I'm imagining that to make such service profitable, offering something like $699
per developer per month, you are not hiring reviewers from USA, right?
> Reviewers earn anywhere between $50 and over $3,000/week. Earnings are based largely on the amount of time spent reviewing on the platform and the type of code being reviewed. PullRequest’s payment rates are comparable to those of a senior-level engineer based in the US.
> PullRequest issues weekly payments based on review activity during the preceding week. The time that you spend reviewing is tracked through our platform; reviewers are not required to log hours or invoice.
They are operating just like a freelancing platform, right? How many hours is a "week" for them? 40 hours?
> PullRequest’s payment rates are comparable to those of a senior-level engineer based in the US.
Like include life and health insurance, paid vacation, profit-sharing, a generous signing bonus, and more?
It's pretty clear that the people offering the service are doing it as a way of gaining extra income on the side rather than a main employment.
$50-3000 / week tells you nothing.
They should tell you the avg $ per hour.
I'd really appreciate if all companies were required to report some basics stats on pay - total employees, min/max, average, and mean would be great
The pricing on the site is also super confusing - it's $200 for one hour of reviewing, but $700 for a month? In a typical month at my job I'm doing way more than 3.5 hours of review and also doing a bunch of other stuff on the side. Then if the $700 rate is supposed to be ~120 hours then that's only $5.83/hr which isn't even minimum wage where I am. It is however on par with a lot of gig-work jobs, which makes this even more concerning.
If anyone can say what they made I think that would do a lot to quell all the people that don't trust this. I'm also sure some people must have had a bad experience on the site and I haven't seen that yet which is suspicious.
If anyone from the site happens to see this then I think you should add a breakdown of the percentage of pay going to the reviewers, or just some examples like "For C++ you can expect $40-30/hr, JS is $35-25/hr, etc"
Let people 'pay' for their own vacation.
You can provide 'profit sharing' to non-employees.
Give me $3k/week and let me manage this myself vs giving me $2.5k/week and telling me how awesome my 'health insurance' is. I want my access to health care impacted by as few third parties as possible - adding in employers to the mix is completely the wrong direction.
So, we can infer that higher-skilled individuals will take the more highly-paying positions, and that the folks working at PR will be less-skilled or juniors. That's a gross over-simplification, of course, but it probably bears consideration.
But with healthcare, at least in the US, the big issue with pricing is within the healthcare system - not employers paying for it. It certainly doesn't help to have healthcare tied to employment but having people pay high prices themselves instead of a company paying it doesn't really solve an issue it just moves it somewhere else.
It seems like the most proven solution is to socialize medical costs more, but that seems like a long-shot if we continue to insist that healthcare has to be profitable in the short-term. It's like saying "no we won't build this road because we can't charge the drivers tomorrow to make a profit on it", totally overlooking that it's an infrastructure investment and not a purchase