Saw this job posting on Linkedin- Cloud Infrastructure Architect - $150K DevFactory - 100% Remote Telecommute
-
That's pretty low for that position.
-
-
@original_anvil said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's pretty low for that position.
Just wondering, whats the good number?
For generic positions, you normally assume $200K is the entry level for cloud infrastructure architect. If you are senior enough, those will come with seven figure signing bonuses.
-
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
Also I couldn't bare to read the whole posting. It was too much marketing.
-
@Jason said:
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
For entry point ones, or just as an average?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
For entry point ones, or just as an average?
Entry level here is 70-100k DOQ. Average is more. Plus bonus is 50% of pay.
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
For entry point ones, or just as an average?
Entry level here is 70-100k DOQ. Average is more. Plus bonus is 50% of pay.
Is that a hiring bonus, or one of those "should be part of your salary, but the company reserves the right to screw you over and not give it to you if they don't meet some mythical number they invent?"
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
For entry point ones, or just as an average?
Entry level here is 70-100k DOQ. Average is more. Plus bonus is 50% of pay.
Is that a hiring bonus, or one of those "should be part of your salary, but the company reserves the right to screw you over and not give it to you if they don't meet some mythical number they invent?"
It's ROA bonus so as long as we are making, not loosing money you get it. Not really screwed over. We have some of of the better paying jobs. It also means a better workforce and one that works better to make sure we are making money. Also people tend to make better financial decisions etc. It has benifits for both sides.
-
@Jason said:
It also means a better workforce and one that works better to make sure we are making money.
That's very debatable. Many people don't consider bonuses compensation at all or consider companies using them in lieu of guaranteed pay to be scammers. Lots of people able to command top salaries won't talk to places once bonuses are mentioned - especially in IT where the power to make the decisions that make money are not there. It's fine in good years if bonuses are paid, but if someone that isn't you makes a decision that costs you your bonus it is you paying for their mistake. It's the company using your salary as a cushion to compensate for errors.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Jason said:
That's pretty low we pay more than that on the Systems Admin/Engineer.
For entry point ones, or just as an average?
Entry level here is 70-100k DOQ. Average is more. Plus bonus is 50% of pay.
Is that a hiring bonus, or one of those "should be part of your salary, but the company reserves the right to screw you over and not give it to you if they don't meet some mythical number they invent?"
It's ROA bonus so as long as we are making, not loosing money you get it. Not really screwed over. We have some of of the better paying jobs.
Scott has a post around here somewhere (I'm sure he'll link it) that talks about why bonuses are just a way for a company to screw over it's employees.
Really that crappy movie Christmas Vacation does explain it. Employees come to expect it, it's considered by them as part of their salary - but on a whim, the company can take it away.
Now perhaps your company never has.. fine... But many others do and have.
A fairly large company my friend works for hasn't paid bonuses in something like 5 years even with two digit gains because they built ridiculous expectations above what they made.
Another friend is considering quiting his part time job because he was getting a bonus of 30-50% of his salary a year. He was told this year that those days are over... no more bonuses... His pay is now around half what it was before... not worth the effort in his mind.
-
@Jason said:
It has benifits for both sides.
Even in shops with guaranteed bonuses I've seen it undermine relationships and cost companies people. At best, bonuses don't hurt. I've never seen nor can I imagine a situation where they help. Sure for the CEO or other people in a position to determine success or failure that's one thing. But if you aren't in that position, it's an illusion.
-
-
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
-
@Dashrender said:
A fairly large company my friend works for hasn't paid bonuses in something like 5 years even with two digit gains because they built ridiculous expectations above what they made.
I've seen wildly successful banks pay zero bonuses while having record breaking years. Those of us at the top were able to command zero-bonus salaries, but the "employees" getting bonus-based pay never got their bonuses and made a fraction of what they were promised. Year after year.
-
@JaredBusch said:
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
That is only the case until you make plans with the expectation of getting one, only to find out like Clark Griswold that you're getting a certificate for one month to the Jelly of the month club.
-
@JaredBusch said:
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
Most, but as we know, most are always a bad gauge. Certainly most employees think bonuses are good at the time that they are promised. But many does not imply most and I pointed out that it is many of the top that walk away from companies doing bonuses - unless they are in an influential position so that they actually have the power to make the money happen.
Many of the best certainly do command their salaries and don't get caught leaving it up to someone else to decide what they are going to get paid after they have already done the work.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
That is only the case until you make plans with the expectation of getting one, only to find out like Clark Griswold that you're getting a certificate for one month to the Jelly of the month club.
Right, I do not argue that the general bonus scheme is bad for people and good for companies.
I just argue that people actually see it that way. In my experience, they do not.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
That is only the case until you make plans with the expectation of getting one, only to find out like Clark Griswold that you're getting a certificate for one month to the Jelly of the month club.
And many people do end up getting bonuses and never realize that they were put at risk of not getting it while the company got to relax knowing that if they had a bad year that their employees would absorb a ton of the losses.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I just argue that people actually see it that way. In my experience, they do not.
And I don't argue at all that the majority of people do see it as good as most people don't understand business or income and also that the vast majority of people lack the ability to command their salaries. So even those that would prefer a guarantee of income, what can they do?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
While it is @scottalanmiller's opinion that bonus are bad and I basically get where he is coming from on the subject, I completely disagree with his blind assumption that "many" people think it is bad. The vast majority of people look at a bonus as a great thing.
That is only the case until you make plans with the expectation of getting one, only to find out like Clark Griswold that you're getting a certificate for one month to the Jelly of the month club.
Right, I do not argue that the general bonus scheme is bad for people and good for companies.
I just argue that people actually see it that way. In my experience, they do not.
Well this is like the conversation from the other thread "my homedrives are on a SAN" There's what most people think, and then the reality of the situation. Sometimes those things overlap, othertimes, not.
Edit
I agree with you JB, I think most people when they see bonus.. they think it's a good thing.
Where in stead they should be saying.. hey you know what.. I don't want a bonus, assuming the normal bonus is 20%, I want a straight 15% pay increase instead.
of course don't whine when everyone else gets their 20% and you only got your 15% (but you're still probably better off since you've been getting it all year, and they get it in a lump sum).
