Ask HN: Would anyone find this system fair?

> I believe they are over paid for where we live.

This is the line I have a bit of trouble with. You shouldn't try to bring others down to feel better about making more, you should see what they're being paid and realize you are worth more. Outline this in asking for compensation adjustment, or begin to look elsewhere. If you can't find a role making more, just try not to let what others make bother you. At the end of the day you are the only one looking out for you - so invest more in doing that, and try to spend less worrying about others. Their making more or less will have little to no impact on your personal career progression.

Love the advice. Who cares what someone else is making/ doing / living. The question is are you happy with your pay? Think you should get more? Start applying or asking and see what the market is saying. Comparing salaries is a fools game

> You shouldn't try to bring others down to feel better about making more, you should see what they're being paid and realize you are worth more.

This.

The company is probably generating oodles of profit. Any profit whatsoever represents the labour of employees for which they haven’t been paid. These employees have generated value through their labour that the company has realized, and the company has decided to steal this value from the employees rather than giving it back to them.

So OP deserves more pay.

The company has already determined that relatively low skill levels deserve a certain minimum pay. This does not mean that these employees are overpaid, but rather that OP is underpaid.

This focus on fighting against wage increases for others who are beneath you is a psi-ops explicitly engineered by the Parasite Class, to make the lower classes fight their class war for them. The Parasite Class are laughing all the way to their obscenely-bloated offshore investment accounts.

You're really espousing the labor theory of value here?

maybe you should explain why not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/everything-wrong-wi... (free subscription required to read the full article, but you can use a throwaway email address)

In short, it's too simple to work in an economy as complex as ours, it completely ignores the impact of demand, and it assumes all workers are equally productive.

The dehumanization in your message really detracts from your argument.

I thought it was the usage of a completely discredited economic theory to support their argument, but we can both be right!

But realistically salary budgets are in-fact a zero sum game.

Departments have a budget. If someone else is unfairly getting paid more, it definitely means that you will be getting paid less.

It's bad if your coworkers are drastically overpaid because it will bleed the company dry or prevent the company from hiring other coworkers to help lighten the load. In practice, it's not even about the CEO being overpaid or anything like that, it matters what budget out of the total revenue is allocated to your department. If the department/team isn't adding value, they will be walking around with targets on their backs.

You asked a very philosophical question.

To start with, there are different definitions of fairness. A small example: everybody gets equal, everybody gets what they deserve, everybody gets what they need. An so on.

It's very hard to answer this as my definition of "fair" is probably different to yours. However, we live in a free world. The company's rules are clear and nobody is forced to work there. Seems fair in some sense to me.

I personally wouldn't be happy with this arrangement as I would probably seek a little bit more appreciation of my experience and position.

> Everyone on the same level gets the same base pay … I am the only senior.

So you’re not on the same level, so you get paid more? Except you don’t? That’s a contradiction.

I’d start applying and interviewing elsewhere, and once you have an offer, decide which one you’d rather do. If you’re not happy where you’re at, don’t wait, start making a plan B now

They said it's not a tech firm. I'd guess there is nobody else in the firm who understands anything that team does, and therefore there is an assumption that all developers are interchangeable.

Yeah they have probably one pay level for "developers" and that's it.

Every firm is a tech firm if they have developers, it's just a question of if their tech generates revenue or is just a cost. Either way they need to pay developer rates, and have a developer seniority structure.

>I believe they are over paid for where we live

This belief is problematic because real (a.k.a. non-bullshit) jobs are typically priced based on the value of what's delivered, not the residence of the person delivering the value. Like race and sexuality, residence is wholly unrelated to the job.

I'd consider your predicament to be unfair. It's also not fair that garbage men work 10x harder than you for a fraction of your pay. Oh well.

> This belief is problematic because real (a.k.a. non-bullshit) jobs are typically priced based on the value of what's delivered, not the residence of the person delivering the value.

Whether it is fair or not, this is definitely not true. Companies tend to pay what they can get away with, which means paying less in lower-cost-of-living areas. The people who assemble iPhones provide tremendous amounts of value. But they make around $4/hour. If you bumped that to $8/hour, Apple would still be tremendously profitable, but they assemble their phones in cheap labor markets where they can get away with paying less. Meanwhile, companies hiring in San Franscisco generally pay skilled workers higher than companies hiring in Oklahoma (let alone overseas), because no one would agree to work in San Fransisco on an Oklahoma salary.

