Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonkester | Hacker News Reader

To me, this seems like it will ensure your company only ever has average developers.

A good developer can negotiate a bette rate if he wants, or at the least, he'll be offered gigs at above average rates. By sticking to the exact market average according to their salary surveys, they're only able to select from the list of candidates who don't meet the above criteria. That is, the below average ones, and the occasional good one who has never been told what he's worth.

I've written about this in the past:

http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/developers-should-lear...

View on HN

Not all developers care about salary first.

I see this overall approach as more like flying a flag and publicly indicating culture because there's a particular crowd they want. This is how they advertise what's important to them and draw like minded people closer. That seems 100% legit to me, and super useful for any dev considering them that they're so straightforward.

No one has to like it or choose it for themselves, but I see it as nothing but laudable. It's a big wide market out there, and this is a quirky option I'm glad exists

Negotiating your market rate isn't caring about money 'first'. It's caring about money 'at all.' They're different.

Leaving $50k/year on the table at age 30 will move your retirement date back ten years. It takes a lot of culture to make up for that.

Right. If it's not about money, just issue me blank checks every month.

Remember, labor is just another thing we buy and sell.

In other markets, like those for cars, there are specialists that focus on naming fixed, non-negotiable prices. What buffer is doing seems pretty similar.

Like I said, the market has lots of options for devs. I don't know if they're $50k off...when I said not all devs care about salary, I'm talking about the last 10%. I don't know anybody who ignores $50k.

When you're netting $20k a year into your 401k, mortgage, principal, and long term savings, $10k is a lot of money.

They should. All companies care about money first, so why shouldn't the employees? Having an awesome work culture should be something every company strives for and shouldn't make up for mediocre pay practices.

I have a question (actually two) for you...

I'm thinking about comp for a company. I'm looking to make it (I think they call it) "remote-first", because there are some fabulous people on planet earth that don't live in the Bay Area. Also, I have no intention of living in the Bay Area, so it's selfish too.

Question 1: IF I had a goal to pay every new employee 10% above market rate - should I peg that to their locale or to the highest rate market (e.g. the Bay Area)

Question 2: SINCE I intend to grow 2x~3x YoY w/ no VC investment, the VCs are not going to pressure me to have a liquidity event at any particular time. That "uncertainty" means that stock-options are a highly speculative bet on the part of of the employee(s). Would you consider 30% of your base to be adequate to make up for the lack of options that would-or-would-not make in any particular time-frame? If not - what would be a nice kicker (for you)?

"Awesome work culture" for me looks a lot like "a place productive for technical work". This includes places to collaborate, freedom to network, empowerment of individual contributors to innovate and pitch, etc.

I'm not sure anyone except college hires (though we should be skeptical here, too) pick a company for the foosball tables, beer fridges, and intramural bowling teams. Having those things signals to me that I'm probably free to network with a contributor from another team to share some ideas, though.

Yea, so an employee should work hard to make money for the pleasure of the CEO buying another home this month? I rather work for my family, not for the CEO's one. If a company doesn't want to pay me enough, I'm sure I will find another one.

This is excessively cynical, for two reasons; in the Buffer model, the CEO's pay is subject to the formula too, and in a startup where people are getting equity, your financial outcome is tied to the success of the company, and your main risk is the failure of the company, not some faceless person siphoning the dollars off.

Whenever you sell your labor, obviously the buyer of that labor thinks it's worth more than what they're paying for it, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So you're always working for someone else to make money unless you own your own thing.

It's just a question of degree there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com