> I read history books, I'm not that stupid. Didn't imply you were! I am assuming the best as people do here on HN. > The reason I bring this up is a couple o

> I read history books, I'm not that stupid. Didn't imply you were! I am assuming the best as people do here on HN. > The reason I bring this up is a couple of comments up you said software creates tremendous value, I guess this is true for many other types of innovations too. You proceeded to say software developers need to be paid proportionate to that value and I disagree there. > If we look at salary as incentive I would say that software engineers get enough incentive to do our job. As long as we get paid better than most other professions, society/the economy don't need to pay us more. > While pay should not be based on labour, it should be capped, probably based on the labour. Otherwise every cog in the machine earns some royalty (infinitely, if the machine scales infinitely) and there is no money left for "non-machine". So I still disagree with this point, but I want to point out that I am in favor of the idea that every cog in the machine earns a royalty on every piece of the process. I believe both machine and non-machine could win in that situation. If you have a new idea (and the funding to go after it, etc) then you get to decide the cap table essentially -- so it's up to you to set rates on the royalties and up to labor to agree/deny. How you'd work out royalties in relation to work done/etc is difficult, but it's something that feels like it can be worked out. Pensions used to be a thing, and they're kind of like that. > The bad thing in this industry is work/life balance, we just need to fix that. Although the pay in some countries are atrocious, I'd say that software engineers in most western countries are fine. Weird, I think that work/life balance for software is actually really good -- you're not going to find much work/life balance (or companies that even pretend to care about that) in the blue collar job market. The ability to up and move with transferable skills is really remarkable in tech as well... In short I agree with you that tech has it good, but I don't think it makes sense to restrict that "good" based on the "bad" of other fields -- we don't need to be equal. If workers are getting exploited outside of tech, let's make them less exploited and get them what they're worth -- if tech workers are exploited let's get them what they're worth. The question of how to determine that worth is the big difference we're at loggerheads about I think, and I don't think it makes sense to judge by amount of "work" done. That very idea is rooted in some sort of moralistic argument that work/expenditure is good/virtuous/worth being paid for, and I don't think that's a shared value. Labor is given meaning by the fruit it produces, and that's how I'm trying to judge the value of labor -- the value it produces (whether immediately or down the line) -- royalties do that rather well compared to our current system.