Hacker News Reader

Through my long career, I've notice virtually no correlation between my pay and the utility of my position. And indeed, I've had one or two jobs like yours. Sadly for my bank book, I can only stand being useless for relatively short stretches.

I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying. It was also useful, though perhaps not at the top of that list.

It's annoying that so many useless jobs pay so much. But even worse that it's so hard to find a position where being useful is even a possibility.

My experience is similar. I look at it a lot like insurance policies. For instance, my company once had a service contract with a software company that cost about a million a year. One time I audited that service contract, and found that they'd used it exactly ONCE the entire. A million dollar phone call.

But they're not going to cancel the contract, because they want the support in case they need it.

> I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying.

Weird. I share this experience. My first tech job was really great, I was constantly doing interesting things, actively making things better for everybody all the time, really like all my colleagues, it was part time, and I made a pittance.

There's an economic theory that job satisfaction is a kind of compensation. That is, you have to pay people more to do unsatisfying jobs.

For those who are interested, the phrase to Google is “compensating differential”

This is just a form of supply and demand. More people want to do $desirable_job or $satisfying_job (and there's plenty of overlap), so you don't have to pay them as much, because there's always another person in line to take the position.

“Passion” careers are a great example of this. Many people would gladly save the planet or do art for free, so the pay in arts and environmental protection is really low.

There is such a theory, yes. It has obviously never encountered low-paying, shitty, backbreaking work on the factory floor.

I don't think the theory implies it's the only effect on salaries, only that it's a factor.

Obviously when the workers have very few or no alternatives, the effect will be minimal.

But I know people who dropped out of college courses that provided a good chance of a middle-class income for a career that fulfilled them more, despite paying like crap. So the effect exists.

I doubt that top-paying jobs like CEO are undesirable to those people who have them as well as those who would like to have them. On the other hand all really shitty jobs pay nothing - that's true for hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people worldwide. A >100k$ programmer office job in the US does not belong in the "shitty job" category, no matter how much someone complains online because they are bored while comfortably sitting in their chair waiting for the next big paycheck to arrive reliably.

That rule must have been made by one of those super-rich people grumbling about how unfair life treats them and how the government attempts to steal "their" money.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/02/po...

It's just basic supply and demand.

Top paying jobs like CEO are top paying because the supply of trusted people, who boards are willing to hand control over billions of assets to, is vanishingly small. Programming jobs are reasonably well paying because businesses are careful about who they hand their code over to, although not the extreme degree of CEO. And something like fry cook is low paying because those businesses are willing to hire just about anyone.

But we cannot completely discount the effects of desirability. If your employment options are fry cook or oil rig worker, most people would prefer fry cook and thus oil rig worker has considerably higher wages due to the aversion to the job, and therefore reduction in supply at the price point of fry cook. Of course, increased compensation can prompt people to look in alternative directions.

It's not just basic supply and demand though. There are many other factors driving up CEO pay.

1. CEO pay at public companies is public, so they feel the need to keep up with other companies.

2. The incestuous relationship between CEOs and the boards of directors that set their pay.

CEO compensation isn't tied to performance.

> 1. CEO pay at public companies is public, so they feel the need to keep up with other companies.

That's just basic supply and demand. Since pay is public, people know how much the other party will balk at, affecting the supply.

> 2. The incestuous relationship between CEOs and the boards of directors that set their pay.

That's just basic supply and demand. Like I said, the people who have that kind of relationship are vanishingly small.

> CEO compensation isn't tied to performance.

There is no pay that is truly tied to performance. Just basic supply and demand.

CEO pay is not just supply and demand. You cannot even tell what "supply" even is, because "CEO supply" is nothing that can be well defined. You could make a lot of people CEO from the 2nd and 3rd ranks who also have the experience and knowledge, or you can seek only people who already have been CEOs - which does not guarantee anything at all, because CEO success depends a lot on context and circumstances. CEO supply is extremely flexible based on psychology for one (who you are willing to accept for the role is extremely subjective and based on personal preferences), and can also very easily be changed through actions (whom do you give a chance to learn to lead, and how). So the possible "supply" of CEOs is decided on a whim to a large degree, based on subjectivity (even if it's attempted to be hidden by some "thorough search" - which uses those same subjective criteria and selection heuristics).

You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims pretending that it somehow proves anything as long as you use the right magic words from economic thinking.

> You cannot even tell what "supply" even is

It’s pretty easy to figure out. Typically there will be exactly one person the board is willing to trust. It doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion.

Being the only person in the world deemed suitable for the task gives incredible leverage when demand is near infinite.

> You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims

It would appear that you’re simply overthinking this. We’re talking about basic supply and demand, not a complex economic theory. It is simply an observation of what people agree to. We call it basic because it doesn’t represent anything more.

> We’re talking about basic supply and demand

I refer to what was written above. The only "thinking" I can see on your side is how to prolong a non-argument - you just throw out random stuff, going for quantity and endless repetition, but there is not a coherent recognizable thought. Nice try, but I'd say after your first reply it turned into trolling. You are pretty good at saying a lot without saying anything at all though, I give you that much.

