8 ms·

cynically it's because you can quantify the contribution of a sales person - they added xMM to business this quarter. the same kind of itemization/attribution i

cynically it's because you can quantify the contribution of a sales person - they added xMM to business this quarter. the same kind of itemization/attribution is very difficult for software. the infamous patio11[1] blog post about how to leverage credible bottom line contributions can be used to get paid more as a dev. but more genuinely i do think sales does bring more value. customers aren't rational actors so closing a deal isn't about features or stats or whatever material a software dev contributes. it's about value prop and trust and meeting needs and all the language sales people use. [1] https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consulting_1 https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consultin...

munk-a 7y ago
I agree with that as a possible source - I think a similar sort of justification of value is why extroverts tend to earn more overall and is also partially responsible for the gender pay gap (due to upbringing factors). I just wonder if there is some way to counter that effectively and also probably couple that with taxation and service provision to make it so that someone working hard at a dying company has a chance at a decent life compared to someone doing nothing at a successful company that gets a wealthy life due to happenstance. It's interesting to me that the income security of a non-commissioned job is sort of a trade off against profit sharing - where one extreme can leave a hard worker destitute and the other extreme can leave a lazy worker wealthy.
- auggierose 7y ago
  You could argue that the market would want that nobody works hard at a dying company.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think that's a fair statement, and I think it's well reflected in reality, most employees will judge the company health of various employers - whether it's inclusion in the DOW index, some promotional information about various clients or the condition of the site and investment in long term company health (like a restaurant not having "That one freezer that's always on the fritz so we always just use the other one - oh sure it'll be fixed one of these days, just need to get approval from corporate")
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

munk-a 7y ago

I agree with that as a possible source - I think a similar sort of justification of value is why extroverts tend to earn more overall and is also partially responsible for the gender pay gap (due to upbringing factors). I just wonder if there is some way to counter that effectively and also probably couple that with taxation and service provision to make it so that someone working hard at a dying company has a chance at a decent life compared to someone doing nothing at a successful company that gets a wealthy life due to happenstance. It's interesting to me that the income security of a non-commissioned job is sort of a trade off against profit sharing - where one extreme can leave a hard worker destitute and the other extreme can leave a lazy worker wealthy.

auggierose 7y ago
You could argue that the market would want that nobody works hard at a dying company.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think that's a fair statement, and I think it's well reflected in reality, most employees will judge the company health of various employers - whether it's inclusion in the DOW index, some promotional information about various clients or the condition of the site and investment in long term company health (like a restaurant not having "That one freezer that's always on the fritz so we always just use the other one - oh sure it'll be fixed one of these days, just need to get approval from corporate")

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]