Salary Transparency Fact Sheet: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/...
So, it's much easier to prove in the court of law that the ranges are justified.
Dude who created the React Framework is always 100x valuable to the company than an average Javascript developer. A couple of brilliant dudes is all that is required for a company to be a mere $100 Million company vs $1 Billion company.
It's ridiculous to pay the same $100,000 for each of them
And that's true even further down the line -- if your experience can mean $200K more per year, then those should be two different job listings. One senior and one junior.
I don't think I've ever met an engineer who is, by themselves, 1000x more productive than even the least productive person I've ever worked with.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/the-friendship...
Also, of course, if you compare me (L5 Swe) and Jeff (L11 senior Google fellow/SVP) or Sanjay, you'll find that the roles we are hired into have vastly different compensation ranges. So even presuming this is true, it actually goes against your overall point that wide ranges for a single posting are justified. I'm not being hired for the same work as Sanjay.
Even though you are an L5, you'll never design an Android or a Spanner or a Dremel system or a Self-Driving System from scratch.
SWEs who create Spanner Databases are 1000x more valuable to companies than someone who adds tiny features using a well-defined process and framework.
But most SWE are entitled and out-of-touch that they demand and act as though they are Jeff or Andy Rubin or Levandowski
Correct, but neither Jeff nor Sanjay did any of those things, and no one did any of those things alone, or from scratch.
> SWEs who create Spanner Databases are 1000x more valuable to companies than someone who adds tiny features using a well-defined process and framework.
IDK, I'm pretty sure there's an automated tool that can create a spanner database for me, so I'm not sure why you think that's that impressive. Less snarkily, you're underestimating the amount of collaboration that happens, even with the impressive engineers. Tellingly, it's never the people extolled as 10 or 100x engineers who claim to be such, usually they echo my sentiments!
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
And the paper you cite notes a number of other people in the acknowledgements who were critical both to refining the design, and to the infrastructure that MR was built atop, so even in the case of something that Jeff and Sanjay did do, they neither did it "alone", nor "from scratch", despite yes, being the two primary designers and developers of the initial implementation of MR.
If you have a point you're trying to make, make it explicitly.
MapReduce was a revolutionary paper which allowed Google to scale using cheap hard-drives and compute instead of paying Oracle licenses. If you can't understand the impact of that paper during early days of Google to what it became, I'm flabbergasted by your L5 claim.
You are clearly a 1x, 9-5, LeetCode, TC chasing programmer and not Jeff.
I'll pay Jeff/Sanjay/Linus/Andy Rubin/Lewandosky 20x the salary I'd pay you. it's as simple as that
It's not particularly constructive to presume that someone who disagrees with you is "clueless". Just to reiterate, I think that it is absolutely true that some people have extremely high value in organizations. The obvious question is whether they have extremely high value above replacement. You've yet to present any so called "proof" of this.
> MapReduce was a revolutionary paper which allowed Google to scale using cheap hard-drives and compute instead of paying Oracle licenses. If you can't understand the impact of that paper during early days of Google to what it became
Sure. I do, however fail to see how this relates to whatever broader point you are trying to make, which still eludes me.
> You are clearly a 1x, 9-5, LeetCode, TC chasing programmer and not Jeff.
At least two of these are untrue, but yes, I'm proud to maintain work-life balance? I guess you got me.
> I'll pay Jeff/Sanjay/Linus/Andy Rubin/Lewandosky 20x the salary I'd pay you.
Ah, I'm being trolled.
I guess that all comes down to how you measure it. I've worked with people who screw up the code base, suck time and productivity away from other team members, and require frequent management attention. So their productivity is negative or zero. Which makes me infinitely more productive than them.
I demand infinity dollars!
Just kidding of course, but the point is people aren't and can't be paid exactly mathematically proportionally to their productivity. About the best we can expect is for pay to be correlated with productivity. Or maybe monotonically increasing with productivity?
this is a variation of the 10x engineer BS meme. statistically this is not possible, and realistically you'll see the companies using that line of arguments for obfuscating salary information are also doing it to comply maliciously. In fact, using a far outlier case to justify your average base case is the definition of operating in bad faith.
Also, sure if you see an actual superstar nobody is stopping you from hiring him for a different role and paying him 10x or whatever. anecdotally speaking in my many years in silicon valley I have seen very few cases for such high performance engineers and you need a lot more than tech expertise to not just produce 10x more personally but also keep your team productive & all that is not easy to judge in an interview.