I think you are right - if my sleep addled brain gets it, I think that the hiring of a developer implies a programme of tech led change to be applied to the com

I think you are right - if my sleep addled brain gets it, I think that the hiring of a developer implies a programme of tech led change to be applied to the company. so the steady state (the Treasury Bond Risk Free Return) is not changing the company to have web-enabled doodads but just collecting the cash from your customers for the next five years. (I suspect there are plenty of businesses where this might apply - run it to the ground with minimal investment.) So the risk premium is the cost of the programme to build doodads (the extra ROI is what you will make as a shareholder if you hire a developer to make your doodads.) This then gives me two risks - the risk that doing nothing tanks the business away faster than predicted, and the risk that the programme fails. So developer salaries are paid as a risk premium against tech driven change in your industry, and the risk of buy vs build. So developer salaries might be better compared not against AmaGooFace stopping hiring, but against the spread of SaaS based services that can reduce the risk of a failed build. Perhaps we should all go out, Luddite fashion, and smash the Looms of our SaaS startups?