That is an interesting perspective. In my experience it seems a bit too narrow to generalize across companies but I know a lot of folks who have had some bad experiences at companies and then have extrapolated that to an entire industry. It has been interesting meeting folks at IBM who have 20+ years at the same company. Atypical of Silicon valley folks but not unheard of[1]. Having the experience of having been at a company for a while gives you the ability to do things that people who have not been there cannot, in part because you have a better view on where things get done or don't get done.
It is apparent from Erik's response to recruiters[2] that he approaches work in a somewhat mercenary way. And while that can work it sets a tone for your relationship with the people in the company that does not work to your advantage, and can sometimes be a handicap down the road as you re-encounter people with whom you have previously worked.
Companies are communities of people. Communities have norms and values and expectations. It is always uncomfortable when you don't fit in with the community, and some people are better at "finding their people" than others are. I can say though that when you and the community "click" for what ever set of reasons, it can be a wonderful thing indeed, and a real sense of loss when you lose it.
[1] One of my early friends at Intel is still there 30 years later, and the same with folks at Sun I knew who are now with Oracle as part of that acquisition.
[2] From the comment section Erik wrote:
This is particularly valuable when talking to labor
salesmen (i.e. recruiters).
"They have a pool table!"
"Don't care, what's the pay?"
"$X"
"Not enough money."
"But, they have a pool table, and everyone there will be
your dudebro and they'll even add rockstar to your
title!"
"Don't care, not enough money. Call me back if the
offer changes."
Wanting good pay instead of meaningless breakroom toys makes you a "mercenary?"
I'm all for working hard and leaving a position with everyone feeling like I made a difference, and I'm still close friends with many of my former colleagues and bosses. But at the end of the day my compensation for doing work others want done is my salary and the cash value of the provided benefits.
The cash value of a pool table in the break room is essentially $0, and a recruiter pretending it's not is trying to pull a fast one.
I guess I'm a mercenary ... assuming it's not a completely toxic environment, I negotiate a salary I can live with (and yes, I tend to be cheaper for more interesting work) and get down to the business of Getting Things Done - As a pragmatist, I don't see how being someone's bro helps move the project along.
Focusing on pay first saves everyone time. If I'm not paid enough to cover my mortgage then I don't care what your environment is like. I don't think that makes me a mercenary.
If I asked a potential employer how many meetings a week people in the position/team usually attend, and they say 20-30, that is clearly too much. But I am reasonably certain I would be criticized by you as using the wrong tone if I said as much.
"How many meetings do people in this position usually take a week?"
"Maybe 20, but it varies."
"That's not good, the interview process should end here -- but tell me if or when you have an environment that is more in line with what I am looking for."
You see how the same problem seems to appear? Unless your critique isn't what I am imagining, pay-first isn't the issue, it's that you think it's a violation of standard norms in hiring situations to have hard requirements, and to bluntly communicate when something is not a good fit. I think you will find that hiring managers do not share this opinion of correct behavior.
I think asking for meeting frequency is a good one, and one that speaks to the job as opposed to the remuneration.
When you get the answer "maybe 20, it varies" rather than end the interview, understand the environment. So I'm going to assume that going to meetings for you is something you don't like to do (and I can certainly understand that, worthless meetings are worthless) But in this same stream of questions my next one after 20 would be "How many of those meetings are run by the person in this position?" If the previous person in that position was calling 15 meetings a week it would credible to ask if the job required them to do that (and if so why) or if it was simply their preferred way of operating? If you are leading/managing a project with a fairly large scope you may find it easier to have a short meeting with the sub-project groups than read imr emails each week, where i, m, and r are issues, members, and replies. But if its a small company and the previous person just wanted to have meetings with everyone to feel useful, that might not be your style either. If there are 20 people/groups that want the person in this position to be at their meeting then its a valid question of how you might want to scale that position in a way that doesn't involve meetings.
Money is a "score" and number of meeting are a "task". Mercenaries go for a big score and don't care about the tasks needed to get there. There isn't anything wrong about being a mercenary, it is just another community of people.
