26 ms·

Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. Devs don’t directly contribute to any fundamental human need

Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. Devs don’t directly contribute to any fundamental human need. We’re valuable because our work can facilitate those who do take care of those needs. The relative need is entirely down to supply and demand. And while I greatly appreciate being part of a group with limited supply and great demand, I don’t see why this means I should object to other people getting more.

leetcrew 8y ago
> Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. this is true but it glosses over an important distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. skilled positions in engineering and sales (just for example) require specific skills and probably some baseline aptitude that can't be quickly acquired. that is, you can't just assign your engineers some sales duties if it becomes too expensive to hire sales people, and most sales people can't just pick up engineering tasks if it's too expensive to hire more engineers. in contrast, most able-bodied adults can learn to sweep, mop, etc. in a couple weeks. maybe extend it to a couple months if they need to use heavier equipment to clean a large space. this inherently puts a ceiling on the value of janitorial work. if janitor pay gets too close to pay for a skilled role, it's just not worth hiring the janitor anymore. you can see this dynamic play out in restaurants and convenience stores. most businesses like these don't hire janitors, because they would have to pay them as much or more than they pay the waitstaff, cooks, or cashiers. instead, the normal employees are usually tasked with cleaning the workspace at the end of their shifts. to be clear, I am not contesting your greater point. the fact that some people don't perform extremely valuable work doesn't mean it's okay to treat them like dirt; it doesn't make them less valuable as people. but the claim that a software company needs a janitor as much as it needs an engineer just isn't true.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  Assuming that everything you said is true (and it is), why should the engineers care? They are still getting the same salary they had before and likely still have a much higher top tier than everyone else. If they are able to put their ego aside, they would see they were not negatively affected at all. If I was an engineer getting a fair market wage at 70k, and then the janitor gets a raise to an above fair market wage of 70k as well, it does not affect anything in my life. I am not going to quit and go work across the street as an engineer still making 70k just to ensure the janitor there knows I am more valuable.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    It does underline how for some people it's not about the absolute amount the earn, but about where it places them in the pecking order. Raise up the janitor and they're relatively speaking closer to the floor.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Your casual insertion of “able-bodied” hides an important point: there are lots of people who can’t do janitorial work either. There is nothing inherently different between the two types of work. The difference is of degree, not kind. I know developers who would be literally incapable of performing janitorial work. You probably do too. I completely disagree with your statement at the end. The janitors are absolutely needed. Maybe you don’t need people with the title of “janitor” because your developers take care of that work too, but that just means they’re part-time janitors, not that you have no janitors. An office that actually has no janitors will rapidly become filthy and filled with trash. You’re confusing need with ease of acquisition. It can look like companies don’t need janitors very much because they’re so easy to get. Companies don’t have to pay them well or treat them well because the supply is large and if you drive one away, there’s another one ready to take their place. But that doesn’t mean the need is low, it just means the supply is high. As an analogy, consider: what are the greatest needs for an individual? You’d probably answer: food, shelter, companionship, maybe something like fulfilling work. I bet you didn’t answer “air.” Yet our need for air is perhaps our greatest need: without it, we die in just a few minutes. Why doesn’t that come to mind as a need? It’s because it’s so easy to obtain, we just don’t think about it. Basic economics dictates that the difference in supply versus demand means developers will be able to command much higher salaries. Not because they’re needed more, but because they’re harder to get. The same reason a glass of champagne is more expensive than a glass of water, which is more expensive than a breath of air. If a company decides to pay their janitors more than the economics says they have to, that doesn’t mean that I should expect them to do the same thing for me as a developer.

leetcrew 8y ago

> Literally all employees are only worth employing because they free other people to do other things. this is true but it glosses over an important distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. skilled positions in engineering and sales (just for example) require specific skills and probably some baseline aptitude that can't be quickly acquired. that is, you can't just assign your engineers some sales duties if it becomes too expensive to hire sales people, and most sales people can't just pick up engineering tasks if it's too expensive to hire more engineers. in contrast, most able-bodied adults can learn to sweep, mop, etc. in a couple weeks. maybe extend it to a couple months if they need to use heavier equipment to clean a large space. this inherently puts a ceiling on the value of janitorial work. if janitor pay gets too close to pay for a skilled role, it's just not worth hiring the janitor anymore. you can see this dynamic play out in restaurants and convenience stores. most businesses like these don't hire janitors, because they would have to pay them as much or more than they pay the waitstaff, cooks, or cashiers. instead, the normal employees are usually tasked with cleaning the workspace at the end of their shifts. to be clear, I am not contesting your greater point. the fact that some people don't perform extremely valuable work doesn't mean it's okay to treat them like dirt; it doesn't make them less valuable as people. but the claim that a software company needs a janitor as much as it needs an engineer just isn't true.

wonderwonder 8y ago
Assuming that everything you said is true (and it is), why should the engineers care? They are still getting the same salary they had before and likely still have a much higher top tier than everyone else. If they are able to put their ego aside, they would see they were not negatively affected at all. If I was an engineer getting a fair market wage at 70k, and then the janitor gets a raise to an above fair market wage of 70k as well, it does not affect anything in my life. I am not going to quit and go work across the street as an engineer still making 70k just to ensure the janitor there knows I am more valuable.
- vidarh 8y ago
  It does underline how for some people it's not about the absolute amount the earn, but about where it places them in the pecking order. Raise up the janitor and they're relatively speaking closer to the floor.
mikeash 8y ago
Your casual insertion of “able-bodied” hides an important point: there are lots of people who can’t do janitorial work either. There is nothing inherently different between the two types of work. The difference is of degree, not kind. I know developers who would be literally incapable of performing janitorial work. You probably do too. I completely disagree with your statement at the end. The janitors are absolutely needed. Maybe you don’t need people with the title of “janitor” because your developers take care of that work too, but that just means they’re part-time janitors, not that you have no janitors. An office that actually has no janitors will rapidly become filthy and filled with trash. You’re confusing need with ease of acquisition. It can look like companies don’t need janitors very much because they’re so easy to get. Companies don’t have to pay them well or treat them well because the supply is large and if you drive one away, there’s another one ready to take their place. But that doesn’t mean the need is low, it just means the supply is high. As an analogy, consider: what are the greatest needs for an individual? You’d probably answer: food, shelter, companionship, maybe something like fulfilling work. I bet you didn’t answer “air.” Yet our need for air is perhaps our greatest need: without it, we die in just a few minutes. Why doesn’t that come to mind as a need? It’s because it’s so easy to obtain, we just don’t think about it. Basic economics dictates that the difference in supply versus demand means developers will be able to command much higher salaries. Not because they’re needed more, but because they’re harder to get. The same reason a glass of champagne is more expensive than a glass of water, which is more expensive than a breath of air. If a company decides to pay their janitors more than the economics says they have to, that doesn’t mean that I should expect them to do the same thing for me as a developer.