
Engineers, come get your $250K salary - amduser29
http://www.cnet.com/news/silicon-valley-talent-wars-engineers-come-get-your-250k-salary/
======
7Figures2Commas
The fine print:

> Not every Weeby engineer will earn the million dollars. Weeby will subject
> everyone to monthly performance reviews, and managers will make quick
> decisions, either granting the next $10,000 raise or offering feedback about
> needed improvement. Some will be terminated but given a "healthy severance"
> of at least $20,000, plus references.

This structure sounds like a recipe for stress, low morale and high turnover.
And why in the world would the company promise references to employees it had
to fire for not meeting expectations? "John is a great programmer. He made it
to $150,000/year in annual compensation before we determined that he wasn't
worth $160,000/year and had to terminate him. He's a steal if you pay him less
than $140,000/year!"

------
Iftheshoefits
I'm mixed about this. On one hand, $250k/yr seems like it should be a bit
above market rate for the value engineers provide their companies. Even
mediocre engineers provide far more value than the typical market rate. Market
rate for mediocre or even slightly below average talent should be much closer
to the mid-$150k range than it is. Good or excellent engineers should already
have base compensation around the high $100k/low $200k range anyway.

That said, this company is a game company at its core, and I would expect
these salaries and perks to come at quite a high price in other terms
(particularly work-life balance).

~~~
alexanderss
Can't say I agree that "mediocre or even slightly below average talent" should
be compensated in the "mid-$150k range" (is that a way of saying $155k?), so
close to excellent engineers. This seems to misunderstand how market rate is
determined (especially relative to equity compensation), conflate "market
rate" and "the value engineers provide their companies," or defend high
compensation for mediocre performance. The logic is flawed regardless, as
"mediocre or even slightly below average talent" will actually provide the
company with negative value, costing the software team and the company much
more than they offer.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
I meant the "mid-$100k" range, as in around $150k/yr. I understand how market
rate is determined. Frequently it's determined by companies' explicit
collusion or other means, and almost never by an honest appraisal of the value
an engineer actually provides. I was expressing the opinion that the model is
flawed, and that market rate should be much higher than it currently is,
across the board. That is to say, good to excellent engineers should be in the
$200k-$300k/yr or more (base--not all in) range, and average (+/-) should be
around the $150k/yr (base) range. At 33% above the "mediocre" range I suggest,
$200k/yr isn't "so close" to good at all.

Also, the enormous quantity of applications, products, and services with very
poor code backing them is a very strong indicator that "mediocre or even
slightly below average talent" not only does not provide negative value, but
just the opposite. Software companies these days have a lot of revenue, driven
by sales _of a software product_ that engineers get very little (relatively
speaking) compensation for.

------
acornax
Isn't increasing pay like this just part of how the market rate adjusts? In
this case it seems a bit extreme but it seems obvious that if a company is
having a tough time attracting talent they should pay more.

------
mkaziz
This reads like a press release, and not like real reporting ...

------
elwell
> Weeby.com's Michael Carter

.co _