> When do you think is the best time to bring up
> compensation then?
There are a couple of ways to interpret that question, and they hinge on value and what is "compensation."
Generally, if you are taking a full time job somewhere it will have four things you want to consider, "hours spent working on it", "location(s) where you will be working", "environment in which you will be working", and "monetary remuneration, including bonus opportunities".
Lets walk through them:
1) hours spent -- Some jobs require a lot of your time to do effectively, some can be essentially automated/supervised into a modest time commitment. If you are someone who values doing things outside of work that might be very valuable to you, if you are someone who values what you do at work, it might be a negative.
2) location(s) -- This is where you will be spending your time while working. It could be the middle of a cubicle farm, far away from a window, and it could be in the back seat of new fighter jets working with avionics. Depending on how much energy you get from variety (or how drained you get from moving around) that might be a good thing or a bad thing.
3) environment -- Generally you spend a lot of time at work relative to say "home" so what is available there to make that more comfortable, whether it be nap chairs, a lounge with pinball machines and a pool table, a well stocked library, or a cafe, has an impact on how "hard" it is to work there. Where hard in this context is defined as pushing yourself to do something you would rather not be doing given any choice of your time.
4) and money -- which is, at least for me, somewhat secondary in terms of how much I "like" or "dislike" my job. It is very important to me that I can share economically in delivering something excellent, it is less important how much over my baseline minimum you pay. But there is a baseline.
There is a fifth consideration, which is my own personal path of learning. So for example when I was at Intel and interviewed at Sun Microsystems I had the choice of working in the kernel group (very technical) or being what was essentially a technical marketing engineer. I initially chose the latter because my goal was to be able to start and run companies in the future, and to do that I had to know what marketing really did, the best way to learn that was to embed myself in a group that was known to do good marketing. And about a year and a half later, after learning what I needed to know, I transferred over to the kernel group and worked there which was much more in my comfort zone.
So in any conversation I have about a half dozen variables I'm evaluating in terms of what to do next. Monetary compensation is one of those variables but by no means the most significant. So in my own method I try to get a handle on the other three bits and they help define what level of monetary compensation I would need to stay, it could be quite small.
For example, if Elon called me up and offered me a job at SpaceX for half my current salary, I would still be inclined to take it because its an area I'm fascinated by, I have always wanted to be part of a private space firm (way back in the DC-X and RotaryRocket days) and I would learn a ton of stuff. So the 'monetary' compensation discussion would be biased toward saying 'yes' rather than 'no'.
In contrast I have had folks at trading firms offer to literally double my salary and move me and my family to New York and I've turned them down because I know I wouldn't be happy doing that for any amount of money. So in that regard the money conversation is irrelevant.
Bottom line, all of those factors are considered "compensation" by me, not just money. For mercenaries it is just about the money and nothing else.
Reading your post I can understand why the remuneration for SW devs isn't proportionate to expertise/experience/study.
Also explains why recruiters take 30% cut of the pay and why managers get paid the big bucks.
The pool table in the break room is a cargo cult stand in for an actual good culture and doesn't make up for a below-market salary. A truly awesome culture does make up for it, but the company that thinks the pool table makes their culture awesome and is a reason to take that low salary is a clueless company and not one I want to work for. Is that mercenary?
It is apparent from Erik's response to recruiters[2] that he approaches work in a somewhat mercenary way. And while that can work it sets a tone for your relationship with the people in the company that does not work to your advantage, and can sometimes be a handicap down the road as you re-encounter people with whom you have previously worked.
Companies are communities of people. Communities have norms and values and expectations. It is always uncomfortable when you don't fit in with the community, and some people are better at "finding their people" than others are. I can say though that when you and the community "click" for what ever set of reasons, it can be a wonderful thing indeed, and a real sense of loss when you lose it.
[1] One of my early friends at Intel is still there 30 years later, and the same with folks at Sun I knew who are now with Oracle as part of that acquisition.
[2] From the comment section Erik wrote: