I am stunned by this calculator.
I think presenting a base salary based on location is a mistake. If it had one line for base salary (by role), then an explicit adjustment for location it would feel better. Having a single line item feels like “Devs in San Francicso are just $13k better at their jobs than those in Austin.” I think all that’s happening is that their presentation doesn’t match their intention, but it still feels lousy.
The “dependents” addition is what really kills me. It feels like some 50s nonsense.
Salaries mean and measure so many things: the employee’s contribution to the company, the company’s success, the cost of living, the company’s valuation of that role and employee. It’s hard to disentangle these perspectives, and this presentation really pushes more buttons than I have attention to sort out. But it’s super-interesting data and food for thoughts, so even if I hate some of their decisions (and I’m still making up my mind if I do) I’m very glad to see this.
I hope to master my craft one day so i can be 30% better than someone with no experience.
You make a good point. I’ve noticed that open salaries are commonly associated with flatter-than-usual salaries. They’re not totally unusual, but it sets a pretty hard cap. Whereas, I’ve known a lot of companies to pay an expert more than their CEO, at least in terms of salary.
Should be careful that this isn’t a tactic to avoid paying for expertise/experience on the part of the founders, because that seems to be the big win for the shareholders.
Saw that and raged a bit too.
Put it this way: how many new developers can an experienced engineer mentor? How many mistakes can a newbie make that have to get fixed by everyone else?
That’s capitalism for you.
I know familial status is a protected class for housing, and it’s a protected status for employment in at least 3 states. It’s pretty regressive to have the “dependents” category.
Things I particularly dislike about this:
The Good Living curve wasn’t really explained…would be interested in seeing how it was generated. It seems like a great way of handwaving away certain salary adjustments, if used by somebody so inclined.
The equity-or-salary choice. Fuck that so hard. Every employee should get meaningful equity in a company, because otherwise it doesn’t matter to them if the company does well or poorly. An extra $10K is something you can recoup switching jobs. And yet, companies that do this sort of thing keep scratching their heads and going “oh gee golly I wonder why my employees are loyal…”.
The Role Value adjustment also isn’t really explained. Again, especially if used by suits, this code be a way of making a custom title that magically makes less than should be expected. In fact, the entire stupid trend of silly titles pisses me off, because it makes it very hard to figure out what a role does in the market and hence what it should be paid. How is a “Diversity Hero” going to figure out if they’re getting shafted, when they can’t even find their title in a salary database?
On the other hand, and to be fair, let’s be clear that this is at least a good attempt. We at least see their formula to disagree with it–which is a lot better than most places.
I really can’t believe their employees tolerate this “formula”. Just reading about it makes me a little angry. I can just imagine the abuse, favoritism and politicking that’s possible with some of these decisions.
And some of the salary ranges for people doing the same job are just ludicrous. Is the work done by their iOs developer in San Francisco really worth $92k more than the work done by the guy in Italy? How do they justify hiring people in high cost of living areas?
As far as I’m concerned, salaries should be determined by the approximate value a person provides the company, and that’s it.
I’ve been mulling it over and I think I prefer it to the norm. All the politicking that’s possible with some of these decisions is, well, slightly less and less opaque than the omnipresent practice of secret closed-door negotiations. We can argue about the formula and change it, but no amount of arguing over the current practice can be sure to change it.
As for paying on value per person - I agree with that, and I think that looks a lot like a worker-owned co-op.
It kills me how the lower you go on the pay scale, the more bullshitty the job titles get. Sorting by salary, I see rows of Happiness Heroes, Community Champions, and Content Crafters. I’m sure those people are doing real things of serious value, but they need to get their job titles in order so their résumés don’t look like an in-joke.
Does anyone confirm titles? I put ehatever made sense to me on my resume.
Depends on the company, if they ask for a reference and call the company some will ask for confirmation on title and responsibilities since they often cannot ask what your salary was. (Depends on what state you’re in I think)
It looks like the Systems Engineer at $76K is ripe for the picking.
Adjusting compensation for dependents is messed up and reflects a sickening level of paternalistic moralization. I am uninterested in having a company give me a bonus for impregnating my partner. That’s between her and I. I’d like to keep my relationship with my company professional. The location piece is also retrograde. We live in the age of the internet and telecommunications. It’s no longer accurate to base my value on the cost of living where I sleep.
Be careful what you wish for, here.
Do you want to be paid at the same rates as the bodyshops in India, when you’re living in New York?
To be frank, it’s not a wish, it’s my reality. I live in Utah and work remotely for a bay area company.