I think the fundamental problem is that companies want a "Sr. Software Engineer" with >7 years of development and >4 years of development in their particular language, who also is young enough to think that "Nerf guns" and "xbox's" [sic] are an appealing "Benefit" and that aren't going to ask anywhere near $115k a year. (a totally reasonable salary, by the way, but I think you lose edge in negotiations by putting that up front. What if they think you're worth $125k? They're now going to offer $110k and let you talk them up to $115k.)
Basically, companies want the impossible, and they are driven by a culture that is very out of touch with the market.
For instance, this is also why they're not so keen on telecommuting.
There are exceptions, of course. But when they can't hire according to their plan, they're going to tell reporters "there's a shortage of good engineers!" where "Good" means "recent college graduates with 7 years industry experience 4 years ruby experience who will work for $60k and nerf bullets."
I see posts like yours and think its a damn shame. You're missing out, and at least some of those 50 companies are missing out... its a lose-lose situation.
another thing that irritates me about these claims of a shortage is that almost all of the companies doing the hiring take pride in their challenging interview process and acknowledge a high rate of "false negatives" - ie., that that they are very conservative about making an offer, and that this does result in a "no offer" to developers who probably would have worked out.
I made this point in a previous thread, and ended up in a lengthy debate/unrelated-parallel-point-making back and forth with someone who pointed out that there's a good reason to set up a hiring system that results in false positives - bad hires are so destructive that it's worth losing out on good hires to avoid the occasional really bad one.
I agree, and I think that companies should be allowed to have as high a standard as they please, and accept as many false positives as they like. I just think that if a company has decided to be selective and accept many false positives, then they've more or less decided to put themselves in a difficult hiring position. Sure, it may be worth it - I certainly think it's worth it. But if that's the case, why on earth is it newsworthy that hiring is difficult? Especially if you aren't offering far above market rate pay?
I disagree. I've interviewed people that failed on our rather easy interview questions but had other redeeming qualities. We ended up hiring these people and nobody has ever turned out well; it would have been better to have no position than to have them. My new rule is, "would I go into business with this person". If not, no hire. Sorry.
When I wrote "Sure, it may be worth it - I certainly think it's worth it", I intended to communicate that I think it's worth putting up with a high number of false negatives to avoid really bad hires... so I think we actually are in complete agreement on this point.
It seems to me that the unspoken issue here is the dichotomy between founder and employee. Not every employee is going to be someone of whom you would say "I would go into business with this person." While I agree that companies should keep standards high, at some point (and I would maintain that point is not very far out on the curve) if you can only hire people you'd form a business with you are going to hit a wall when it comes to growing your company.
I'm not a founder though, I'm employee eight billion at Bank of America. It's just that hiring people that are bad at programming is so demoralizing that it's better to not hire someone unless you're 100% sure they will turn out awesome. Otherwise, you'll spend all your time "helping" them, and neither of you will get any work done. (Nobody ever gets fired because it makes you look bad, or something, so if you make a bad hire, they're here for life. Especially since they are getting paid above market.)
Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.
It's funny how every single time there are discussions of salary on HN, there will be wild differences in opinion. You're saying an entry level engineer is getting $110k while some comments later are saying $115k seems high for a senior engineer.
I think its a bit lower then that if you want to work at a start-up. We're paying Mid-Senior level from $120-150 (Full Stack). I vet hundreds of resumes a month, and we're pretty average / ahead of the game.
My kid brother just graduated CS from Berkeley and got offers ranging from 70-85, plus equity, benefits etc. Still high, but not quite $110k...
What defines "really great"? I'm a student graduating in two years and $110k is almost twice as high as the average CS/SE undergrad starting salary from my midwest University.
> (...) most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.
Guess asking half the market rate was a serious blunder. Makes OP seem unfamiliar with current salaries of senior-level devs -- and so HR drones assumed he doesn't have any recent senior-level experience.
I'd love to know where seniors command a market rate of $200k+. (Possibly if you figure in benefits, bonuses, etc. - but a salary of $200k+ is still not that easy to get)
The absolute top of the senior ladder lists $200k. At one single company, for one job. (And checking the same thing for Mountain View doesn't yield a significant difference)
So I don't think $110k is "half the going rate" :)
You can also look at aggregate U.S. household income statistics. Only 3% of households make $200k+ in total income, even after you count both incomes for married couples, and including investments/bonuses. And, most of those aren't in tech. So you'd have to have a very particular social circle for it to be anywhere near normal for even senior people to make $200k+. Just by aggregate numbers, low 6 figures is fairly common (16% above $100k), but things drop off rapidly above that (6% above $150k, 3% above $200k, 1% above $300k).
Ah wow, I've never made that much. I keep hearing of developers I've worked with going to new companies and making double what I am now. It always astounds how people say what they're being paid, and how I am just no where near it.
The Bay Area is competing with states with no income tax and lower rent (washington, texas, etc). A $90k wage in Seattle, WA can be equivalent to a +$110k wage in San Jose, CA after state income tax, higher rent and more expensive gas.
Salaries in the LA basin and San Diego have been in a ghetto since forever, it's really well known. The theory is that there's a lot of surfers that will take a big salary hit to live near the So.Cal. beaches, so it has a permanent depressing effect on salaries. Maybe that's the reason, maybe not, but the fact is that people in LA with skills can instantly double their salary by moving to the Bay.
Given the cost of living in the area, 70k for a senior developer is a nightmare for everyone, but the fact is there's no shortage of people willing to make the trade so it works for you guys and that is fine. There's a bit of a blowback though, because of the low salaries and beliefs they are normal, it's not the best place to start a company doing anything cutting edge that requires the top tier of talent, and that's why all the really cool stuff is still in the Bay and will probably always be there.
I was told by someone with lots of experience that I worked with for a few years that I should expect $110k when I graduate.
Someone I know just left $200k at a multinational megacorp for the same at a 50-person company.
A team of co-founders I know was acquhired by a different multinational megacorp, and they now make $350k-$500k before bonuses, although they've moved up from pure engineering to running teams and managing other developers.
So $200k is the lowest salary I've heard for people I consider "senior".
I was going to write up a summary comment, but I think you hit the nail on the head. I think there is some skewed rhetoric and assumptions being thrown around in the media like you suggest. Regardless, there has to be some honest companies with genuine/real need out there.
I will keep looking for the right situation/job anyway.
Basically, companies want the impossible, and they are driven by a culture that is very out of touch with the market.
For instance, this is also why they're not so keen on telecommuting.
There are exceptions, of course. But when they can't hire according to their plan, they're going to tell reporters "there's a shortage of good engineers!" where "Good" means "recent college graduates with 7 years industry experience 4 years ruby experience who will work for $60k and nerf bullets."
I see posts like yours and think its a damn shame. You're missing out, and at least some of those 50 companies are missing out... its a lose-lose situation.