As an employer, you want to find these folks. 
  There's usually no downside to having these 
  absurd job postings.

There are at least a few big downsides!

1. You lose a lot of accumulated knowledge when you burn your employees out and need to hire new ones every ___ months.

2. When you're understaffed (er, sorry - "running lean") and every week is basically run-around-with-your-hair-on-fire crunch mode time, you accumulate technical debt like crazy. Pretty soon everything's held together with duct tape, because you're dealing with shit flying at you from every angle and there's often no time to do things right.

3. An unreasonable job description like that weeds out nearly all seasoned, savvy developers. (For a high-profile job like PA, maybe they'll attract enough naive young geniuses who would love to work a zillion hours a week for low pay, and that will kinda sorta make up for it)

Regarding point 1, there's a widespread view in the Bay Area that it's good to get a "fresh" perspective in companies that are toxic enough to continually burn out employees, which is many companies, probably most.

Furthermore, high turnover is very, very common in VC startups, including CEOs.

So how does a developer determine their own value? For example:

1.) I do web development every day. I'm not a spectacular designer, but I can put a work flow together and I'm comfortable on both the client side javascript (JavaScript proper, jQuery, Backbone, AngularJs) as well as the server side (Ruby, Node.js, PHP 5.5 (Laravel mostly), C#).

2.) I do development in the form of sysadmin/devops type tasks (bash/powershell/vbscript)

3.) I currently do IT related tasks with regards to servers (not desktops) such as building servers from parts, loading them in to racks, setting up firewalls/routers/networking, etc

4.) I'm not perfect with attention to detail. Things fall through the cracks, but I know when to skip details (because they can be easily rectified if missed) and when not to (because the work really is mission critical, or rectifying the mistake would be particularly painful)

5.) I'm self-educated with minimal college. However, I devour books about algorithms, AI, language references, etc

6.) I have terrible work-life balance. I love my wife dearly, but if there is a problem to be solved, I can't let it go. I often dream about problems that are on my mind.

7.) I work well in teams, but I prefer solo work as I can often get in the "zone" easier when not distracted. I am not socially awkward, but I prefer smaller groups. I won't do sales, and while I can do direct customer service, I find it exhausting and my day is often shot afterwards.

8.) I understand how to deal with, and juggle, multiple "number one" priorities.

9.) I generally don't do on call, but if there is a fire, I'm always available to work on it.

10.) I'm constantly on the lookout for techniques to enhance myself, and the team as a whole. I often do presentations on up and coming software stacks, or training on technologies that I think would be worthwhile to implement.

11.) I live in Portland, Or. Relocating to SV or SF is not an option.

Given all of that (and more since it's never binary), how do I go about valuing myself in the market without wasting a ton of time?

Almost none of the above matters (except the location).

Offers are made based on your past experience and interview, before an employer can do a full psychological profile to see if you're a good fit.

So number one priority is to have a good resume.

Then you just "feel out" the current rates based on what you currently make and taking in other signals like glassdoor, salary ranges in job postings in your area (jobs listed on AngelList are most transparent about that) and talking to your peers.

The best way to get good salary is to get multiple job offers and increase your demands with each successive offer.

Yes, it is time consuming, but much less than writing code and with much better long-term effect on your salary.

> Almost none of the above matters (except the location).

Not even that one. http://www.weworkremotely.com

That still matters a lot. Almost universally one of the reasons to hire remotely is to hire people in lower cost-of-living areas and pay them accordingly.

Adjusted for cost of living you might be making more on taking a few basis-point discount since the Valley is so insane, but location absolutely factors into remote work salaries.

> Almost universally one of the reasons to hire remotely is to hire people in lower cost-of-living areas and pay them accordingly.

I currently work for a decent sized Drupal shop. I was told upfront that the company went with remote employees because there simply weren't enough within commuting distance. Based on how the knowledge Drupal people in another state have been snapped up, I completely believe it.

> How do I go about valuing myself in the market without wasting a ton of time?

It takes a ton of time, but interview people. Seriously, you would not believe what the applicant pool is like, even after resume filtering and phone screening. After interviewing 20-30 people you may have a very different perspective on which decile of value that you fall into. If you are in the top 10% of developers, then your value is the top 10% as well.