From your description it doesn’t sound fair.

In my experience, non-technical managers underestimate the importance of Senior devs / leaders / mentors. They might have the assumption that those folks are as replaceable as Jr. devs, when that is not accurate. The switching cost for a Sr. contributor is far higher.

It’s a tough job market and as a recruiter I can tell you that a series of short stints isn’t a good look. But, you will probably find more appreciation and respect with a tech company or a tech manager / owner who understands the importance of your contributions.

Good luck.

BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.

This acronym is taught in any course discussing the basics of negotiation. If you are negotiating on anything, you will always be in a better position if your BATNA is good. In the context of job salary negotiations, saying "I have another job offer for 1.3 times my current salary" is going to put you in a much better position than saying "I feel like I'm worth more". So the answer is to find a good BATNA and then approach your boss. Unfortunately, the jobs environment is not great right now so finding a better offer might take some time (in good times, even the threat of leaving might put you in a good negotiating position).

On a secondary note, you don't necessarily need to work at a tech company to be appreciated, but it's generally important to work in a division and in roles that help increase company revenues. Try to look for that in your next role.

A tier based system doesn't seem inherently unfair to me. But putting a senior dev and a junior dev on the same tier seems pretty unfair.

Are you paid well relative to what you could make if you did jump ship? You mention that your coworkers are over-paid, but not specifically that you are underpaid.

Yes, it reads as if OP would be okay with the situation if their coworkers were paid less.

Consider whether your pay is fair in and of itself for you and what you do rather than fair given what someone else gets.

I fully understand the sensation of feeling sick at how much someone else gets but it's really important to your own happiness to consider your situation on an absolute basis rather than relative to others.

This is what is described in "Liar's Poker" as "ever-increasing levels of relative poverty" and if you let it get to you it will really knaw away at you.

It is petty to begrudge others and wise to insist on your value or find better opportunities elsewhere.

Fair is for fools or those genuinely content with the averaging (I have been both.)

> I am the only senior

What does this mean? Does this mean you're the same level but have more experience?

If you're all the same level, let the other devs own things. They're the same level and can do as much as you. Let them. You should be doing this anyway so that they can learn how to do this while there's someone with some experience to help guide them.

Why is the level for senior and non senior the same?

The company is not tech enough to know the difference?

Fwiw even companies doing software development don’t necessarily follow any rigorous axiom of meritocratic titles.

Sure, but this one seems to have different titles by name, which seem to designate rank (senior), but don't reflect that in the payscale.

Unless saying he is the "only senior dev" was just OP's evaluation of the situation.

Why should it be fair!?

You have 3 choices: live with it, go elsewhere or start some nuclear war trying to change it. Since you’re alone unhappy your situation will be way worse afterwards. And you will leave anyway.

Would you be satisfied if all of your teammates have their salaries decreased but your salary stays the same?

I'd argue for the introduction of a new tier, with the responsibilities that you're taking on that aren't reasonable for the others to do. And if they don't agree, maybe stop doing those extra things.

Your coworkers aren't "overpaid", you're underpaid.

As a senior you have other responsibilities as well: train your juniors and then delegate your work. Let them rotate once a week on different tasks. Make them "report" to you what obstacles they are facing and eventually just steer the ship and let them sail it.

If above does not result in any relieve in your work load (eg. new tasks are added to your to do list by your boss, etc) then take the chute.

If you're serious and really don't want to leave (though to be honest, tenure probably isn't as big a deal as you think - easily explainable too since you can just say you literally weren't being compensated for additional responsibilities) then maybe ask for a demotion?

You could even list both titles on your CV for one length of time at the company, and just let people assume you progressed to senior rather than 'regressed'.

But ideally/presumably that doesn't happen - use it as negotiating point I mean - you can say you're honestly willing to be demoted, because it's going to spare you work, to the detriment of the company, with no loss in pay. Hard to imagine they wouldn't see sense and pay you more, and if not, try to shrug and enjoy the 'easy ticket'? (Especially since you phrase it as them being overpaid, not you under, so you'd presumably be happy with that.)

Don't compare to others. Are you happy with the salary you are getting? Does it seem fair or better for the work that you do? If so, then don't worry about it. If you are being underpaid for the work that you do then that's a different issue and you can discuss that with your manager without ever bringing anyone else up.

