[alexanderss]

Can't say I agree that "mediocre or even slightly below average talent" should be compensated in the "mid-$150k range" (is that a way of saying $155k?), so close to excellent engineers. This seems to misunderstand how market rate is determined (especially relative to equity compensation), conflate "market rate" and "the value engineers provide their companies," or defend high compensation for mediocre performance. The logic is flawed regardless, as "mediocre or even slightly below average talent" will actually provide the company with negative value, costing the software team and the company much more than they offer.

[Iftheshoefits]

I meant the "mid-$100k" range, as in around $150k/yr. I understand how market rate is determined. Frequently it's determined by companies' explicit collusion or other means, and almost never by an honest appraisal of the value an engineer actually provides. I was expressing the opinion that the model is flawed, and that market rate should be much higher than it currently is, across the board. That is to say, good to excellent engineers should be in the $200k-$300k/yr or more (base--not all in) range, and average (+/-) should be around the $150k/yr (base) range. At 33% above the "mediocre" range I suggest, $200k/yr isn't "so close" to good at all.

Also, the enormous quantity of applications, products, and services with very poor code backing them is a very strong indicator that "mediocre or even slightly below average talent" not only does not provide negative value, but just the opposite. Software companies these days have a lot of revenue, driven by sales of a software product that engineers get very little (relatively speaking) compensation for.