Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncreasePosts | Hacker News Reader

She gets about half as much as normal engineers at the company ($200k vs $400k). I wonder what would be more productive - 6 engineers getting paid $200k or 3 getting paid $400k?

You could still attract a very large talent pool for $200k/yr, especially given the mission, and doubly especially if this is remote work and not based in SF/SV.

View on HN

All of the sibling comments are good answers to this question!

What hasn’t been mentioned is that Signal is an extremely high-profile target for rogue actors and nation-states. Employing staff with personal financial troubles in sensitive positions can contribute to the temptation to use access for personal gain. This is one way intelligence services groom double agents. Despite what appears to be very high salaries they won’t get rich in the Bay Area— but it seems like it’s above a threshold where one of these engineers would feel desperate.

Also: I imagine having a WhatsApp founder as a board member/funder helps here, as they famously built and scaled globally before their acquisition with only 20-30 engineers…

It’s nuts to think a salary of $400k a year won’t get you rich, even in the Bay Area. If they’re not rich, maybe they should check in with a financial advisor because they’re doing something wrong.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”

― Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90487-annual-income-twenty-...

I agree, but only because I routinely speak with people who make double that and still struggle to pay monthly bills. Short answer: financial outcomes aren't about the number (above a basic threshold), and they’re almost entirely a function of behaviors & (some) luck.

Paying more is still a valid form of defense against petty corruption, though.

If someone paid me $800k per year, I would be retired in three years. You’re right on the behavioral aspect, for sure.

What often baffles me is the "buy a whole bunch of things on credit", and then get laid off and have not a penny left.

I've seen stories of actors in Hollywood banking $15M from a movie, buying all sorts of property with mortgages, boats, cars, all on credit, then losing it all due to default without that next movie.

Behaviour indeed.

If the 400k ones are good and won't leave, those.

Anyone whose worked with a dozen or so people will know they're never equal. There's generally at least one 'guru' in the group who knows the ins, outs, and why's of everything. At big companies they'll get split up so there's only one per team, with maybe a couple roaming super team for anything truly major.

But I've certainly met engineers who are worth at least 2 lower engineers.

People love to wish this weren’t true, but it is. All engineers have great potential, but some realize it faster than others, and some never fully realize it at all. The difference is significant.

Moreover, not all spectacular engineers are worth working with; there’s a lot to be said for someone’s ability to be worked with and to be a leader, in addition to just pure knowledge or capability. Being able to work on teams matters, and being able to lead them (while being respected, respectful, and educating) matters even more.

The latter pieces of being a “strong engineer” are the pieces that are the hardest to learn for most engineers, because we spend so much time pretending it’s only the code that counts. Great engineers who realize and understand how to push their colleagues and themselves to grow while pushing the company forward? They are worth their weight in gold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com