If you don't understand my explanation you are welcome to ask questions. I also encourage you to refer to other sources on the internet that go into more detail that I ever could in a short comment. You don't have to assume someone is a troll just because a comment isn't perfectly eloquent.

CEO pay isn't "basic supply and demand" unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless.

Board Member: "Why are you paying your brother $500k to be your assistant?. Surely an assistant shouldn't make that much money."

CEO: "I really want my brother to do it, and since I only have 1 brother it's just basic supply and demand."

You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand, but it's not really useful to do so. And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand".

> unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless.

Worthless in what way? Supply and demand is far easier to write than this long-winded explanation I have ended up giving to explain what it means. That seems well worthwhile, at least when in company who understand the meaning of the term. It is not like it is some grand unified theory of economics, if that is what you were hoping for.

> You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand

Absolutely. All interaction has some cost, and supply and demand observes the willingness of all parties to accept that cost. That is exactly what supply and demand is all about.

> And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand"

What is it that most of you have in mind? Supply, by definition, is the quantity of a product available at any price. Demand, by definition, is the desire and willingness to pay a price. Supply and demand is simply the observation of both and how they interact with each other. I am honestly unsure of what else you could think it means?

That is an economic theory? This seems like an obvious observation that most people should be able to make.

As I continue my (relatively young as a 20-something year old) web development career, I occasionally look back at my KFC job I had during uni and end of school with great fondness.

I honestly really enjoyed that job - it was fun working with great people doing a job of the right level of complexity and mental stimulation.

Well you're only in your 20s, it's not too late to make KFC your career if that's your passion.

I learned very early on that pay and employment largely depends on budgets.

In my career, I'd say the correlation is an inverse proportion. The more useful / needed I was the less I was paid and the other way around... It's curious. I'll have to put some thought into why this might be.

That's a hell of a lot of $.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

On a Monday I quit my job and gave my two week notice.

The next day my wife was fired.

The day after that, my old boss offered me a raise if I would stick around.

I did both jobs simultaneously for six months.

In my entire life nothing has been more lucrative than this. I've tried investing in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Nothing has been more lucrative than double-dipping.

The thing that's so bizarre, is that it also seemed to make me a better employee. I wasn't trying to be a scofflaw, I just kinda fell into it (due to my wife being fired). I found that things I learned from Job One made me better at Job Two, and vice versa.

I think a big part of the reason that this is, is because a lot of tech jobs are basically "human insurance policies." For instance, my employer paid me because I'm an expert in an obscure software program. So there weeks when I was busy as hell, but there were also weeks when I was basically there in case something broke.

I founded a forum on Reddit dedicated to this, it's called WWPGD. (A tip of the hat to Peter Gibbons from 'Office Space')

I'm assuming at least one job (or both) is remote-only? This would be a hilarious story if you somehow managed to hold two simultaneous 9-5 on-site jobs, in neighboring offices.

There was a story on here about exactly that a few years back. IIRC the guy was a network support guy or similar, so both jobs were mostly reactive and didn't require lots of meetings or presence.

Yes.

I turned one laptop into a virtual machine, and then I loaded that vm onto the other laptop.

So I had two jobs, one office, and one laptop. One job was remote, one was onsite.

It feels like you're missing a line somewhere in this - you talk about quitting your job, your wife getting fired, and your now-ex-boss offering you a raise to stick around, then start talking about "both jobs" without ever mentioning a new job.

Yep, he definitely left that out. Looks like the full story is on the subreddit he mentioned: https://www.reddit.com/r/WWPGD/comments/6gbz84/how_i_became_...

Basically I handed in my resignation because I got a new job. The next day my wife lost her job. Then my OLD boss gave me a pay bump to stay at my OLD job.

So I did both jobs, the old and the new, simultaneously.

The initial plan was that I'd do it for a couple of weeks or a month. I was just trying to cover my wife's income until she found a new gig.

Lo and behold, doing two jobs simultaneously is surprisingly easy.

And Lord is it lucrative.

Did either job know you were doing this?

I think this would a lot more common if it wasn't seen as unethical to bill time in two places at once, as well as if companies were more open to hiring part-time. Why do you think your old supervisor was so open to this arrangement (not rhetorical, real question)?

FWIW, according to Warren Buffet, most people will easily make more money through their actual work / expertise, than they ever will through investing.

Absolutely. This is common advice from people like Dave Ramsey. Figuring out how to make more money is the fastest way to wealth and/or financial freedom. Taking a second job, upleveling your current job, or getting a new job at higher pay goes a long way when combined with a strict budget.

This story illustrates that what we're being paid often has little relation to what we're worth. And this relation is important for job satisfaction.

Don't be so happy about it. I'm like you but 5 years in the future when it's time to look for a new job. At the beginning I was keeping my skills sharp, but after a while you become lazy. Especially when you see everyone around you not doing anything you sort of lose your motivation to do work.

So how do you get your skills back?

