What is the difference between the $20k/year vs. $250k/year software engineer? | Hacker News Reader

What is the difference between the $20k/year vs. $250k/year software engineer?

What I have seen so far there is not much difference between someone who make 20k per year from a third world country and someone who make 250k per year from a developed country.

For example GitHub web code editor that scans thousands of characters after every key stroke for emoji, tons of exploit with obvious issues, Twitter web DDoSing itself, code-mess in Facebook (What I have heard) and lots of other example. Don't tell me, they didn't have enough time, there are literally thousands of people.

Why should companies hire developers with 250k salary who will spend most of their time doing nothing instead of someone with 20k salary?

View on HN

If the company is willing to pay someone 250k it means the person is providing them with more value than that. If they successfully replaced that person with a 20k engineer, it would just mean that the 20k engineer is now being exploited vs their contribution, not that the original guy didn't deserve his salary.

I tend to agree with you that FAANG engineers are overpaid versus the work they do. I disagree that the solution is to offshore to people paid less. These companies make more money than God, where should all that cash go if not to the employees that make it possible?

Think of it this way: A waiter in a fancy steak house will make 10x more than a waiter in a mom and pop cafe. They likely have the same skills and put the same amount of efforts in, but their employers bring in a vastly different amount of money.

I don't think the high variance in salary necessarily means an employee is paid appropriately based on merit. It just means there's a lot of investor money floating around and companies can afford to be wasteful. That can only last so long, as we saw.

And it creates all sorts of perverse incentives because it destroys the company's original mission and culture and makes it chase unsustainable cancerous growth instead. Maybe it would have been better for society for these companies to have stayed small and for their host cities to not have become gilded dystopias for the tech class.

It's not wasteful to pay a decent salary to the people keeping your business afloat.

You can't expect loyalty, full dedication or even enthusiasm if you're paying a SWE less than 6 figures and you're not a non profit.

I don't think the second part (6 figures) has to be true. I've worked with many awesome people (and been perfectly happy myself) for way less than that.

And I think that kind of money also starts to encourage people to join the field for the sheer luxury afforded by it, rather than any real passion. That's on top of the other social side effects above.

I don't think simply paying everyone more would make the employees, the industry, or society, better overall. It hyperinflates everything downstream and makes cities unlivable and makes jobs become like celebrity sports, competitive performances for personal gain rather than doing anything user or community serving.

The amount you are paid is unrelated to the amount of value you provide, other than it being a lower bound on what a well run organization can afford. It is solely determined by what you can negotiate. Someone being willing to work for less than you absolutely is not exploitation in and of itself.

If you think waiters at fancy steakhouses and cafes do the same thing, you either haven't been to a fancy steakhouse, or to a cafe

How is it not exploitation?

Many people dont know their worth and companies will exploit that to pay as little as possible.

Maybe im reaching.

Exploitation implies level playing fields and all things being equal. It assumes a manager had the opportunity to hire the $20k dev and haggled them down.

No one in the US would agree to work for $20k; it’s insulting. In other parts of the world, it’s not insulting and so they do work for it. It’s even a competitive advantage to some. To others, touting a high price is an advantage.

There’s so much psychology going on here. I wouldn’t hire a $20k dev for 2 simple reasons: language barriers and time zones. Could I could $20k devs that don’t have these downsides? Absolutely. But not worth my time looking.

Location.

And, it's not about the cost of living, but about the people who are used to low wages. I've seen very experienced and capable engineers living in such places (e.g. Italy) where they are just used to live in relative poverty (compared to US devs). Taxi driver or barber can have a better life than an engineer in such locations.

An unproductive $250k/year engineer should be let go.

Probably because the expected level of requirements-understanding, project management, QA process, and maintainability isn't usually given by a group of $20k engineers. But a single properly-educated $250k engineer delivers such a setup in a month or two.

Also scalability and took operation.. good luck finding a $20k engineer to put together a Sitecore or Active Directory system.

Companies have been trying to outsource to lower-cost developers for the past 20 years or more. In some applications, it works out, but not always. It would seem that marketplace has pretty much decided that the high priced developers are worth it in a lot of situations.

Cultural context is a major multiplier of quality, productivity and efficiency.

I had to replace an overseas software team with a US one and the US one outperforms beyond measure. Given the quality, the reduction of work and rework, it is actually cheaper at close to double the hourly rate.

The difference is where they live, who they know, and who know them.

It's somewhat true.

I live in a third world country in South Asia but I have in past managed to get projects from USA/Canada clients because of who I know.

Were you able to get these projects at first world rates though?

It comes down to the person's ability to problem solve. I've worked with both. The higher paid engineer will solve a problem in some cases in minutes vs hours if ever for the lower paid one. In a very busy work environment the 250k+ engineer is mostly a bargain. Both were immigrants and were highly rated. One was just outstanding.

They don't pay me 400K (plus performance bonuses) a year to hit keys on the keyboard. They pay me to stare at the ceiling, and reduce the number of keys everybody else needs to hit by 80-99%.

Being able to talk to Product Owners, Designers, and Artists without needing to translate is a big plus too.

what is the difference between 20k doctors/lawyers/enginners/ in developing countries and 250k doctors/lawyers/enginners in developed countries? It is the same answer. On average or in general , doctors (and also software engineers) in developed countires are going to be more capable and competent (there will be some individual exceptions but it is not relevant in general). But the salary is mainly determined by market forces independent of their skill levels. A great doctor who goes to work in a hospital in developing countries will not make 250k no matter how good he is. same for programmer. A medicore programmer who goes to work in US will take at least 50k per year.

I think honestly, 99% of the time, they're doing equivalent work. The thing is, if even 1% of the time they don't make the mistake the 20k person would make, that could save a large company millions of dollars over.

You can extrapolate this question to any other non-trade profession.

good developers are not only in SF, you get great developers in eastern Europe for 50k with the same productivity and knowledge of a 250k SF one.

because houses in the SF bay area cost 1.5-2.5 million and because of tax, legal and compliance issues

Because whenever you try to hire one of the 20k guys, they are working 3 other jobs in secret, and half the time you have to teach them how to do things like create a button in JavaScript (actual example). They are only asking for 20k for a reason.

The difference is, a 20k person will copy/paste stuff from the internet and tell you the product is working fine whereas a 250k person will ask you why the code is written the way it is and then go on to redo it from scratch.

I know plenty of 250k+ guys who are deep into the copy/paste strategy

>a 250k person will ask you why the code is written the way it is and then go on to redo it from scratch

Are you trolling to see if anyone knows this quote:

"...the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite the code from scratch."

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com