3 ms·
This seems obviously true. It only seems unjust because we have this idea that tasks that are more intellectually challenging should pay more. That isn't how su
by galangalalgol 4y ago
This seems obviously true. It only seems unjust because we have this idea that tasks that are more intellectually challenging should pay more. That isn't how supply and demand work. If you need twice as many typists as are graduating, but only need a quarter of the radiologists that complete residency, well then typists will be paid far more than radiologists. We have an excess of people who want to work hardware, specifically because it is challenging, and that draws interest. So the interesting work is part of the compensation. We accept this as true for game development, it shouldn't surprise us for hardware, or embedded software. It doesn't matter that what you are doing is "harder", we need more bodies slinging fullstack generic buisiness logic than we can possibly educate it seems, so that is what will pay best. As for why we need that many people? I don't have any clue. It really seems like low-code should eventually replace the need for most SWE and drive down wages, but that has been a dream for decades and it hasn't happened yet.
- elcomet 4y ago> we have this idea that tasks that are more intellectually challenging should pay more Why do you have this idea ? I'm not sure it sounds more "just" than saying, for example, that tasks that are physically more challenging should pay more, or humanly more challenging should pay more, etc..
- galangalalgol 4y agoI was constraining the statement to tech work. It does feel to me like roofers in southern summers should get paid like C levels in the valley. But that isn't how the world works and writing a new physics engine for an indie game, while difficult, is not going to pay as much as much as modifying a payment portal ui to get 0.3% more transactions completed. Because of of those things is in far more demand.