You work on a personal project in the other 6 hours instead of browsing HN. Or at least watch videos on youtube about various technologies.

Build a side project. It can be non-profit.

For me, its been about rekindling the desire to make/do things and hack around like I used to love doing, instead of twitch, HN, tv, etc.

Seems to me that you might be able to keep the twitch part of that, but as a creator rather than a consumer. Sometimes having an audience might make a difference, and sometimes it'll be of interest to others (e.g. Wintergatan Wednesdays on YouTube)

This exact thing happened to me, even though I wasn't paid as well. In order to match the pace of my team I only did work on Fridays. It was depressing how many problems it solved.

Save, don't spend, so don't get used to living on that salary. If you do, you risk getting trapped.

I've had several jobs which have had "cycles of inactivity". Basically periods where we are just doing busy work until a project gets signed off on or until client(s) commit to a new release, etc. I would use it to learn something new, take care of technical debt, automate something, or......relax

Sounds great! Are you guys hiring?

> only to have my team-lead actively micromanage and stonewall me in order to bring my productivity down to a crawl

When leading, my default is to give people space. Unfortunately, that means if someone needs micro-managing I'm typically not the right person. This is different than mentoring, which I enjoy (not sure if I'm any good at it though ;) ). And obviously, I'm always there for questions. What I don't understand is how leads/managers have the time micromanage people. If a person can't trust their team to do a good job, then they should not be leading a team.

> but they started blaming me personally every time I pointed out any ways of improving the way we do things.

Even if it was your fault, this is wrong. All problems are the leads problems. The lead should be asking him/herself why you went around them to the manager? The manager should be asking the lead the same question.

I'm so happy I don't work in a big company anymore.

Can we switch places? (Meager salary and doing the work of 4 people).

People like you are the ones making up for incompetent workers and fat cats up top. And the systems rolls on in equilibrium.

That's a hell of a lot of $.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

You don't happen to work at a large bank do you? Many friends at banks say this is common place.

This is interesting and sad to me. Sad because it's at least one data point that refutes a theory I've had.

I've been on a job search for some time now in the same field which you're employed. I've had a number of interviews but I think things have stalled a few times when it's come to salary negotiation. I've been approaching things with the theory that the more I'm compensated the less likely I'd be in the situation you've described and the one I find myself currently in. So, I've been asking well above market rate in the hopes that if I find a taker I'd force the employer's hand in tasking me with non bullshit work.

Your story shoots that theory all to hell.

If you're looking for meaningful, interesting work on a high-functioning team, IMO the only way to be sure is to only apply to companies where you already know someone working there. Find someone you know who genuinely likes their job, and have them refer you to a position at their company. Anything else is just reading tea leaves.

So my son and I undertook an interesting project of sorts a few months ago... We attempted to obtain bitcoin while remaining completely anonymous. The only way that I could see to successfully do this was to either purchase directly from someone using cash via Craigslist or the like, exchanging a good or service directly with someone for bitcoin or mining of course.

To me using cryptos as a derivative of existing fiat is the weak link in the chain as the anonymity all but goes away. And when that goes away the concerns you've stated reappear because decentralization is gone.

Which city? I'm in the midwest and would need that comp to relocate to SF or NY ;( didn't think it would actually be viable. Actually, if you have some time for some questions, can you PM me?

You can get that comp as a senior engineer at any decent large company or any of the FANG companies.

I guess I'll have to brush up on whiteboard interviews. It just seems goofy that 350k is normal! I'm a sr engineer in chicago, and thought there was no way I could command the salary needed to make COL worth it.

I think that's far from normal...if you look at any board of average senior level engineering salaries, even in Silicon Valley and even at the FAANG companies, it's nowhere near that.

Wait, are we talking about salary or total compensation? The latter includes things like stock, and is often quite a bit bigger.

What non-FAANG company pays that much for an IC or lead (excluding hedge funds)? If any are in NY I would love to know the names.

I wouldn't be able to stand it. The only thing that combats the suck of going to an office every day is having something to do to make the time pass. I would go insane.

You could code up some software that animated money going into your bank account.

Instead of zoning out, why not work on a cool side-project?

The IP ownership can sometimes be a bit confusing.

Why even tell them? I bet in many cases it's easier to hide working on a side-project than to hide reading & posting comments to HN.

Ethically slightly problematic to work on some side project, than in doing creative time wasting.

Yeah. If I'm on work time, working on a potential side project feels ethically wrong. This is different than wasting time on HN, or reading about some new programming language because that knowledge gain could be used at work at some point.

I would just think of it as keeping the machine oiled.

It makes sense sometimes. If you have a huge, complex organization, it might make sense to have predictable, synchronous cogs. It makes planning easier and less risky, and moving the entire system as a whole is easier if the individual parts don't vary too much.

you are my hero. i live vicariously through you. please keep up the good work.

Does your company have an effective monopoly or is part an oligopoly? Normally companies can run with gross inefficiencies because of lack of competition.

That sounds really boring and depressing.

You are living my nightmare

What seniority are you?

Nice username :)