Congrats on having a profitable self funded company, and in Toronto, that is amazing.
As an example situation, I'd like in this pseudononymous situation to ask what are the factors and principles that makes $120k/y a reasonable offer for a functional programmer in Toronto?
A consultant earns about $1k+/day, or double the proposed salary, and companies typically pay $1600-2400/day for contractors through an agency, so I'm trying to figure out what makes that $120k/year viable.
Presumably you pay based on what the work is worth to the company (revenue per employee) and what you can find in the market.
If you are getting price takers at that level, that's the market clearing price, then the market is the market.
But if you aren't getting takers, what is the value can you afford to pay for at $120k, but can also afford to not-have that value if it saves you $30k? Is there a revenue-per-employee threshold, or are you reaching a diminishing marginal return on additional developers - which suggests you are toward the end of your growth curve?
The idea that a company can afford to wait two quarters or longer to hold out for a %20 salary savings by waiting for someone to take it suggests that the marginal value of the work isn't very high.
The definition of a shitty job is pretty much one where your work isn't valued, and when you compare Toronto offers to the rest of the market, they are literally advertising, "we will pay you for work we don't value!" Is there a principle at play here, or is it just a straight "take it or leave it," offer?
The saying, "we can't afford cheap things," is why SFBA startups pay so much - because there is too much multiples growth at stake to miss out of it by saving on small things. Do we just not have the same growth upside?