> it is up to me to mentor and guide these developers

That right there is what makes you a senior. Make sure your work, your performance, and your track-record in levelling up your coworkers is well-documented, and use that to justify your bump and bonus. There is a chance that it doesn't work - in that case you have a year (or more) of experience with leading teams and mentoring coworkers that you can take to your next gig.

With regards to either or not things are fair, it is very possible that the business doesn't understand the value of the work your team does. It might be worth finding out what it is they do value and either trying to provide it or - if you can't directly provide it - enabling those who do provide it.

In either case, since you are going to be at this job for a while, it's a good opportunity to focus on fattening up your resume with those soft skills that often don't come easy but are valuable.

You really needed HN to tell you life isn't fair? Open your employee handbook on the company values page, look if "fair compensation" is listed

Focus on your own career, do whats good for you, don't look at what others are making. There are plenty of people in your situation making less than their coworkers instead of the same

Why do you care at all what they make?

You spend your time in a different manner than they do, something that takes less skill (in terms of programming), but more skill in terms of non-programming. It's just different work, not more important or less.

Could you do all the work if they left? If not, you have to acknowledge their contributions to the company.

If you're the only senior there doesn't that mean you've got leverage? Sounds like it's time to carve out a proper senior level tier for your department.

How did you ask for the raise? How did they respond? It feels like the manager gave you a token amount to keep you around and you accepted it. Does the manager even know you still feel under-compensated?

> I believe they are over paid for where we live.

You are underpaid but are not asking for or getting a real raise for some reason. Don't fuck with someone else's bread and butter. This is your problem to solve, not theirs.

Letting your manager decide how much of their budget to give up is just asking for disappointment. Bring a number to the table next time, and get as close as you can to it.

> Does this system seem fair to anyone else?

You need unions before you get fair, what you need in this case is a chat with whoever can make changes. Convince them to make changes.

Stop giving your employer free labor. It sounds like you're on your way to burnout, and your misplacing some of your frustration onto the Jr devs.

Let me ask you this: What $$ will the current level of work be acceptable? My guess is that it's well above what your employer is willing to pay.

I'd suggest you do what your Jr peels do + 10%, that'll fulfill the requirement for bump & bonus. Also spend some time building relationships. If your manager mentions you no longer doing XYZ, show off your +10%. Politely and tactfully deflect if he tries to press the issue.

To answer your fairness question directly the system sounds inefficient and currently not fair. I think it could be fair(for whatever that means), given the right environment, and attitudes.

Your value is worth nothing if you can't apply leverage to extract that value in a negotiation.

The main leverage you have is your future value, not your present value.

The company selects managers who are adept at extracting value from you. The manager's only incentive to pay you fairly now is if they want you in the future. But if you could replace the manager, or if a mentee could replace you, you have negative future value.

Indeed, the manager may have hired you as a low-paid but senior person to demonstrate their negotiating skills to their superiors. Such a manager could find such a senior person by looking for someone with something to overlook, like a recent abrupt departure -- or someone who didn't value their abilities.

You can go pretty far down this rabbit hole of strategic thinking. You could respond by extracting value from your junior members, stealing their ideas or code. Or making them look bad with koan directions or pythian prophecies that turn out to be precient no matter how things turn out.

I hope these suggestions turn your stomach, but I have observed that's what happens when people give up on the idea of "fairness" as other commenters suggest.

Resentment and power differences are but one source of conflict: culture, thinking- and working-styles, external personal and company forces -- all make it hard to relate to others as humans.

Perhaps the best approach is to assume you'll not be treated fairly and there are no alternatives. Your choice then is to suffer or make the best of it, with what you have. Befriend your juniors and your managers, and with every interaction make it as productive and enriching as possible, convincing them that you have their best interests at heart, and that you're taking care of yourself. Embrace the Job's rock tumbler.

i.e., even if you can discipline relations by voice or exit, treat exit as the lazy escape. In so doing, you might find your voice, and the next step will not be a graceful exit but a celebrated entrance.

You know the answer already. The real question is how long you think you need to stay in this position.

Unfortunately, a single developer carrying an entire software team is a common pattern in the industry. I've been in both your situation and the situation of your team mates. If left unaddressed, the organizational momentum will perpetuate this situation. Stakeholders will continue to consider you the trusted party to get things done. This is not only a problem for you, but the organization as well, because your departure could create significant problems stemming from a loss of knowledge.