Note that those you get to interview will tend to be the less attractive candidates because they will tend to do more interviews before getting a job (and may be job hunting again sooner) BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. You only have position yourself amongst the AVAILABLE candidates anyway

Seriously, I dropped out of college and worked my way back up to the position of 'lead developer' and it took me a couple of interview rounds, when we tried to fill open positions, to realise that there are so many clueless programmers on the market. Before that, I thought this was mainly limited to the companies I knew. So, if you have experience and browse HN, chances are that you are already in the top 10%. Of course this is an oversimplification and based on anectodal evidence. By the way, I was of course desperate after I dropped out and thus was lucky just finding a job.

just talk to your peers and break the barrier of 'taboo' talking about salary. that taboo is /only/ in the interest of your employers.

transparency wins imo.

I must disagree, you'll stir up too much drama.

What you do is talk to peers in the industry, every opportunity you can find, especially ex-coworkers.

this is a better suggest for sure, at least in terms of avoiding social awkwardness

Until you make $30-$40k more or less than a colleague who is supposedly on the same level of you. That shit's awkward.

You and I know it's negotiating skill, expertise, tenure...and yet it's still awkward when it happens (as I've had happen).

Yeah, but why is it awkward? What you get from this is that they either get the information they need to realise that they are being screwed, or you get the realisation that you are overpaid for whatever reason. It could be that there is a genuine gap and you are worth that much more, or it might be as simple as you having learned earlier than them that 'not being money oriented' is a bad interview tactic if you are experienced and capable...

Whatever it is I don't think it hurts unless you don't really deserve that money and have good reason to feel guilty about it - even then its not your fault, or anything bad about you, its the employer who is 'screwing them over' in that case and you are giving them the information to realise it.

I've had similar happen a few times, its not really a problem, I've actually been surprised when I've encouraged them to go for more money and one guy in particular basically said, "yeah, but you actually are worth that much more to the company than me".

To get paid the maximum amount possible you will have to look around and test the market, as it's unlikely the first offer anywhere would be the highest.

But you should probably just work out how much you would like to make, what kind of company you would like to work for, what kind of work, what kind of work life balance and aim for that.

If you put your contact details in your profile would be interested to talk based on above.

Talk to some recruiters. Seriously.

Although they are considered the spawn of Satan by most devs, they know exactly what you are worth because their business depends on it.

And they will be willing to talk to you, because you are their meal ticket.

Most recruiters have no idea of what you might be able to get. They want to get you placed as quickly as possible, because placing many people quickly is how they make the most money. It's in their interest to convince you your worth less than you are, because then you'll look like a bargain and be easier to place.

What recruiters make on each placement depends on the salary you'll fetch. It's in their interest to make it as high as possible, and know exactly what the market rates are.

However, what recruiters do understand is what you'll fetch depends very much on your attitude and confidence. You act like a lamb, you'll be sold like a lamb. But that still means they know exactly what you will be able to get.

Good recruiters will coach you to increase your market value, but even the shitty ones know their numbers.

sounds like real state agents

Get interviews. Get offers. Talk with other devs. Talk with recruiters.

As a dev in Portland, I can tell you with your skill set, if you have at least 3 - 4 years experience, you can get 6 figures. But you have to market yourself as a dev, not a generalist. Especially if you emphasize Angular and Node.

I'd class myself as an above average generalist. What's the difference between marketing myself as that or as a dev?

Well, say a company is looking for an Angular expert -- are they going to hire someone who's spent the last year doing Angular, along with 50 other things, or someone who's spent the last year hyper-focused on Angular? I think there are jobs for generalists for sure, but there are also jobs for super-pressing needs (read as $$$) for specific strengths. If you spread yourself too thin, you're not going to get the job for that one skill-set they need. I could be totally wrong, but that's how I approach it. Also note that it's assumed devs have some knowledge of other technologies, so I'm not saying don't learn plenty of stuff.

Money is just one form of compensation. PA offers a matching 401(k), my company doesn't. PA offers what seems to be a pretty sweet working environment, my company doesn't. PA might have some interesting/hard problems to solve, I'm stuck making CRUD apps for customers that just don't care.

