Hacker News Reader

Comment by usgroup | Hacker News Reader

This is very noticeable in London. It's a relative rarity to find a dev that's worked anywhere longer than a couple years. The simple economics of it is that until a certain salary, there is no easier way to ratchet up the pay scale then to use the negotiating leverage of having a job to get the next one on better terms. Meanwhile, the supply situation for devs is such that employers have to accept the situation. I'm not sure it's an employer led effect at all; especially given the size of the SME scene in London.

View on HN

> I'm not sure it's an employer led effect at all; especially given the size of the SME scene in London.

In the US at least, my experience has been that most employers would rather let a good dev walk than raise his/her salary to match the going market rate, even if said dev has copious amounts of domain knowledge, works well with the team, regularly receives positive feedback on performance reviews, and consistently ships high-quality code.

This is sad to me, but I also think employees are right to vote with their feet and seek jobs elsewhere in such circumstances. Maybe the high turnover will raise some red flags and cause the employer to implement changes. If not, then these employees are smart to leave what I think will prove to be a sinking ship in the long run.

In my experience, the executives in companies don't even consider that, the only consider the total cost of development. Whether it's a good developer or a bad one doesn't even enter their thinking because they are so far removed from it. They don't have nuanced thinking in those regards or long term planning what so ever. It's quite old fashioned.

It's up to individual managers to stick their necks out, and they most likely won't. They are told to reduce costs and they do. Middle managers are trying to hold on for dear life, their future prospects are much worse than a developer in high demand.

My experience is working at small, great companies that get acquired and the acquiring company usually wrecks everything.

But hey, if you need justification to not stay at a company, there it is. Unfortunately for me, I'm just about capped. Contracting or building a company is the only way up from here on. Having survived the dot.bomb, I can tell you both have a lot of risk that needs to be calculated.

I'm reminded of the Netflix slide deck that was making the rounds, last year. Adjusting pay, yearly, based on the market value of the employee seems like an ideal solution to this problem. If you stay at a typical company for a year you might get a 5% raise and have some seniority and relationships under your belt. This model tends to undervalue the true costs of replacing you and the likelihood that there's another company willing to pay 10%+ over your current pay.

In fact you can pay under the market, a bit, if you treat your people like humans, develop them, stretch them and insist on a positive working environment (no rudeness, fair dos for everyone even if they look, talk or smell different). People will not switch away for minimal reward and considerable risk of being landed in a dead end with a bunch of sociopaths. Also many people realise that their current track has 5/10 years of seniority to build - and then that's your lot. The option of switching to management or to tracks like architecture or even non-functional work like finance or intellectual property is attractive to many people.

Well said. Also think that the cost of replacement is usually not included in decision calculations at almost any point in time. Perhaps paying N above market may actually be the cheaper thing to do.

London seems like a place that could easily attract amazing developers simply by raising salaries. The money is there...it is the fucking financial capital of the world (well maybe 2nd after NYC). If the executives at UK financial companies wouldn't artificially hold down salaries, there could probably be a lot more innovation and a much better marketplace for tech workers.

Yea, seriously. I've gotten multiple recruiter spam emails that offer the equivalent less than half of my current salary for an engineering job in London. No, thanks.

Has it occurred to you that they hold down salaries, because they can? Apparently there are many people willing to work for that money.

The word "market" assumes that each party can walk away from the deal.

But if you are the sole bread-winner and jobless, you are not in a position to walk away.

> Has it occurred to you that they hold down salaries, because they can?

Can we please have a conversation without the snark? Thank you.

> Apparently there are many people willing to work for that money.

I understand that they probably do find workers willing to work that wage. But what I'm stating is: they can have much more, a thriving hub of tech innovation much like SV, if they were to pay more, and attract talent from around the world, like SV does today. That talent and ecosystem would probably help them a lot more overall.

There is more to creating "another SV" than just paying more, and it is quite complex and not precisely measurable.

If you are interested, The Economist had a cover story on this a couple of years ago, explaining it much better than I ever could.

Sure, but pm90's point is still a good one (as someone who's worked for tech companies in both markets).

But how is it that there is always another company willing to pay more? Do companies hire devs with X years of experience without planning to pay more for X+1 years of experience?

They will pay you the range you ask for. If Joe is offered a job at 50k but he does not know the position range is 50 - 70k, he might accept it. Joe now has a job making 50k a year with the potential to earn 3% raises annually. Bob might be offered the same position, but right from the beginning he has indicated he expects to earn 67k or more, they will offer him 67k.

The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company. Often there is a range but the employee will not know it unless they insist on asking for what they perceive they are worth.

Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it. You should provide your salary expectations prior to reaching the interview stage otherwise you are potentially wasting your time.

> The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company.

