Hacker News Reader

> $300k-600k for "high-end" mid-level engineers is because they stand to recoup many times than per employee.

Why would a company pay more than they need to? I would pay 4x the price for grapes if required. I don't as I would prefer to spend less on grapes.

> it's impossible for there to be a shortage of high-end mid-level engineers as those mid-level come from the low-end engineers.

Unless there is something that prevents from from becoming mid-level engineers. Like companies that don't hire junior level engineers at all and have mid-level be the entry level.

> Why would a company pay more than they need to? I would pay 4x the price for grapes if required. I don't as I would prefer to spend less on grapes.

I think it's because they could still use more engineers to do what they want to do, and they believe that great talent is way, way better than good talent. They want pretty much everyone to think "working at FAANG is the best financial option for me" and to apply, so they get their pick of the talent pool.

> Why would a company pay more than they need to?

There is the prestige factor. And of course pressure from the employees. If you are making $600K per employee and it's public, they'll demand more.

> I would pay 4x the price for grapes if required. I don't as I would prefer to spend less on grapes.

But you do. That's the point. If you make $600K and another person makes $100K, you are far more likely to buy grapes whenever you want/need rather than waiting for the grapes to be on sale.

> Unless there is something that prevents from from becoming mid-level engineers. Like companies that don't hire junior level engineers at all and have mid-level be the entry level.

But the tech industry favor junior/younger employees. Ageism is a thing in the tech industry.

Does FAANG really pay 300k for "mid-level" engineers?

Mid-level as in high end L4, low end L5.

i.e. 1-2 promotions from new grad level you can get to 300k total compensation (including salary, stock, and bonus) from most FAANG.

So, yes.

Yes, and more. See Levels.fyi

> Why would a company pay more than they need to?

Remember BlackBerry? Local comp, prevailing wages, "competitive offer" from the "local market". Good relationships with local colleges. No stocks.

A competitor (Apple) paying much more got pretty much all the kids from the schools around Blackberry to apply there first and then go to BlackBerry if they didn't qualify.

Blackberry didn't get acquired. It just got crushed.

But the company was right, it didn't need to pay more to attract local "talent".

Because cartel is illegal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

They recoup many times $500k per every employee, not just mid-level engineers, but only the engineers are able to command that much because there's more demand than supply.

HR, marketing, sales, etc. - while still paid well - are not compensated at the same level as engineers, especially when comparing by years of experience on the job.

> If there is a glut of "low-level" engineers it's impossible for there to be a shortage of high-end mid-level engineers as those mid-level come from the low-end engineers.

I was going to point out several reasons why this statement is false, but you went ahead and falsified it later in your own comment.

> So if there is a lack of "high-end" mid level employees, they aren't doing a good job of developing their younger "low-end" employees.

Seems like by "impossible" you mean "avoidable if you allocate enough time and resources".

> If there is a glut of "low-level" engineers it's impossible for there to be a shortage of high-end mid-level engineers as those mid-level come from the low-end engineers.

That is a faulty assumption that cannot be true if in conflict with a bias. For example what is your data driven definition for a high-end versus low-end engineer? The answer to that question is almost certainly subjective.

In my experience employers optimize for hiring and onboarding first. Everything else is a secondary consideration that impacts tools, delivery, quality, and so forth. Employers could optimize for faster delivery and higher quality code, but that would mean fewer frameworks and abstraction layers which harms speed of hiring and speed of project onboarding.

From a purely numbers perspective that is absurd. Hiring and onboarding are one time problems per employee and are prioritized over concerns which cost the company significantly for the life of that employment. It isn’t about numbers. This isn’t about numbers explains the high pay rates for developers.

It’s about having employed developers already available.

> The reason FAANGs/etc are willing to pay $300k-600k for "high-end" mid-level engineers is because they stand to recoup many times than per employee.

So can other companies that don't pay anywhere near as much.

exactly. facebook generate among the highest profit margins of any company. Multi-illion dollar ad budgets by fortune 500 companies, plus tons of small business adverstiing, is jsut pure profit for instagram and facebook. Mobile ads are very expensive, too. More expensive than desktop.