4 ms·
> Firstly, meritocracy would mean someone receives financial compensation directly proportional to their productivity. I don’t know any software developers for
by 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 agoWhy 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.