People can complain about the (allegedly, nobody knows what they're paying yet) low salary all they want, but that's only one piece of the puzzle.

- We are quite literally looking for a person that can do four jobs: Web Development, Software Development, Sys Admin, and the (dreaded) GENERAL IT for us here that need help configuring a firewall for a dev kit, etc.

- [...] and don’t mind having a really bad sense of work-life balance, this is the job for you.

- You should have no problems working in a creative and potentially offensive environment.

- It’s rarely we call on it, but if something breaks in the middle of the night, you are expected to be on call to address that issue 24/7.

That's four pieces of the puzzle already.

Some people like working many different roles. What's that thing the startup folks always say about early hires- "You get to wear many different hats"?

Some people like creative/potentially offensive environments. I'm guessing they aren't saying "We are all assholes and will treat you like shit", they are saying "We don't worry too much about political correctness" or something along those lines.

To be honest, one person's "fun atmosphere where we don't worry about political correctness" is another person's "office full of assholes". If you are, in some people's minds, weirdly sensitive about rape jokes (see the "dickwolves" flap) you aren't going to like it there, and they want you to remove yourself from their candidate pool.

Likewise, my preferred standards of workplace behavior would, I'm sure, get me labeled a "humorless feminist" or something by some people who prefer a more bro-like environment. Though I'm the kind of person who would just leave rather than file lawsuits and such -- I don't want the hassle.

Personally, I appreciate unsuitable employers for identifying themselves upfront. It's much easier than finding our after I've already accepted the job.

Yes, it is quite obvious that what is "non-PC" to one person is "absurdly offensive" to another person. I know that. What I meant was "non-PC" shouldn't be taken to mean they will abuse you and make your life hell- unless, I guess, you consider offensive remarks in your presence to be abuse.

Non-PC: some people like, some people hate

Abuse: nobody likes

People's interpretation of an abusive work environment is different. There are some where the general environment is that you're expected to "give as good as you get" and everyone has fun -- as long as that's your idea of fun. Lots of people think that kind of thing makes for a fun office environment, whereas to other people, it's like working with the frat boys from hell.

And Lebron James likes playing basketball. That doesn't mean he'll do it for $50k per year.

Someone who meets the qualifications PA has listed can easily get a six figure salary plus stock and benefits at any number of cool companies with interesting problems to work on, nice offices, and fun cultures.

PA won't get good developers to apply with this listing. They'll get people who are desperate for work and willing to misrepresent their experience and ability. Bullshit begets bullshit.

I'm working a job that pays $100k a year, and I'm miserable. I've never had more fun working a job in my life than when I was working in a PA-esque environment (as far as I can tell, it was a very anti-PC office) making $60k a year. Money isn't everything, and there's something to be said about waking up every morning excited to go to work.

Also, how many software developers do you know that'd be doing what we do even if it paid $30k a year? Because I sure as hell would. Lebron might even be ballin' for $50 a year, if he loves it enough. And that's kind of the whole point of the job posting: if you're in it for the money then PA doesn't want ya, and you probably don't want PA.

You won't be excited to go to work when you were woken up for the 3rd time this week at a page at 4:30 in the AM because your db replication took a dump again, or one of the ten other single points of failure in your architecture dies for the 5th time this month.

I did oncall work for large pharma for 7 years, then also for AWS. It is terrible. I can guarantee you everyone there for the most part hates oncall. Everyone has to plan their lives around it, pre-plan trying to swap weeks out which overlaps family time and basically being tied to your pager and a computer / internet location for a week at a time is the worst thing in the world.

The type of job posting above sounds like you will be doing all of the crap work just keeping the lights on and never have any time to sit down and convince people how to reasonably re-architect all of the crap you are up all night working on...because you have no time to do anything but fight fires.

Being up all night and shifting your work schedule to 11AM - 7PM for the week just because you know you will be up in the wee hours of the morning every time you are on call is something I never want to go back to. What's that you say? I'm the only person on the oncall rotation? Well unless off hours pages are few and far between, don't expect me to be picking up trouble tickets every night or weekend because I am actually going to be out drinking at the bar, or doing other things. If your oncall load is this high, you better be hiring additional peers because there is no way I'm going to be expected to be tied to my computer every day of the year.