You may deserve more compensation, but it doesn't solve the problem in the long-term. As you have said, "There is little to no confidence in the others carrying on successfully if I suddenly stopped." Rendering that statement false is the solution. As the lead, it is your responsibility to improve the productivity of your team mates and build trust between them and the organization. It can be a slow process, but one that creates a more sustainable and harmonious situation for both you and your team. As long as you continue to absorb all the work, the situation will never improve.

Here are a few suggestions I've seen work in the past:

- Spend time on an extended vacation. This forces your team members to pick up the slack. It's better than quitting, giving everyone an opportunity to experience you being a single point of failure without the long term catastrophic consequences. Have a frank discussion about how to fix things upon your return.

- Offload yourself as a point of contact for various projects. Hand over initiatives to your fellow team mates. Force stakeholders to meet with them instead of you. Make yourself available to help them succeed.

- Make tasks more digestible for your team mates. Aggressively document things, make tickets easy to understand, set up knowledge sharing sessions.

- Hand new initiatives to your team mates. Let them specify the details.

- Talk to your manager, see if they have any thoughts on how to improve the situation. They are the last person who wants to deal with the fallout of your departure.

- Talk to your team mates, see what motivates them. What do they think they can do to improve the situation? It's not uncommon for team members to feel resentment for you absorbing all of the work.

Would it be fairer if you were paid more? Sure. Would it be fairer if they others were paid less? Absolutely not. If you are paid a fair wage for your work, then let it go. If not, then move on.

You should be bumped up a few steps (tiers), or assigned a managerial role, as you are doing non-temporary extra work out-of-class. I would schedule a meeting with both your boss and your bosses boss to explain why you need to be promoted.

> The others have little to no experience.

> I do all of the project planning, code reviews, bug fixes, requests etc.

The other devs should also be assigned some of the simpler of these tasks to grow their skills so that eventually they too can get step bumps.

In biglaw, people at most firms are paid this way up until, IIRC, the 8th year.

I think there are many ways in which it is fair. As far as dev jobs, who can usually say, at a big tech company, for example, that one dev adds 200k of value, and another 280k? Aren't salaries artifacts of negotiation and market forces at time of hire than accurate reflectors of job performance?

Fair is largely irrelevant. There are quite a few people doing about 5 hours of work per week while taking home six figure salaries, and in the end, anyone given this opportunity and not taking it would be kicking themselves in the behind for quite some time.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you feel like you are being compensated fairly for the value you bring.

Comparison is pretty highly rated as a factor for misery - I'd agree with others on the thread - better to consider yourself as yourself. Are you happy? Is the role fulfilling? Are you having fun? And then - given all this, are you earning enough to live a nice life?

It doesn't sound very fair, but from my experience if the system is setup that way it's because the people at the top believe it to be fair and trying to convince them is incredibly difficult, if not futile. Doubly so in matters of money.

> Everyone on the same level gets the same base pay and those who perform well, get a bump and bonus now and then.

This is fair by definition.

The situation you describe is that you are in the wrong salary tier, which isn't about fairness but about mismanagement.

> I brought it up with my manager and was told I would be rewarded, it was a miniscule improvement. I got enough to would cover a few extra coffees.

Get a new job. There's no solution here because management does not respect your effort.

They aren't overpaid.

You're underpaid.

If you're their senior, you need compensation that reflects this difference. Otherwise, there's no point in being their senior.

its tragic that this sort of thing can't be resolved more optimally. Sets up a lose/lose. Too bad you can't just send your agent in to negotiate on your behalf, a 3rd party can take positions that are very hard to express yourself without ruining the relationship.

If a world famous chef showed up in a franchise McDonald's kitchen, he's probably not worth much more than $9/hr to the operation. They are heating up frozen hamburgers.

If you are in a system that has put a ceiling on your ability to contribute or has put a ceiling on the price they are willing to pay for your contributions, and this bothers you, then you should find somewhere else to work.

Capitalism doesn't care what you think you deserve.

There is no salary system that is fair. If you want to be compensated relative to value produced you have to own your business.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you think that people that own their own business are compensated fairly and relative to value?

Because businesses operate within a more free market than employees do.