[j2ko4r]

You cut both sentences midway through in full they read:

>Based on the job posting and the interaction of the CEO on twitter, I’m going to assume that this job pay six to nine times more than the average developer can make, because otherwise I can’t really figure out why anyone would work in such a place.

And,

>For this job posting, again based solely on the text and the CEO’s behavior, I’m assuming there is no such upside.

The first quote is a complete enclosed thought about how for such a large downside there must be a large upside. It sets up the rest of the article.

The second quote comes much later in the article after he's explored why he thinks the 60+ work week is such a bad thing and given examples of careers where it is prevalent and that in most cases come with an upside to balance it. He's returning to the starting assumption and coming to a conclusion for the article based on all the points he's made in it including that the behaviour of the CEO makes it unlikely in his opinion that the job really will pay the employee back for all they give up to work a 60+ hour week.

This isn't a contradiction you've just smashed together two sentence fragments without considering the context that led up to them.