You're creating a false dichotomy. There are certainly more important factors than money, but a developer at the level of PA's listing doesn't have to settle for low pay or a crappy work environment. You should be excited to go to work and be adequately compensated for the extremely valuable work you do.

You may not be in it for the money, but any for-profit venture certainly is. Imo, if you're going to work for below market pay, you should do it for a non-profit that really is trying to make the world better with limited resources, not a company that is capable of paying what you're worth, but would rather make a slightly higher margin off your hard work.

And you're making quite the assumption. You assume that working at PA would be "settling for low pay", when in reality nobody knows what the position pays. Maybe it's low for Seattle? Or just lower than PA would pay if money weren't an issue? Hard to say, since they don't get into details in the posting. Or maybe lower than a job in corporate office, where you're stuck in a cubicle all day?

Again, the point is that there is more to job compensation than money (at least for me). If it doesn't pay enough, and the perks aren't worth it, then don't apply. Or apply, and then say "no thanks". Nobody is forcing a job on you, and there are quite a few people who would enjoy working for PA at some unknown % of market value. And don't conflate non-monetary compensation with doing good in the world, they can be two different things. Hell, in the case I made before they are two different things.

Speaking of non-profits, you know they run Child's Play[1], right? Raised $17M+ over 10 years. I wonder who's doing all the tech support, web dev, etc for that? Smart money is on whoever holds the advertised position.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child's_Play_(charity)#Annual_t...

As a member of those "some people" you mention, that's probably why I don't understand all the hubbub :)

> You should have no problems working in a creative and potentially offensive environment.

For some people, talking about the latest South Park episode can be extremely offensive, for others it's epic fun.

Yes, it is so sweet they expect that you will find it offensive:

"- You should have no problems working in a creative and potentially offensive environment."

They make comics. Lots of comedy is about trying to find a balance between what is offensive and what people are willing to laugh at.

If you're creating humorous content, then you by necessity cross the boundary into the offensive (but you don't necessarily publish it!) as part of the creative process. Otherwise you'll never strike the best balance.

Consider this Onion post (NSFW) - http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-...

Now try to imagine what their work environment must be like.

If you're familiar with the webcomic or the blog, you'd recognize that this is probably a reference to off-color language and humor that undoubtedly is typical of their work environment. This doesn't actually offend me at all, but the rest of the job posting does.

Comedians tend to offend once in a while, it's part of the gig. And PA is smack in the middle of the comedy/video game business, sometimes they might trample your delicate sensibilities[1].

As someone who isn't easily offended, that sounds a hundred times better than working in a constant state of fear that you're not being PC enough. But, to each his/her own. At least they're upfront about it, so potential candidates know what they're getting into. Doesn't sound like the environment you want? Don't apply.

[1] http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/09/penny-arcade-expo-dic...

I'm okay with that as long as it cuts both ways.

For example, I will work for you under the understanding that I will keep giving you shit about the "dickwolves" thing until you finally understand what you did wrong -- and no, you don't have to give your kids' entire college savings away to charity.

"I am an absolute moral authority. Apologizing and shutting up is the only acceptable response when I am pissed off. Any protestation will be taken as further evidence of your complicity."

Or maybe you're just a self-centred special snowflake.

http://virtuallyantifeminism.blogspot.ca/2013/09/pax-being-r...

"I'm happy with the status quo, so I'm going to write condescending remarks that could equally apply to anyone who has ever felt the need to stand up for somebody else."

I assume what they mean by that is the work environment will resemble what they've put on camera in their PA TV and other series. It will probably be both more mundane and more "offensive" than what is shown on screen, so the goal would be to find someone that can handle the situation.

GrantTree is a pretty cool and relaxed environment. And it's occasionally offensive. That's part of not being a boring and uptight environment.

This is basically a union argument. If all the people who felt this way banded together, they could form a developer or sysadmin union and exert exactly this pressure on employers.

And if you think unions aren't for skilled workers, look at how well it works NFL players or entertainment writers.

