4 ms·

> why do you only compare to Japan and EU? American engineers get paid more than anyone else (except for EU outliers). I make slightly above 100k in Australia,

> why do you only compare to Japan and EU? American engineers get paid more than anyone else (except for EU outliers). I make slightly above 100k in Australia, it's a bit tight with the housing situation and cost of living but it's liveable. Cost of living in the US is lower except for maybe healthcare but engineers get companies pay for them anyway. Well those are just the biggest/most relevant tech labor markets I could think of, roughly by GDP. I don't know much about Australia but couldn't comment there, thanks for the insight. > I don't have insights into other engineering, but I think software engineers are overpaid. Would I enjoy being overpaid? Of course, but it's hard to say it's fair pay considering what people in other professions are making. I don't think comparing pay across professions makes sense -- why compare a plumber or doctor to what a software engineer does? the outcomes are completely different, the risks are completely different, the upside/profit potential is completely different. I lean towards considering software engineers as underpaid because the power of automation (whether software or hardware -- because you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane. If software engineers were ever paid a percentage of the revenue impact they generate (which is not how markets work, but I digress), software engineers would be paid much much more. I think it might be possible to compare across professions if you think of % of value creation captured let's say but it gets tenuous. In the end the only "fair" determination is what supply and demand based markets dictate. They're not perfect, but they approximate other forces/influences decently enough. When those aren't enough, governments may need to step in to enact policy.

nsonha 5y ago
fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems. > you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware. It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.
- hardwaresofton 5y ago
  > fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems. Hmnn but doing it that way feels like it would devalue doing things smarter which seems to be more beneficial to society. Single-mindedly incentivizing labor seems like it would skewer efficiency -- I guess like most things the right answer is in the middle. I'm not sure what you mean by "viral" things but I'm trying to discuss only about work output. If the work output is virality (let's say a social media manager), then it makes sense to measure that way, but usually businesses don't deal in that currency -- they deal in product shipped out or contracts landed, etc. That said, I'm well aware that systems that think themselves to be closest to the capitalist ideal are pretty brutal on the cogs in the machine. As a side note, it's a red flag for me when I see github projects that are too concerned with stars/going viral, or even when I see presentations about projects that mention stars. Everyone thinks it's silly but everyone keeps doing it -- if only we'd stop then people would start judging projects on things other than adoption. Then again, adoption is the biggest metric for most people, because it generally is a proxy for "availability of free support/feature development", and in that sense I'm guilty of the same. > The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware. > It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains. Agreed! There is more than enough value to go around to be shared between all those kinds of engineering -- just because I didn't mention lithography engineers or materials science engineers or people who smelt silicon doesn't mean they don't exist and don't deserve to be paid.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    Viral or scalable in business/tech terms, means things that can be sold multiple times. Often times the value is already created and rewarded. In our economy we're not only incentivizing value creation but also building walls around innovations and gatekeeping the fruits of them, so that the innovators, the software developers like you wish, or whoever can earn royalty while no longer innovating.

nsonha 5y ago

fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems. > you generally need some kind of soft/firmware to make robots move) is insane The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware. It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains.

hardwaresofton 5y ago
> fair enough, fyi my line of thought is a bit Marxist, you should get paid based on your labour, time, mental energy etc put in the work as much as the result. When you pay people according to only "impacts" you create an incentive to make "viral" things. In software these days even without such incentive taking full effect, over abstraction, one-size-fits-all, github star counting are becoming bigger problems. Hmnn but doing it that way feels like it would devalue doing things smarter which seems to be more beneficial to society. Single-mindedly incentivizing labor seems like it would skewer efficiency -- I guess like most things the right answer is in the middle. I'm not sure what you mean by "viral" things but I'm trying to discuss only about work output. If the work output is virality (let's say a social media manager), then it makes sense to measure that way, but usually businesses don't deal in that currency -- they deal in product shipped out or contracts landed, etc. That said, I'm well aware that systems that think themselves to be closest to the capitalist ideal are pretty brutal on the cogs in the machine. As a side note, it's a red flag for me when I see github projects that are too concerned with stars/going viral, or even when I see presentations about projects that mention stars. Everyone thinks it's silly but everyone keeps doing it -- if only we'd stop then people would start judging projects on things other than adoption. Then again, adoption is the biggest metric for most people, because it generally is a proxy for "availability of free support/feature development", and in that sense I'm guilty of the same. > The fact that you completely ignore the hardware is very telling. CPU has been improved according to Moore's law in the past few decades, if anything modern software engineering failed to live up to that potential and has been free riding on top of progress in hardware. > It's insane to make robots move but software is a small part of that, there is also mechanical/electrical engineering, battery techs etc. Software sitting at the top of that stack shouldn't takes all the credit. It's very hard to innovate on the lower layers with all the lab work and physical constrains. Agreed! There is more than enough value to go around to be shared between all those kinds of engineering -- just because I didn't mention lithography engineers or materials science engineers or people who smelt silicon doesn't mean they don't exist and don't deserve to be paid.
- nsonha 5y ago
  Viral or scalable in business/tech terms, means things that can be sold multiple times. Often times the value is already created and rewarded. In our economy we're not only incentivizing value creation but also building walls around innovations and gatekeeping the fruits of them, so that the innovators, the software developers like you wish, or whoever can earn royalty while no longer innovating.