Thread by @honnibal

Interesting discussion of developer compensation on HN, especially in the Bay Area: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=172869…
tl;dr: Total compensation for the largest companies is often >300k. If this surprises you, you might find @patio11 's take useful.
Some thoughts: 1/8

First, there's much discussion on HN about how startups can compete with this level of compensation. Probably the best answer is they shouldn't. And I don't mean start-ups should pay less and make up the difference with stories, promises and dreams. 2/8

The biggest tech companies are milking market opportunities worth billions. Software engineering has diseconomies of scale, so they can't simply hire two people and pay them 50% each. Developers are therefore simply worth more to big companies. 3/8

Your random-ass start-up probably can't get 300k of value out of one software engineer. FAANG (and 20-50 other companies) clearly believe they can. So just accept that if someone could get a great offer from those companies, they should take it. 4/8

Start-ups shouldn't compete for Bay Area developers that can get hired by FAANG for the same reason they shouldn't compete for ad spots on network television. The ad spot is simply worth more to P&G or Coca-Cola than it is to your company. 5/8

It would be weird to expect the TV network to take a lower bid from you for their ad spots, just because...What? Because they like you? Because it's unfair that someone else can/will pay more? 6/8

The whole point of capitalism is that the value of an asset isn't fixed. It's contextual. If your company is being out-bid for some resource, that's not a sign you need to raise tonnes of capital so your bids are competitive. That's absurd. 7/8

In summary: If your company is small, certain developers will be much more valuable to others than they will be to you. Make peace with that. Most of all, if someone has an offer legitimately better for them, don't try to trick them into turning it down! That won't end well. 8/8