Norwegian labor unions (or rather "skilled workers movement", which would be the literal translation) do exactly the thing you describe here, and have been doing it since the 1960s. The difference from the US is that the custom has transitioned from factory workers to engineers and other skilled laborers. Practically every engineer who works in the oil industry is member of such an organization, and a lot of other technical personnel (myself included, and I am a programmer) are as well.

The result is exactly what you would expect if you disregard the anti-union propaganda. Greater transparency regarding salaries and working conditions, better opportinities for networking, strict and enforceable overtime regulations and vastly improved workplace safety.

This is serious mis-interpretation of reality.

Do you think that if cricket players formed a union (maybe they already did, I have no idea), they would be paid as much as NFL players?

Of course not. NFL players are paid so much because the league can afford to pay them and still stuff their bank accounts.

The same goes for TV/Movie writers - good, proven talent is in low supply and there are millions at stake, so it makes sense to pay well to get the best. The 5th box office hit on a given week usually makes a fraction of what the 1st and 2nd does, so it makes sense to optimize for hitting the 1st spot and you do that by getting the best talent and you get the best talent by paying them more than others.

We (programmers) don't need the unions to be paid well because there's still more demand for talent than supply of such talent.

If it ever happens that we need unions to be well paid, the unions won't help much because you can't pay high salaries if you don't have high revenues.

Also, given that software companies are generous with stock options, as part owners of the business, we should be very much against overpaying the employees, even if they are fellow developers.

You just happened to choose as your example two careers that are fully, comprehensively, and aggressively unionized.

NFL players are paid so much because the NFL Players' Association was willing to fight (and strike) to ensure the owners gave up at least a small fraction of team revenues as wages. Before the NFLPA's recognition in 1970, players usually worked second jobs to make ends meet. It was only after unionization (and, to a significant degree after the '82 and '87 strikes) that players received the kind of salaries we see today. Screenwriters are in exactly the same boat, and you'd have to pry the WGA West card from the cold, dead hands of each and every scriptwriter before you could shut down their union.

Exactly. Incidentally, the latest NFL collective bargaining agreement mandates that 47% of all league revenue go to the players.

Cricket players do have players unions. They're not paid as much as NFL stars because there's less money overall in cricket.

Pilots' unions in the US are an example of a skilled profession milking the industry. You can't have an airline without pilots, and the union knows exactly how much the airlines make - and pitch their wage demands to just below 'breaking the bank'.

The value of IT staff is harder to quantify - a commercial plane needs two pilots (generally). An IT department needs... ?

Airline pilots are also woefully underpaid, particularly in the regional lines. After spending a lot of time and money on an ATP license and probably a degree (the cookie cutter "career airline pilot" programs run $50-70k), pilots can expect to make under $20,000 annually at a regional. During Congressional hearings after an accident, it was revealed that the copilot made $16k. Career pilots a few decades in barely break $60-70k. And many fly 14+ hours a day.

Given the race to the bottom in the airlines I would consider ALPA and the airline unions necessary and I am all for treating pilots better. Since pilots, you know, keep aircraft from decorating the sides of buildings.

It's pretty sad when a Wendy's manager can do better than a regional captain.

That's way off base.

A second year DC-9 captain makes $82k/year.

A 747-400 captain can _easily_ make a quarter million a year when including bonuses and benefits.

http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/legacy/delta_air...

You don't get to be captain of a 747 after three years on the job. I think it's pretty well established at this point that there is a significant downwards pressure on airline pilot salaries in Europe and the USA.

Or maybe senior pilots screw young pilots and airlines: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

That's the actuality of it. It's all based on seniority.

Like every union ever.

When performance is not measurable, all you have to go on is seniority.

Also, the cost of the script on a TV show or movie is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the production, but determines a lot of its quality.

Makes sense to hire the best and pay well at that point.

Unions make lots of sense when there is a cartel of employers, as in sports and entertainment. This is not true of programming.

And why not so?

You are going to have to be more specific.

I take the Mark Suster position that engineers are terrible at negotiating, and they're eventually going to find out their market value or their peers' compensation, so just offer them a market, fair salary and equity to begin with, especially if you've found someone who you think will be a great fit.