It's just that I'd feel like a
jerk toward my self in that case.

------
marklabedz
On one hand, being able to compare yourself to others is very valuable. The
challenges arise though in how to square two different numbers. What is the
value of each individual skill? If 2 people have differing abilities in 3
different skills, are all skills valued equally?

------
thmzlt
How are startup salaries compared to the big companies?

------
gaustin
I avoid all of the fuss.* I work for a State agency in a low population state.
There's a published ceiling and floor on salaries (based on pay band). All
salaries are public record.

* Tongue firmly in cheek.

------
jinushaun
Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource.
Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement. This race to
make more money for the sake of money just leads to accelerating inflation
across the board. As far as I am concerned, salary is just a number and people
can live just fine on $50,000 if they we weren't such a consumerist society.

~~~
icedpulleys
There's a considerable difference between having a sense of entitlement and
being rational.

~~~
masterzora
Clearly. And this difference is exactly what we're seeing a lot of here.

Rational: "I am unhappy with $60,000 because it does not meet my needs."

Entitlement: "I was happy with $60,000 until I found out Fred was making
$61,000."

~~~
danssig
Wrong.

Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what
ever the company offers me and be happy"

Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also
subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market
value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my
market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or I'm not
earning my market rate even though my company (and CEO!) are"

The only entitlement in this picture is you two giving proxy entitlement to
the companies to make even more money by underpaying everyone.

~~~
masterzora
No one said that you should take whatever the company offers and just be
happy; that would be ridiculous. In fact, as someone who's weighing multiple
offers right now, step one is negotiating with these companies to see who can
meet my needs and, after that's met, see who can better meet my wants.

However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty
enough for me to be happy and then some, there is no reason for me to be
unhappy if I find my coworker is making $Y + 10%. If I needed that 10% to be
happy, I shouldn't have been happy with $Y.

Now, where such a thing _is_ rational is if I'm not happy with $Y but I don't
believe I can get a better offer so I take it and then later find out I
probably could have gotten more. In this case, I'm already unhappy about $Y
(although less unhappy than $0), so I continue to be unhappy when I find out I
might have been worth $Y + 10% but am not receiving it.

~~~
danssig
So you, like the OP, are assuming everyone posting in this thread about
getting more money are petty losers who just go "waaaah! He get's $500 more a
year than I do! THAT'S NOT FAIR!". Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it
sound fair? Why would you assume that instead of assuming they understand the
market and that salary is simply the market value of your time?

~~~
masterzora
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'd love to see you point to a single point
where I said anything like that.

A much better representation of what I am saying: Let's say that I am making
$50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do
not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly
I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational
for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty
seconds ago. This is precisely what both I and junishaun are saying, where you
only care about more money for the sake of more money.

If you weren't happy with the $50,000 to begin with, then you have every right
to be upset when you find out you could have gotten more. However, this is not
the case I've seen represented by most of the HN comments on these various
"salary taboo" threads.

~~~
danssig
>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 pointing out that you disagreed with his
application of his theory _to HN posters_ (you still haven't).

So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be
behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread? No one has
claimed to be mad about the money for the money's sake so this whole line is a
straw man. Unless you (like the OP) _are_ claiming other people here are
behaving this way.

>et's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More
money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all
essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000,
or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same
$50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago.

Again this is wrong. The mythical person was happy because he/she assumed the
market rate for what they did was $50k. Now they've just seen evidence that
it's actually $100k. The rational response is to take action as they're
potentially leaving $50k (or more) of your value on the table. The person's
happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is
based on finding out the truth.

You're only going to live so long and you only have so much earning potential.
Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness
is the furthest thing from rational.

~~~
masterzora
> 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.

~~~
danssig
>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.

~~~
masterzora
> 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?

~~~
danssig
>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.

So again, you're judging _some of the people_ on HN in a very harsh manner
based on pure assumptions of your own.

>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the
extreme case you posted.

I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.

>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.

Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found
out he was actually being exploited, _of course he was upset_!

>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.

It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his
time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his
happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product",
far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you
find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what
"rational" means.

>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.

Fine, and I would say it _isn't_ in this case. Being treated fairly is.

>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.

But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are
getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover
the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your
happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would
be very odd to _not_ be upset.

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

I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what
I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny
my offering is worth.

>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for
money's sake?

This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest
or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time
at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now
others may get paid less.

And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got
billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about
CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call
them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case
they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.

------
fsipie
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?

