I literally meant slightly underpaying. I'm sorry, if I realized people weren't going to use the words I said with their own meaning, I would have said it differently.
I'm not marketing a job to you, I'm just saying that it doesn't pay as high as the highest offers I get for roles which I wouldn't take to replace it.
Edit: Let's just make this literal, it's 200k without considering stock, benefits, etc. I consider that slightly underpaid, but the idea you can't raise a family on it is mind boggling.
Thanks for the update (with the numbers), I was about to reply that without a number it's hard to gauge what 'slightly underpaying' means.
It would be interesting to see if you added a pay range if you got any additional hits. I'm not a devops guy, so I can't say whether it's underpaying or not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's also a remote US role, and it isn't Devops, as much as Software Engineering.
It's going to depend a lot on where you live for how competitive the numbers are, but I don't care where someone lives. I need someone equally as useful as everyone else in the team. It's a very high quality team, so it's a challenge certainly. But pay isn't the issue, it's differentiating yourself from all the other positions that say similar things, but don't mean it.
Like, every job rec says the same boring things. everyone wants "a+ players" or "force multipliers" or whatever bs they say. I wouldn't apply for the role as listed in the rec, and I know the job is great!
I'm not marketing a job to you, I'm just saying that it doesn't pay as high as the highest offers I get for roles which I wouldn't take to replace it.
Edit: Let's just make this literal, it's 200k without considering stock, benefits, etc. I consider that slightly underpaid, but the idea you can't raise a family on it is mind boggling.