I know this logic is common, but I'm not at all sure it's true. Hiring at the minimum you can is a major source of turnover, at least in high-turnover industries like software. If someone is work 50k-70k and you offer them 50k, there's a real risk that they'll get a recruiter calling in 8 months talking about 70k. Hiring is expensive, both directly (several months salary in costs?) and indirectly (repeated ramp-up periods and a loss of institutional knowledge), which makes this into a serious false economy.

I've seen several companies get themselves into real trouble by striking too many 'good' salary deals. They ended up serving as springboards for people who didn't yet know their own value, and losing all their hires within a year or two. Well, almost all - the ones who stuck around were often the less-capable hires they'd overvalued in the first place!

I used to share the view that in a negotiation, never make the first offer. The fear is coming in way below as your example indicates. Over time, my attitude changed. I found that by constantly interviewing, I could get a feel for the local market, and have a much better idea of where the ceilings are.

For example over a few years and 3 jobs, I found that $120k was about the max for senior devs in my city and tech stack. When interviewing I would lead with "is 120k in the range for this position?". And getting that could sometimes be a stretch. When I found a company offering 10-15% above that, I took it. I knew they were desperate, and the work would probably suck (and I was right) but no overtime and lot's of vacation make up for it (for now).

That's just not how London works. It may be a cultural difference but a non-contractor candidate asking for salary during an interview is considered a big red flag.

I agree, salary should not be discussed during the interview, it should occur prior to the interview. It should take place with the hr rep. during the interview setup or initial contact conversation that way salary does not have to be discussed in the interview.

It does not have to be a detailed initial conversation, something as simple as "what is the salary range for this position, due to my current responsibilities and level I am looking for something in the range of x to y. Is that realistic?" HR will give you a yes or no, you say thank you and decide where to go from there.

Yeah, I didn't make that clear, I don't ask that in the interview, but with HR or the person recruiting for the firm (before any interviews). One time had a recruiter lead me to believe the salary on offer was upto $X, then after interviewing and negotiating salary, found they would only go so high as $X - $Y. I declined and no one was happy with that situation.

You're agreeing, but not really. gncb was correctly stating that the red flag is asking too soon (the first interview) rather than the first interview being too late.

> Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it.

This cuts both ways too. If a candidate asks the salary before the interview, many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money".

And if a candidate doesn't wait until the interview to discuss money, they have very little to justify the average market-rate wage they're trying to convince the company to pay them.

> ...many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money".

The owners, the shareholders, are "only in it for the money". It makes sense therefore that all other participants interacting with the company are also. Promulgating a behavior standard under the guise of propriety that doesn't align with the owners' position is shipping out an externality to everyone at the table who follows that standard, benefiting only the shareholders.

I'm not a fan of this approach to business myself, but that's the cards we've all been dealt, and until the system is changed, we learn how to play by the right rule book.

I don't worry so much about that. I'd hope in the modern world that everyone understands that no one really means everything they say when dancing around the "where do you see yourself in five years" kind of interview question.

My reason for not leading with salary is basically that I'm going to be asking them for the high end of what I hope I've accurately ascertained to be their range, and I'd rather the first impression I leave them with be "we have to get that guy" rather than "is he really worth what he's asking"?

Yes, it costs some time I suppose, but I find there are very few activities one can engage in that are more lucrative per hour than correctly doing a job hunt. I can eat the time if need be.

If a company believes I'm only in it for the money, I'm likely to think that company is using "caring about the work" as a way to reduce my salary. Salary translates to investment. Caring about the work won't grant me another 100k at retirement.

The only reason to show that I care about the work and take potentially less salary is if I think the economy is going to take a turn for the worse and I need a job for 3-10 years to ride out the storm. In which case I have to take a lower salary, but at least I have a job. Remember, I can't know how much the company is able/willing to afford.

And just to clarify, not caring about the work doesn't mean doing a terrible job. It means giving them what I'm paid for, but I'm not going to go the extra mile for them (overtime) because there's no incentive to do so.

I hear what you are saying and agree with you. A company though for the most part is "Only in it for the money" and I can't feed my family with work satisfaction. I would caution against working for a company that has a problem with me asking for the salary range. The entire point of a job is to earn money.

This is just my opinion though and is in no way a road map for others.

> Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it. You should provide your salary expectations prior to reaching the interview stage otherwise you are potentially wasting your time.

I once asked an internal recruiter the salary (as to not waste each other's time) and he returned a tirade of abuse about me not clearly being a good fit if money is my only focus. The guy organises a few meetups as well, fair to say I'll avoid anything he touches at all costs.

Edit: if you publish/ let me know the the range, I'm happy to interview.

Not sure X years of experience matters all that much. For example, Java dev goes to employer and adds Hadoop to her experience, then applies for other jobs for 10k more ambiently for a few months. Eventually nails one and packs her bags, and so on recursively.

Sometimes dev don't add anything at all and just go for more money because of change in condition. JS or mobile app dev is a great example. Nothing changed; they just became more demanded. Meanwhile, you can't match someones salary to the market every day of the week, so they leave.

