[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.