hfthrowaway

I'll share my story here. I graduated with a non-CS degree and zero programming experience. It took me about 3 months to land my first programming gig (freelance), then an internship a few months later, and now I'm a junior developer at a great hedge fund.

I'll point out that I optimized for getting a full-time job as fast as I could. I have college loans to pay off, so I couldn't afford to spend months learning CS thoroughly. I learned enough to get past interviews, and focused the rest of my time on other high ROI things like networking/coding projects. Critically, I now have the luxury of having an income, and have both my day job and side projects to fuel my learning of the finer details.

We are using two different interpretations of what they meant by 'contributions to the company'. In terms of well-being and quality of life to the staff, the chef made tremendous contributions, sure.

But in economic terms (what I believe Pincus/Zynga meant), no, the chef did not contribute substantially to revenue/profits the way engineers and sales people did.

I don't think Pincus is saying chefs are not important in the qualitative sense (that their contributions don't matter as much as engineers) - I believe he's saying they do not contribute enough economic value to generate a 20 million dollar pay day. And he's right - the labor markets don't pay chefs anywhere near that much.

But he's wrong for lumping economic contributions as an employee (charlie the chef) and asset appreciation (charlie the investor) together.

Great post because sometimes we forget how easy some of our jobs are.

One thing that bothered me about the article and your post, however, is the "google chef" comment is bugging you for the wrong reason.

You and the OP are in agreement with Pincus implicitly, if you believe that merit and contributions as an employee is what justifies the rewards of equity appreciation.

That's not how the world works. Warren Buffett did not lift a finger building railroads, soda pop, and newspapers. That's not why he is rich.

Pincus wants you to think of this portion of your compensation as an employee, instead of an investor. Charlie made money because he became an investor, not because he was a chef.

Have you seen the production quality of Apple's manufacturing videos? The ones that include Jony Ive and Bob Mansfield?

People like working with human-centered companies. Showcasing what goes on behind the scenes is yet another marketing/"brand management" opportunity. Actually, its a definitive advantage because most software companies are run by socially awkward people.

Lastly, sighting investor's "golden rules" is ridiculous. Remember, most investors, especially in the venture business, are wrong more than half the time in aggregate.

At the moment, (22 people), >50% are pulling 200+k, >25% are half a million and up.

There seems to be information asymmetry in programming that doesn't exist in law, medicine, or banking. Everyone knows what you can make with a career in Big Law, or IBanking.

Compare this with programming - if you grew up in an uneducated household/poor highshool, you're told programming jobs are getting outsourced - be a doctor or lawyer. One level up, if you're at a semi-decent state school, you can go through your entire college career as a super star CS student and never hear the words 'quantitative hedge fund' uttered in your university's career center.

So what are these careers where people are making these large comps programming? Are they all quants and/or entrepreneurs?

Is there a strategic way to earn this much income, or is it predicated on having credentials/skills only .01% of all programmers have - that give you access to the .01% of jobs that pay this much? What are the risk profile needed for these outcomes? (Are we just seeing strong survivor bias?) I'd appreciate any anonymous perspective from "the other side".

No risk if you're a VC. Best case, you're net worth increases by orders of magnitude - worst case, you still earn a hefty management fee on all committed capital. If someone else spends five years of their life on a failed venture, its just one company in your portfolio.

Nothing wrong with entrepreneurship. I just find it grating when the benefits are expounded by people who take the exact opposite deal, in terms of asymmetric risk.

Thanks. I see it both ways, and agree with both you and rumpelstiltskin.

My current job pays abysmally low, but it offered great experience when I didn't have any. And I'm getting more interesting opportunities now because of it.

So now I can afford to be a little less desperate.

I'll take the job with the best experience/learning curve, coworkers, and future growth. I'm not worried about maximizing salary - I'm just trying to establish floor and ceilings for what to expect.

I think the fact its in finance is what skews things. I'm very frugal, so I don't want to feel as if I made out like a bandit when in fact I really got something below market rate.

Doesn't mean I won't take something below market rate, but I'd like to have that information when I evaluate an offer.

Sure, do you have a throwaway email? Put it in your profile, and I'll shoot you an email.

I mentioned in the OP its a traditional fund - not a quant shop. I have some professional experience in shipping financial trading applications.

I'm not trying to score a sweet deal here - just trying to understand the market value of someone in my shoes.

My lack of experience (defined in this thread as time I've been working) does not mean there isn't a situation that can't be considered lowball. I'm not trying to maximize my income - just want to have idea and data on the pay floor and ceilings.

Thanks for the feedback. I won't be involved in the investment decisions, but will be developing tools for the traders. There is a bonus, but I'm not sure what the typical size is for the developers. I'm wondering if the bonus is on par with what developers at Google/Facebook, etc take home.

But you're right, it is something I will consider when evaluating the package.