BUT: I guarantee you that there is in fact a wage and benefits package you can offer that would get you more good applicants. Maybe it's more money (sure, "above market" is nice, but I'm not going to leave a job for $5K more than my "market" rate -- but for $50K more, well, let's talk). Maybe it's perks and benefits (the Google package, for instance).

Whatever it is, there is absolutely money you can spend that would end up getting you noticeably more applicants one way or the other. That the company doesn't WANT to spend that money is exactly what bothers people.

And yes, yes, it's all well and good to say that developers are paid and treated well -- they are -- but if their talent and skill is really that rare and that in-demand, maybe they should be paid and treated even better.

How would we communicate said information in a way that doesn't actively distort the hiring process? When was the last time you saw a job ad with salary listed?

That being said my point is if I had the 5+ years of experience you probably are looking for and was moving to NYC I would expect to be making 150k+. Which if that is what you are offering, great. But if it's not then you can find the talent you are looking for, you just can't afford it.

As a developer, I'd love to agree with this. In fact, I do. But in our experience this isn't directly related to the talent shortage (again, we have never been unable to make a compelling offer to a candidate).

> (2) Why should startups be entitled to cheap labor?

I don't think they should be. All our senior devs have generous compensation which easily adds up to $150k+.

Banks will pay at least 2x more and large tech companies closer to that than what you are offering.

Note I'm not talking about truly great developers, merely good senior ones.

For reference, $150k is right on target according to AngelList data: https://angel.co/salaries

Most companies fail, making their stock options worthless. And even the few companies that succeed usually hit bumps in the road that dilute the stock options or put their value underwater.

So if you have a reason to think your idea of "substantial equity" is much more likely than average to ever be worth anything at all, you should make that fact a key part of your pitch. (Or if you're indifferent between equity and salary, offer more salary and less equity.)

Unless your company ends up being the next Google or Facebook (which is a statistically unlikely outcome for any startup), your "substantial equity" may never be worth any significant amount of money. Living in NYC is expensive, and you can't pay your rent with stock options.

I only have anecdotal data, I don't think many people have more, but I am very sure a decent senior dev can get way more than what you are offering.

I think there is more to a job than just the salary, but at least be open about the fact that there are open positions doing similar work in the same city offering significantly more.

What about those you haven't?

What do you think is the highest value of deploying monetary and other resources to make that happen, given that publicly listing salaries is a non-starter?

A lot of the phrases in vogue right now seem to indicate companies that want employees that work 80 hour weeks and pay entry level salaries. Have you tried "competitive compensation" or some other non-numerical indicator that you guys pay well or phrases that indicate you guys have a professional vs. passionate culture?

Then again, I wrote them. So you can see for yourself: http://www.cafe.com/careers

Just looked at your "Lead Engineer" listing. It says: "We offer a great startup work environment with free beer, snacks, and friendly teammates." That sounds more like a typical startup that expects people to work there for the fun experience than a workplace that wants to attract highly-paid professionals.

And the offer of free beer makes it sound like a frat party. Maybe that's a turn-off to women who don't want to work in a place full of drunken guys. Maybe it's a turn-off to guys who want to have a life outside of work. Skip the free beer and make sure your employees have enough free time after work to get a beer outside if they want to.

I once got messaged on LinkedIn by a Bloomberg/banking guy looking for me to contract with them in New York at a rate of $144,000/year, and I'm comparatively junior. A properly senior developer, someone with something like 7-10 years of experience in industry, should definitely be making a bunch more than some guy offers me off-the-cuff when trying to recruit on LinkedIn -- especially in an expensive area like NYC!

We have successfully hired people from Bloomberg and finance (including competitive compensation).

One thing to keep in mind is that contracting is very different from full time. $150k is low for senior contractors but normal for senior developers (annualized, I expect senior developer consultants to be making more than $200k if they're based in NYC).

Of course, your firm can also do its own part to fix the problem directly: hire more junior candidates and train them up. Yes, I realize this is quite difficult for your situation, but consider that if few to no companies train junior developers into senior ones, that explains why there are so few senior developers on the market.

And then there's the housing shortages around NYC and SF that make land rent eat up most salary rises -- that's worth an entire post in itself.

More practically, I wouldn't feel right hiring junior developers when I don't think we'd be giving them the best training given our current staffing levels and product needs. Since we already have too few senior devs, I'm not sure I could justifiably ask the team to take on the additional burden of mentoring junior developers (though I do hope we can start a robust training program once the dev team is a bit larger).

Training is a benefit - not a cost.