2 ms·

You make good points. However... if we accept the economist's definition of productivity, then the article becomes a NOOP: We measure the marketplace, we discov

You make good points. However... if we accept the economist's definition of productivity, then the article becomes a NOOP: We measure the marketplace, we discover that given a set of programmers with roughly the same conditions, there isn't a 10x disparity in output divided by hours worked, therefore no programmer is 10x more productive. The only way there is something to discuss is when we presume there is another measure of programmer productivity and then ask why the marketplace is so inefficient that economic productivity does not correlate with programmer productivity.

nostrademons 17y ago
I think that there is easily a 10x disparity in output divided by hours worked. Why did the Etherpads just make 8 figures over the past 3 years, while I made only 6 figures? They certainly didn't work 100x more. By the economist's definition, they were easily 100x more productive. I think that there's a more interesting question in the article - why do salaries "flatten out" the productivity curve, so that programmers who would easily be making 100x more as startup founders are instead making 50% more, with the balance going to the employer? After all, if we measure by revenue generated for the employer, I'm in at least the 7 figures, within an order of magnitude. And I doubt Aaron etc. were making all that much in salary when they were Google employees either. I suspect the answer to this has to do with risk allocation. Because technology markets tend to be winner-take-all, there's a lot of variance in productivity that's not the result of the coder's actions. In other words, it comes down to luck, being in the right market with the right product. You can work hard at the wrong thing and still produce nothing of value, despite being smart and dedicated. When you sign on as an employee, your employer agrees to take on the risk that you'll work hard and still nothing will come of it. And in return, they get nearly all of the upside if your hard work does result in something great. I suspect that the 10x more productive figure is a result of sample bias: when you look at what people have done, there are some folks whose projects were 10x more useful than what other people have done. All the people who worked equally hard and produced equally large amounts of code are lumped into the "not productive" category, because in hindsight, their projects weren't all that useful. If you try to predict, a priori, who the 10x coders are, I bet you'll have a much harder time. If you don't, you have a sterling future ahead of you as a venture capitalist.
- cellis 17y ago
  This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time. It is easy to forget that, with regard to creating wealth, there are lot more factors at work than raw programming skill. Networking, for instance, can greatly increase your output if you choose an awesome cofounder. It has a benefit that is not easily defined because of how hard it is to decouple the work and effect of each individual team member. I know of one person that is worth easily in the 8 figures range, but he got in early to the venture. This does not mean he's a better programmer than everyone else, but he does benefit from a lot of factors that sum to being more important than programming skills.
- DenisM 17y ago
  As the starter of the thread branch I hereby endorse everything nostrademons wrote here. I couldn't have said it better myself even if I tried hard.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  I'm surprised this has been voted up. Generally I've found anything that suggests you aren't fully in charge of your own destiny, and that hard and smart work necessarily translates to success, to be somewhat taboo round here. (Which makes sense given the audience but often strikes me as a bit cargo-culty)

nostrademons 17y ago

I think that there is easily a 10x disparity in output divided by hours worked. Why did the Etherpads just make 8 figures over the past 3 years, while I made only 6 figures? They certainly didn't work 100x more. By the economist's definition, they were easily 100x more productive. I think that there's a more interesting question in the article - why do salaries "flatten out" the productivity curve, so that programmers who would easily be making 100x more as startup founders are instead making 50% more, with the balance going to the employer? After all, if we measure by revenue generated for the employer, I'm in at least the 7 figures, within an order of magnitude. And I doubt Aaron etc. were making all that much in salary when they were Google employees either. I suspect the answer to this has to do with risk allocation. Because technology markets tend to be winner-take-all, there's a lot of variance in productivity that's not the result of the coder's actions. In other words, it comes down to luck, being in the right market with the right product. You can work hard at the wrong thing and still produce nothing of value, despite being smart and dedicated. When you sign on as an employee, your employer agrees to take on the risk that you'll work hard and still nothing will come of it. And in return, they get nearly all of the upside if your hard work does result in something great. I suspect that the 10x more productive figure is a result of sample bias: when you look at what people have done, there are some folks whose projects were 10x more useful than what other people have done. All the people who worked equally hard and produced equally large amounts of code are lumped into the "not productive" category, because in hindsight, their projects weren't all that useful. If you try to predict, a priori, who the 10x coders are, I bet you'll have a much harder time. If you don't, you have a sterling future ahead of you as a venture capitalist.

cellis 17y ago
This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time. It is easy to forget that, with regard to creating wealth, there are lot more factors at work than raw programming skill. Networking, for instance, can greatly increase your output if you choose an awesome cofounder. It has a benefit that is not easily defined because of how hard it is to decouple the work and effect of each individual team member. I know of one person that is worth easily in the 8 figures range, but he got in early to the venture. This does not mean he's a better programmer than everyone else, but he does benefit from a lot of factors that sum to being more important than programming skills.
DenisM 17y ago
As the starter of the thread branch I hereby endorse everything nostrademons wrote here. I couldn't have said it better myself even if I tried hard.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I'm surprised this has been voted up. Generally I've found anything that suggests you aren't fully in charge of your own destiny, and that hard and smart work necessarily translates to success, to be somewhat taboo round here. (Which makes sense given the audience but often strikes me as a bit cargo-culty)