5 ms·

An essay focusing on one side of things and conveniently omitting the other one is not an essay, it's propaganda. I'm afraid if we run a proper statistical ana

An essay focusing on one side of things and conveniently omitting the other one is not an essay, it's propaganda. I'm afraid if we run a proper statistical analysis of programming labor vs. the result, we'll see a pretty strong correlation between the two. There will be outliers, but according to my personal (non-scientific) observation, "negative" outliers are extremely rare: I know very average software developers who raised to the top overtaking their smarter colleagues. I still have to see a great developer who due to the lack of opportunities cannot make ends meet.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Nobody is “omitting” anything. Not all discussions of X must focus on all aspects of X. Sometimes it’s useful to just study a subset of attributes of X, and that’s perfectly valid. Separately to your second point, I think you’re just badly mistaken. Firstly, meritocracy would mean someone receives financial compensation directly proportional to their productivity. I don’t know any software developers for whom this is remotely true. Often developers are paid a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate, nothing remotely approaching a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view. Secondly, there are many skilled software developers who cannot find work and cannot find competitive wages. Some end up unemployed from chronic burnout or the toll that dysfunctional open plan work environments take, some have family circumstances requiring them to live in places where the job markets are poor, some are unemployed after being fired for ageist cost cutting, and some work for successful companies but are deeply exploited, earning a fraction of what the person in the next cubicle is earning, despite being equally productive. It’s really harmful to propagate this stereotype that just because a person had training or skill in software engineering, they have a simple path to a middle class life. Absolutely not true.
- solveit 8y ago
  > Firstly, meritocracy would mean someone receives financial compensation directly proportional to their productivity. I don’t know any software developers for whom this is remotely true. Often developers are paid a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate, nothing remotely approaching a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view. I would call this a bad strawman of meritocracy if you weren't obviously for meritocracy. The parts I object to are "directly proportional" and the assertion that "a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate" is not "a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view".
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    Why do you object to those points? For example, I’d say a developer earning $200k per year in total comp (which is at the very high end of the spectrum) is drastically underpaid at almost any company, relative to the revenue they directly bring in, even after you account for risks that investors / owners are taking, costs of benefits / office space / equipment / sales / distribution / etc. The developer is still drastically underpaid. And if they are really a skilled developer whose productivity is sincerely a large multiplier beyond their peers’ productivity, they’ll be lucky to earn even 30% more, despite literally accounting for 10x, 100x, 1000x more revenue. I do not see how any rational argument could be made to suggest this is even the tiniest bit meritocratic. And we’re not even discussing the role of political favorites or nepotism might play in bonuses or promotions, etc. etc.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Nobody is “omitting” anything. Not all discussions of X must focus on all aspects of X. Sometimes it’s useful to just study a subset of attributes of X, and that’s perfectly valid. Separately to your second point, I think you’re just badly mistaken. Firstly, meritocracy would mean someone receives financial compensation directly proportional to their productivity. I don’t know any software developers for whom this is remotely true. Often developers are paid a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate, nothing remotely approaching a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view. Secondly, there are many skilled software developers who cannot find work and cannot find competitive wages. Some end up unemployed from chronic burnout or the toll that dysfunctional open plan work environments take, some have family circumstances requiring them to live in places where the job markets are poor, some are unemployed after being fired for ageist cost cutting, and some work for successful companies but are deeply exploited, earning a fraction of what the person in the next cubicle is earning, despite being equally productive. It’s really harmful to propagate this stereotype that just because a person had training or skill in software engineering, they have a simple path to a middle class life. Absolutely not true.

solveit 8y ago
> Firstly, meritocracy would mean someone receives financial compensation directly proportional to their productivity. I don’t know any software developers for whom this is remotely true. Often developers are paid a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate, nothing remotely approaching a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view. I would call this a bad strawman of meritocracy if you weren't obviously for meritocracy. The parts I object to are "directly proportional" and the assertion that "a tiny fraction of the revenue they generate" is not "a fair fraction from a meritocratic point of view".
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Why do you object to those points? For example, I’d say a developer earning $200k per year in total comp (which is at the very high end of the spectrum) is drastically underpaid at almost any company, relative to the revenue they directly bring in, even after you account for risks that investors / owners are taking, costs of benefits / office space / equipment / sales / distribution / etc. The developer is still drastically underpaid. And if they are really a skilled developer whose productivity is sincerely a large multiplier beyond their peers’ productivity, they’ll be lucky to earn even 30% more, despite literally accounting for 10x, 100x, 1000x more revenue. I do not see how any rational argument could be made to suggest this is even the tiniest bit meritocratic. And we’re not even discussing the role of political favorites or nepotism might play in bonuses or promotions, etc. etc.