4 ms·

> Because compensation should be proportional to investment and both the 1X and 10X programmers invest the same thing, eight hours of their time each working da

> Because compensation should be proportional to investment and both the 1X and 10X programmers invest the same thing, eight hours of their time each working day So you "should" pay for example Rob Pike or Ken Thompson equal to what you would pay some junior dev because they invest eight hours of their time each working day?

danbruc 4y ago
Yes. To a first approximation, ignoring a gigantic pile of complications due to incentives. And the person cleaning the office should get the same pay as well.
- helge9210 4y ago
  USSR was exactly like this.
  - NoraCodes 4y ago
    USSR also had warm hats and abundant housing. Should we reject those, too, because they are historically associated with communism?
    - helge9210 4y ago
      > and abundant housing Not relevant to the topic, but this one is not true.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Since we're talking about investments, did the person cleaning the office invest the time to become adept at programming? Unlikely. The cost of an item is often linked to how much was invested (because that is linked to how much it took to come to fruition, and therefore, how much it needs to sell at to recoup that investment). It's not only the 8 hours that is invested, it's the previous investment that needs to be recouped. That's one reason behind why different people cost different things, which is ultimately down to quality. We're back to the initial question but at least we've dispensed with communism in the meantime.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    I am fine with that, you get compansated for the longer education period, you get 10 or 20 percent more than someone doing a cleaning job.
randomdata 4y ago
Without being able to see their contracts, I would imagine Pike and Thompson have been around the block long enough to know that selling time isn't always the best option. They may put in eight hours of work (although I believe both are basically retired at this point), but if that's not what they are selling, the time spent is moot. To illustrate further, as a farmer, I sell grain, not time. The job requires my time to be inputted, yes, but if I put in eight hours of work or two hours of work to produce the same amount of grain, I am getting paid the same either way. Developers can structure themselves similarly, which is to say selling something that is the product of time, not time itself, if they so choose. The average developer, especially those on the lower end of the pay scale, however, most commonly chooses to sell their time and their time alone. And when you are selling hours just like everyone else, price is going to converge within a relatively narrow range. An hour is an hour is an hour so it is difficult to differentiate if one hour is more valuable than another or how that hour translates into the output, and so it is priced accordingly.
- danbruc 4y ago
  If the market works, the price should go down approaching production costs, i.e. time invested. If you are able to charge more than that, there is some kind of market failure like a lack of competition.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    That's tech in a nutshell. Being a race to finding some kind of moat (intellectual property law, network effects, etc.) to prevent an efficient market from being established.

danbruc 4y ago

Yes. To a first approximation, ignoring a gigantic pile of complications due to incentives. And the person cleaning the office should get the same pay as well.

helge9210 4y ago
USSR was exactly like this.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  USSR also had warm hats and abundant housing. Should we reject those, too, because they are historically associated with communism?
  - helge9210 4y ago
    > and abundant housing Not relevant to the topic, but this one is not true.
brigandish 4y ago
Since we're talking about investments, did the person cleaning the office invest the time to become adept at programming? Unlikely. The cost of an item is often linked to how much was invested (because that is linked to how much it took to come to fruition, and therefore, how much it needs to sell at to recoup that investment). It's not only the 8 hours that is invested, it's the previous investment that needs to be recouped. That's one reason behind why different people cost different things, which is ultimately down to quality. We're back to the initial question but at least we've dispensed with communism in the meantime.
- danbruc 4y ago
  I am fine with that, you get compansated for the longer education period, you get 10 or 20 percent more than someone doing a cleaning job.

randomdata 4y ago

Without being able to see their contracts, I would imagine Pike and Thompson have been around the block long enough to know that selling time isn't always the best option. They may put in eight hours of work (although I believe both are basically retired at this point), but if that's not what they are selling, the time spent is moot. To illustrate further, as a farmer, I sell grain, not time. The job requires my time to be inputted, yes, but if I put in eight hours of work or two hours of work to produce the same amount of grain, I am getting paid the same either way. Developers can structure themselves similarly, which is to say selling something that is the product of time, not time itself, if they so choose. The average developer, especially those on the lower end of the pay scale, however, most commonly chooses to sell their time and their time alone. And when you are selling hours just like everyone else, price is going to converge within a relatively narrow range. An hour is an hour is an hour so it is difficult to differentiate if one hour is more valuable than another or how that hour translates into the output, and so it is priced accordingly.

danbruc 4y ago
If the market works, the price should go down approaching production costs, i.e. time invested. If you are able to charge more than that, there is some kind of market failure like a lack of competition.
- randomdata 4y ago
  That's tech in a nutshell. Being a race to finding some kind of moat (intellectual property law, network effects, etc.) to prevent an efficient market from being established.