3 ms·

I deny your premise. All those companies can and already do leverage software engineering talent for the same multipliers or orders of magnitude impact on reven

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I deny your premise. All those companies can and already do leverage software engineering talent for the same multipliers or orders of magnitude impact on revenue that tech companies get out of it. They are just using rent seeking opportunities to disingenuously pay uncompetitive salaries and reap surplus for executive pay. Either those companies will get better management and leaders who successfully rebuild the business model to account for this, or else executive and manager pay will go way down to reflect the reality that competition for high leverage software talent takes away the cushy executive surplus, or else the market in general will deem the company to be unwanted and not useful and it will decay out of business or get acquired. The company has no right or expectation for things to stay in the current unfair state. The “cost of living wage” free lunch is ending, so adapt or fold.

ubercow13 6y ago
On what basis can you claim that other companies can leverage engineers to make as much profit as Google/Facebook/Apple? Those are some of the most profitable companies in the world. It's true that companies might have to adapt or fold, but many business models will not be able to adapt to produce the kind of leverage a global advertising duopoly can.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  No, I never said other companies make as much profit. I said other companies experience the same multiples or order of magnitude impact effect from software engineers that tech companies experience. Ultimately your business’s total revenue is a function of external demand for what you sell. Within that limit, some employees have a big impact on realizing that revenue, some have a small impact. What they are really worth to you is their share of contribution of revenue by that impact. What I have said is that virtually all companies employing software engineers experience this impact from software engineering in similar ways (meaning the engineers’ value is much closer to their direct impact on revenue than some lower “market rate” wage floor). It’s frustrating that you are misinterpreting this as me saying other companies earn the same profits, in absolute dollar terms, as tech companies. Because I never said that at all - and more importantly, that does not need to be true for my earlier statements to be correct. A company doesn’t have to make the same profit as FAANG to justify that the fair value of one of their software engineers according to their revenue contributions within the company’s (much lower than FAANG) profits is already at a FAANG salary level (which they already have the ability to pay). Remote work just takes away the greedy rent seeking mechanism (local “cost of living wage” excuses) that had been used to artificially suppress what should have been a FAANG-level wage (paid out of the current revenue) all along, based on the way the company leverages software engineers for their contribution to existing, current profits - not any hypothetical ability to generate future FAANG level revenue per employee.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    >(which they already have the ability to pay). I guess I just find it questionable that all or most companies can increase engineer salaries to FAANG levels and remain profitable. I am pretty sure this is not the case for my last employer, for example, looking at their recent earnings report. Remote hiring might push up wages in most places but there could still end up being a bi-modal distribution of wages, between high-leverage companies and low-leverage ones, as long as there aren't enough jobs for every engineer at highly profitable companies. It's already like that in some cities.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      That doesn’t seem related to this discussion though. Whether a given business can afford to pay it or not is a reflection of customer demand for that product or service combined with good or bad executive leadership. If the competitive wage rises but a company can’t afford it, that’s not the worker’s problem to accept a bad wage to help the company. That’s the company’s problem to hire better leadership or cut executive pay in favor of employee pay or get acquired / raise funding or go out of business. None of that changes the reality of competitive wages. At the root it sounds like your question is more about aggregate market allocation of labor. But why should workers accept inefficient allocation at worse wages? That just seems like an aggregate market expression of “these businesses are unwanted by society” - the same happens to 90% of startups all the time.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ubercow13 6y ago
        >If the competitive wage rises That's begging the question. The competitive wage will not rise to FAANG levels just because some FAANG jobs are available in every city. It's the worker's problem if they can't get the that FAANG job anyway, because the number of FAANG jobs hasn't changes and instead they've just been diluted over 100x as many cities and a much larger talent pool. Affordability is relevant because it's one aspect affecting how much the competitive wage will rise.

ubercow13 6y ago

On what basis can you claim that other companies can leverage engineers to make as much profit as Google/Facebook/Apple? Those are some of the most profitable companies in the world. It's true that companies might have to adapt or fold, but many business models will not be able to adapt to produce the kind of leverage a global advertising duopoly can.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
No, I never said other companies make as much profit. I said other companies experience the same multiples or order of magnitude impact effect from software engineers that tech companies experience. Ultimately your business’s total revenue is a function of external demand for what you sell. Within that limit, some employees have a big impact on realizing that revenue, some have a small impact. What they are really worth to you is their share of contribution of revenue by that impact. What I have said is that virtually all companies employing software engineers experience this impact from software engineering in similar ways (meaning the engineers’ value is much closer to their direct impact on revenue than some lower “market rate” wage floor). It’s frustrating that you are misinterpreting this as me saying other companies earn the same profits, in absolute dollar terms, as tech companies. Because I never said that at all - and more importantly, that does not need to be true for my earlier statements to be correct. A company doesn’t have to make the same profit as FAANG to justify that the fair value of one of their software engineers according to their revenue contributions within the company’s (much lower than FAANG) profits is already at a FAANG salary level (which they already have the ability to pay). Remote work just takes away the greedy rent seeking mechanism (local “cost of living wage” excuses) that had been used to artificially suppress what should have been a FAANG-level wage (paid out of the current revenue) all along, based on the way the company leverages software engineers for their contribution to existing, current profits - not any hypothetical ability to generate future FAANG level revenue per employee.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  >(which they already have the ability to pay). I guess I just find it questionable that all or most companies can increase engineer salaries to FAANG levels and remain profitable. I am pretty sure this is not the case for my last employer, for example, looking at their recent earnings report. Remote hiring might push up wages in most places but there could still end up being a bi-modal distribution of wages, between high-leverage companies and low-leverage ones, as long as there aren't enough jobs for every engineer at highly profitable companies. It's already like that in some cities.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    That doesn’t seem related to this discussion though. Whether a given business can afford to pay it or not is a reflection of customer demand for that product or service combined with good or bad executive leadership. If the competitive wage rises but a company can’t afford it, that’s not the worker’s problem to accept a bad wage to help the company. That’s the company’s problem to hire better leadership or cut executive pay in favor of employee pay or get acquired / raise funding or go out of business. None of that changes the reality of competitive wages. At the root it sounds like your question is more about aggregate market allocation of labor. But why should workers accept inefficient allocation at worse wages? That just seems like an aggregate market expression of “these businesses are unwanted by society” - the same happens to 90% of startups all the time.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      >If the competitive wage rises That's begging the question. The competitive wage will not rise to FAANG levels just because some FAANG jobs are available in every city. It's the worker's problem if they can't get the that FAANG job anyway, because the number of FAANG jobs hasn't changes and instead they've just been diluted over 100x as many cities and a much larger talent pool. Affordability is relevant because it's one aspect affecting how much the competitive wage will rise.