From the employer side London is brutal.

What do devs get paid in London on average? I always had the impression, perhaps wrong, that software engineers seem underpaid in England relative to the US, even accounting for currency and cost of living and such (which, probably London is as bad as SF on that front).

(i've also gotten the impression that there's not the same level of cultural esteem for engineers and scientists and such in England, and that this might have something to do with it. also could be wrong or outdated.)

No personal experience, but salaries in Europe seem, on the whole, utterly pathetic compared to the US, at least looking at listings. I don't get the impression London bucks this trend.

That being said, I moved to Europe and am pretty happy with where I'm at. It helped that my first job was with a company that had SF and Dublin offices, and I knew what the rate in SF was.

It's public sector and Ireland, but here's an example of a job paying €28k in Dublin that would be triple that in the states. Note the use of docx...

http://www.museum.ie/NationalMuseumIreland/media/Corporate-I...

Salaries overall in the UK are comparable to the US (similar median), but programming falls at a different place on the salary curve. In the US, programmer is among the highest-paid professions, often earning 2-3x what would be a typical salary in other white-collar, professional jobs. In the UK that's not the case, and programmers earn just a typical white-collar salary that you'd earn in any job that requires university-level qualifications (or equivalent experience).

Unlike the US, I don't believe there is much of a perception of a "STEM shortage", which may be a contributing factor. Programmers are just not seen as particularly hard to find, at least no more than any other skilled profession. Especially after the fall of the Iron Curtain, which brought in a lot of highly skilled STEM folks into the common market.

There is no shortage of programmers in the US, either (except, temporarily, in SF/SV).

There is this myth, which uses an example of a handful of lucky "tech" people like Jobs or Gates or Zuckerberg who got rich and famous. In fact, none of them were/are programmers (though Zuckerberg _can_ hack around a bit)

A few numbers to refute your point about programmers being among the highest paid professions:

- doctors $400K-$800K

- lawyers - starting salary $160K[2], can go into millions, if you make it as a partner

- MBAs - even lowly "marketing managers" - often glorified secretaries - can make $150K or more

- chemical engineers - at least comparable with SW

- pharmacists

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/dealbook/welcome...

> In fact, none of them were/are programmers

Bill Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter in assembly, he was more of a programmer than the majority of professional programmers today.

Actually, there's no shortage of programmers in SF/SV either.

Contracting is reasonably good in London. You can easily get £5-600 a day if you're a (provably) senior Rails/Java/C++ and well above that with exotic financial or uberniche things.

(Which is probably why more people are turning to contracting in London.)

Contracting in London seems to have morphed from "we want somebody for a short term project" to "for the level of experience/knowledge/skills we want this is literally the only way we can get it".

I've seen RoR jobs go from £35k to £60k in London (and even ones as low as £27k...). Might just be the ones recruiters have tried to pitch though.

"How does £35k sound?" "Like a three day week."

The average is not a very useful metric since the gap between IB/hedge fund pay and the rest is huge. It's not unheard of for developers with 4-5 years of experience to make close to £100k.

is that number supposed to be low or high?

in the US $120k is a reasonable (mid-range) salary for a new college graduate in Silicon Valley, Seattle, or New York at one of the big 5 tech firms. It's comparable at financial institutions.

probably $60-$70k for a more "blue-collar" programming job at a lower-profile company, or in a lower cost-of-living area.

You're not wrong.

Right, so does the employer not realize that the Hadoop experi nice they require is valuable? Or are they hoping the dev doesn't know it's more valuable? It seems to me hat in cases like these thare employers are hiring and training but then not compensating employees for the new skills. Thus there is always another employer willing to value that training.

The business of course wants it for as little as possible, but pricing individual skills can be tricky unless they've done something with it you're specifically looking for. In that case, you know they can do what you want. It's difficult to know if "6 months of Hadoop XP" means more than tutorials and basic usage and if they'll be able to solve your business's problems.

10 years of experience vs. 1 year 10 times is still an issue and should affect the price of an employee, but it can be difficult to asses.

Indeed! But who is the greater fool in this case? The job-hopping employee looking for money, or the new employer willing to pay more for the job-hopper?

It's difficult to say by predicting. You'd need to know what every business would pay for your skills at any given time, plus what everyone else was paid for their skills, and the rate of false positive hires or hires that ultimately hurt the employer's bottom line (false positive hires, negative productivity devs, bullshit artists, etc.). That kind of price information just isn't available. Otherwise the market would be closer to efficiently pricing developers, matching devs with jobs, and would be more accurate with what individual skills are worth.

I can't help but think contracting is becoming more popular in London. I've been doing it myself now since 2013. I've seen a couple of perm staff walk out of jobs due to petty reasons in the last year, both were <1 year into their roles.

Actually trying to move into more of a consulting role going forward, but there is such a demand for contractors IMO it could be shortening the availability of good developers in London.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com