~~~
acodingdude19
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.

------
olalonde
Anyone has figures for IBM?

~~~
bricestacey
See glassdoor: <http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/IBM-Salaries-E354.htm>

------
lukejduncan
In Silicon Valley, is it expected that you'll negotiate an offer? If so, by
how much? In general in Detroit, offers are final (clearly a generalization,
but true of big co's).

~~~
danssig
This is a strange question. Of course most any company hopes you won't
negotiate. What they expect is that you'll value yourself more than their
initial offer and _will_ negotiate.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you about Detroit. I believe that you believe
that, I believe companies tell you that but I unless all big Detroit companies
only have very junior people I don't believe for one second that this is
actually the case.

~~~
lukejduncan
Maybe I should rephrase the question: In Silicon Valley do most people
negotiate? Is it just part of the culture?

------
rch
I've found that talking about grossing a figure up to cover taxes can be a
good way to get your feet wet with negotiating.

------
lukejduncan
HN needs anon comments. I have specific questions, but not ones I want my name
on =)

~~~
mhansen
Make a sockpuppet account.

~~~
yuhong
Yea, people often make throwaways for Ask HN. I'd prefer people doing it less
whatever possible, though I know sometimes they are needed (I am not expecting
questions about acquisitions to be made non-anonymously at this point for
example).

------
michaelochurch
I actually think full transparency on salary could make this nasty issue go
away. Post what _everyone_ is making and let people negotiate a fair package.
There would be some transitional pain in the first 2 months, and payroll costs
might go up 10 percent, but people would be happier in the long run. Why use
inaccurate gossip instead of full transparency?

What drove up compensation in banking in the 2000s was _inaccurate_
compensation reporting. Pay in banking is one's status, so everyone would
claim to have received top bonus when applying to private equity jobs or
trying to make a lateral move. This meant that whatever bonus was paid to the
top 5% of each year would be claimed by _everyone_ in that year. That
ratcheted up pay expectations over time. Banks actually liked this, because
the high pay enabled them to make entry-level conditions and hours even worse,
but most companies wouldn't be able to afford that process.

In the long run, I think that salary discovery by inaccurate gossip is more
expensive and volatile than full transparency, and I can't think of a good
reason why, in any company, everyone shouldn't have access to everyone else's
base compensation (performance bonuses can be private; the range should be
public but not the amount.)

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I rather suspect that full salary transparency would result in a race-to-the-
top.

~~~
jseliger
I was just going to say something like this. In _The Logic of Life_ , Tim
Harford writes about how CEO pay reformers thought that making CEO pay public
would cause companies to reduce pay because high pay was so outrageous. The
opposite happened.

Why? Because who wants to be in the bottom 50%? Practically no one. If you
open up salary information, everyone is going to want to be "above average,"
even in companies that pride themselves on hiring exceptional people--like
Google.

This year, the median is $90K, so everyone will want $95K. Next year, it'll be
95K, so everyone will want $100K, and so on.

~~~
michaelochurch
Fog Creek has a "ladder" system based on some fairly objective criteria. Based
on years of experience and certain assessments of project scope and skill
level, each employee gets a number between 8 and 16 that determines pay. This
means that compensation is based on performance.

Now, the only point of controversy is whether the employee and employer agree
on performance. If there's a discrepancy there, at least there's something
meaningful to discuss and, if the difference is irresolvable, then they should
separate.

This isn't perfect, but the gossip-driven salary-discovery system is even more
imperfect and has the same problems.

~~~
gavingmiller
Could you elaborate on this criteria?

~~~
egor83
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/04/01.html> more links inside

older version <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000038.html>

------
yuhong
As it happens, there was this Ask HN about salary. Guess why it had to be
created using a anonymous throwaway:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2440956>

