[untamedmedley]

Sounds nice at first but if Google can afford to hire the most experienced, why would they do something that goes against their bottom line?

From what I've seen, you've got a lot of developers commanding 60-80k salaries. From a startup perspective, I don't really understand why this is the only acceptable path.

It just seems smarter to locate near some technical colleges in cities that have a lower cost of living, and pay entry level developers a salary between 35-45k to start. As they improve their skills, you up their salary... assuming that improvement comes with an increase in revenues/profits.

[nostrademons]

Google actually hires a large number of junior-to-midrange engineers and trains them up. Average age at Google is something like 28; a large number of Google engineers have never worked anywhere but Google.

At that level, they hire for aptitude, not experience. The $60-80K that Google pays for beginning hires is on the anticipation that after training, they'll be worth at least that much, and Google can retain them long enough for them to make it back. It's fairly common knowledge that a new Google engineer won't be productive for 6-8 months at least.

The risk that a startup runs by paying $35-45K is that they'll get people with lower aptitude who'll never turn into experienced engineers. That's a pretty big financial risk to take, particularly for a startup with much less runway than Google.

[kujhytrtyu]

So your choice is pay 80-90k salary to somebody who will contribute $M to your bottom line (Google earnings/employee are incredible) or pay $35-45K for sombody who will just tie up your other programmers fixing their bugs

[bugsy]

$60-80k? Maybe for HTML or "Excel" programmers or something.

Actual developers cost much more than that.