3 ms·

> Software salespeople need to bring in 4-5x of what they cost. Lawyers and consultants are often tasked with bringing in 3-4x their cost. Why should engineers

by mmt 8y ago

> Software salespeople need to bring in 4-5x of what they cost. Lawyers and consultants are often tasked with bringing in 3-4x their cost. Why should engineers be any different? I'm not making the argument, but I suspect the argument is along the lines that (certain) engineers are actually creating the wealth, while the other professions you mention are some form of overhead, merely moving the wealth around (if you'll pardon the oversimplification/potential-strawman). Although I see the merit to arguments of that form, as someone in what is a service profession (IT/Ops, which is even traditionally "overhead" or "cost center"), I'm acutely aware of the value (i.e. wealth) that services provide. That said, I don't think a generalization like "all the professions are the same" (and fractionial-value compensation being fair is merely a matter of degree) is any more valid than engineering exceptionalism. Witness the popularity of terms like "rent seeking" and (earlier) "disintermediation". > I know exactly how much money I've made my company > As long as it remains a fairly reasonable trade, I'll be fine with it. This is probably the crux of the issue. Anyone in a non-sales/transactional role doesn't have this information, which makes it exceedingly difficult even to begin to decide if it's a fairly resonable trade. Besides the information assymetry (not that the company actually knows how much a particular engineer "makes" them), some of the sentiment among engineers may be due to the notion that, for them, the multiple is much larger than the 3-5x that you quoted above. Would any non-service engineers care to comment on what you think your multiple is?

seem_2211 8y ago
Yeah, I totally get a lot of these points. Where I get worried with these sort of questions is they mess up incentive structures and get really difficult so quickly! If we say some engineers (or perhaps more accurately, some engineering) creates the wealth, then do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Is integrating a customer creating wealth (possibly?), how about developing a feature that no-one uses (hmm). What about engineering that destroys value / wealth? I like sales because I have great information asymmetry, but it does come at its costs. I don't like doing things that aren't revenue generating, especially if they seem like moonshots. It makes you short term minded (to a degree), and focused on the dollars involved. Not that these are bad things, but they do limit the way you think about problems. I think one thing we need to remember is that engineers* have pretty amazing job security. And that's the crux of my point. Should Facebooks engineers have been better compensated for the machine they've built? Possibly. Should they also be on the hook for the havoc they've created? I'd say yes if they're capturing a lot more value (just like Facebooks executives should very much be on the hook). *in my experience knowing engineers, I have never been one
- mmt 8y ago
  > do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Yes, at least according to my strawman. Perhaps a better differentiator is creator/maker rather than "engineer", since it can be (and has been) argued that farmers and assembly workers are creating wealth with their labor, too. > then do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Is integrating a customer creating wealth (possibly?) I think this is, essentially, the question of if a service can be wealth creation. I think it's pretty clear that it possibly can, but it's not clear that it always does/must. As such, it's much harder to tell with a service if wealth/value is being created or just transferred, without careful examination, unlike with making something tangible (or at least visible, like computer code). > how about developing a feature that no-one uses (hmm). What about engineering that destroys value / wealth? I think you're talking about risk, which I mention in a different comment downthread. Fortunately, I don't think there are, in general, engineers/markers/creators who make zero or negative value exclusively (especially across their entire careers), and, more often than not, even if that happens within a single company, they didn't have the choice/control over the value. This last part is, perhaps, most relevant to the OP's original question. > I think one thing we need to remember is that engineers* have pretty amazing job security. And that's the crux of my point. I don't think that's true, though, and replaceability has been brought up elsewhere in the thread. As such, I fear I'm missing your point.

by mmt 8y ago

seem_2211 8y ago

Yeah, I totally get a lot of these points. Where I get worried with these sort of questions is they mess up incentive structures and get really difficult so quickly! If we say some engineers (or perhaps more accurately, some engineering) creates the wealth, then do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Is integrating a customer creating wealth (possibly?), how about developing a feature that no-one uses (hmm). What about engineering that destroys value / wealth? I like sales because I have great information asymmetry, but it does come at its costs. I don't like doing things that aren't revenue generating, especially if they seem like moonshots. It makes you short term minded (to a degree), and focused on the dollars involved. Not that these are bad things, but they do limit the way you think about problems. I think one thing we need to remember is that engineers* have pretty amazing job security. And that's the crux of my point. Should Facebooks engineers have been better compensated for the machine they've built? Possibly. Should they also be on the hook for the havoc they've created? I'd say yes if they're capturing a lot more value (just like Facebooks executives should very much be on the hook). *in my experience knowing engineers, I have never been one

mmt 8y ago
> do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Yes, at least according to my strawman. Perhaps a better differentiator is creator/maker rather than "engineer", since it can be (and has been) argued that farmers and assembly workers are creating wealth with their labor, too. > then do we say other types of engineering doesn't create the wealth? Is integrating a customer creating wealth (possibly?) I think this is, essentially, the question of if a service can be wealth creation. I think it's pretty clear that it possibly can, but it's not clear that it always does/must. As such, it's much harder to tell with a service if wealth/value is being created or just transferred, without careful examination, unlike with making something tangible (or at least visible, like computer code). > how about developing a feature that no-one uses (hmm). What about engineering that destroys value / wealth? I think you're talking about risk, which I mention in a different comment downthread. Fortunately, I don't think there are, in general, engineers/markers/creators who make zero or negative value exclusively (especially across their entire careers), and, more often than not, even if that happens within a single company, they didn't have the choice/control over the value. This last part is, perhaps, most relevant to the OP's original question. > I think one thing we need to remember is that engineers* have pretty amazing job security. And that's the crux of my point. I don't think that's true, though, and replaceability has been brought up elsewhere in the thread. As such, I fear I'm missing your point.