More about high salaries, or why it can't work

    So, the pluses for an article such as " Pay programmers a lot " are collected, now it's time to talk about why this does not work just mathematically, and what was hidden behind the smallest font. It is clear why this works: the distribution of the number of vacancies by salary is very normal, which means that those who are to the right of the average salary have much less opportunities to find a salary higher than those on the left side of the boa. That is why I wrote that VZ, although it does not motivate, but holds well at the current place of work. But can all employers use this “new” and “working” methodology? What will happen if they all increase the RFP?

    Programmers, of course, will live better. But the picture will remain the same. Half of the salaries will still be below average. Just by definition of the mean. And the tangible advantages of the OZ position are again able to be enjoyed only by a few who have moved well “to the right”.
    That is, purely mathematically, the majority of companies cannot keep employees high salaries.
    This is a sad but inevitable reality.
    And in this reality everyone finds their place. Every employer and every employee.

    Let's think a little bit about which companies can use which strategy? Maybe we can identify the criteria?

    • A large company makes a sophisticated, innovative product. Dismissal of leading developers can affect very negatively (especially if they leave to a competitor). The technology is unique. Will they overstate the RFP? Will be.
    • A large company writes software to order. The process is well established, leaving the developer is not very expensive. The company has a well-known name, a good training center, a stream of projects, and for a beginner it is an opportunity to gain a lot of experience. Will they overstate the RFP? They will, but only for the coolest specialists, and for the bulk - even underestimate.
    • The company makes sites. A lot on the conveyor. There are many site builders. Dependence on developers is low. Technologies are used standard. It is called * web * soft *. Do they need to raise salaries? It seems to me - no.
    • The company makes sites. A lot on the conveyor. There are many site builders. Dependence on developers is low. Technologies are used standard. But this is, say, Lebedev's studio. Will their salaries be higher? I think they will.

    What is the difference? No, we have to run into Lebedev, our rating is not growing for the number of comments. We carry out cluster analysis, identify influencing factors.

    Lebedev Studio is positioned on the upper price segment of the market. And that is why their sites are more expensive, design is more expensive, specialists are more expensive.
    But they are arranged in much the same way as * web * soft *?

    The market will always have an upper price segment. And there will always be companies working in this segment. And other things being equal, everything will be more expensive for them. And above the RFP. And as a result - the opportunity to hire the best. That means making the product an average of better quality. And thus position yourself in the upper segment of the market. The circle is closed.

    Like it or not, we will always have an uneven distribution of salaries. Which is generally true, given the uneven distribution of talents.
    However, it will never hurt anyone to find a job more interesting and with a high income.
    The main thing is to desire, strive and move in the chosen direction.

    Also popular now: