The fine print:<p>> Not every Weeby engineer will earn the million dollars. Weeby will subject everyone to monthly performance reviews, and managers will make quick decisions, either granting the next $10,000 raise or offering feedback about needed improvement. Some will be terminated but given a "healthy severance" of at least $20,000, plus references.<p>This structure sounds like a recipe for stress, low morale and high turnover. And why in the world would the company promise references to employees it had to fire for not meeting expectations? "John is a great programmer. He made it to $150,000/year in annual compensation before we determined that he wasn't worth $160,000/year and had to terminate him. He's a steal if you pay him less than $140,000/year!"
I'm mixed about this. On one hand, $250k/yr seems like it should be a bit above market rate for the value engineers provide their companies. Even mediocre engineers provide far more value than the typical market rate. Market rate for mediocre or even slightly below average talent should be much closer to the mid-$150k range than it is. Good or excellent engineers should already have base compensation around the high $100k/low $200k range anyway.<p>That said, this company is a game company at its core, and I would expect these salaries and perks to come at quite a high price in other terms (particularly work-life balance).
Isn't increasing pay like this just part of how the market rate adjusts? In this case it seems a bit extreme but it seems obvious that if a company is having a tough time attracting talent they should pay more.