I don't get this. My manager is directly incentivized to keepe happy and get me promoted. Failing to do those things, across enough reports, will result in my m

I don't get this. My manager is directly incentivized to keepe happy and get me promoted. Failing to do those things, across enough reports, will result in my managers performance suffering. I provide feedback on my manager, and sure their manager could ignore it, but that's true in any hierarchical system. Unless you are the most powerful, someone can overrule you. The conclusion about turnover is false. 20% turnover doesn't imply 20% redundancy. It could mean companies failed or run over capacity. It could mean to engineers moved companies 800 times. What it almost certainly does not mean is that every firm is running with 25% benched firmware engineers to take over the "useful" work when someone quits. There's all kinds of wrong conclusions about salary. Having a floor on salaries doesn't actually imply his conclusion. Nor do I buy the idea that 100x productivity differences exist between employed engineers who are meeting expectations (hence the whole "floor"). And of course salaries can be higher in certain cases. The five data points from levels.fyi does not an argument make. So what does management do? Help delegate, resolve conflict, and manage people in various capacities. I want to build shit. I don't want to spend my time reviewing people's performance and understanding their career goals. I'm happy to delegate and mentor people, but that isn't everything someone needs. Not to mention stuff like hiring new people and such. Sure that could "all" be done by engineers, but eventually those engineers run out of time to do anything except manage people. I've seen this with every manager I've ever had. They all want to do minor engineering work to stay fresh, or even want to TLM, but eventually the other aspects of work dominate.