3 ms·

I much prefer getting a 90th percentile salary up front and not perpetually arguing over exactly how many times my code was downloaded or executed.

SoftTalker 3y ago
This is a solved problem for the music industry, why could it not be adapted for code?
- rcstank 3y ago
  I don’t want it. I’m fine with how my compensation currently works.
- jprete 3y ago
  It’s not solved for the music industry at all! Publishers are perpetually looking for ways to give artists crappy deals on residuals, and artists make almost all their money on touring and merch. And that’s for the successful ones, most musicians are not successful enough to even think about making money from publication.
- eschaton 3y ago
  Except it’s not really, the traditional ASCAP/BMI royalty structure and reporting gives extremely heavy favor to the most popular music and everyone else gets basically nothing, while their royalty schedules for streaming amount to basically nothing. If anything, musicians need to follow WGA and SAG-AFTRA and DGA’s lead and get proper streaming royalty schedules, anti-AI-training clauses, etc. into their standard contract structures.
- rhplus 3y ago
  Not looking forward to the day when I have to wait tables, while hoping that my software hits the big time.
- nrdvana 3y ago
  And the music industry solution is absolutely horrible. Every single venue that might have someone play copyrighted music is required to pay large annual sums to the RIAA, or get sued. There are armies of RIAA lawyers who go around to basically every business with a lobby and threaten to sue if they don't pay into the pool. There are entire companies who exist just to install licensed players in offices that are known to comply. Just imagining how awful this would turn out if applied to the world of software makes my skin crawl.
- tzs 3y ago
  If coders were payed the way musicians are paid a few coders would make a lot more money than they do now and most would make a lot less. A few musicians become big stars and can make a lot of money for themselves and for musicians who work with/for them. It falls off rapidly from there. It would probably actually be worse for coders than it is for musicians, because the big money making projects in coding usually involve a lot more people and a lot more up front investment. A few people who led the project or wrote the truly innovative parts would get most of the royalties. The people who do the more routine parts (which is most of almost all projects) that any decent programmer could have done will get only a small amount. For anyone curious what it is like for a musician, here's an interesting video from a well-known YouTube guitarist who is managing to make a living as a guitarist, going over a variety of ways that a guitarist might make money [1]. He looks at local gigs, touring with a mid level act, touring with a top level act, busking, cruise ships, studio work, teaching private lessons, university instructor, endorsement deals, and content creator. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7t9KGcOPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7t9KGcOPk
- butlike 3y ago
  Because a song is "done" and software is constantly updated. That's ignoring masters and remixes, but I think my point still stands
phantomathkg 3y ago
Genuine question, it will not be possible for every single engineers get paid 90th percentile, someone has to get less than that for the statistic to work?
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  As long as less than 10% of the labor force is engineers, it is.
- interroboink 3y ago
  I think they meant 90% across all industries. As in, software developers are well-compensated compared to non-software jobs with similar education, etc. I don't know the full extent of how true that is, but I think that's what they were saying (:
- rhplus 3y ago
  I think they mean across all job categories.

SoftTalker 3y ago

This is a solved problem for the music industry, why could it not be adapted for code?

rcstank 3y ago
I don’t want it. I’m fine with how my compensation currently works.
jprete 3y ago
It’s not solved for the music industry at all! Publishers are perpetually looking for ways to give artists crappy deals on residuals, and artists make almost all their money on touring and merch. And that’s for the successful ones, most musicians are not successful enough to even think about making money from publication.
eschaton 3y ago
Except it’s not really, the traditional ASCAP/BMI royalty structure and reporting gives extremely heavy favor to the most popular music and everyone else gets basically nothing, while their royalty schedules for streaming amount to basically nothing. If anything, musicians need to follow WGA and SAG-AFTRA and DGA’s lead and get proper streaming royalty schedules, anti-AI-training clauses, etc. into their standard contract structures.
rhplus 3y ago
Not looking forward to the day when I have to wait tables, while hoping that my software hits the big time.
nrdvana 3y ago
And the music industry solution is absolutely horrible. Every single venue that might have someone play copyrighted music is required to pay large annual sums to the RIAA, or get sued. There are armies of RIAA lawyers who go around to basically every business with a lobby and threaten to sue if they don't pay into the pool. There are entire companies who exist just to install licensed players in offices that are known to comply. Just imagining how awful this would turn out if applied to the world of software makes my skin crawl.
tzs 3y ago
If coders were payed the way musicians are paid a few coders would make a lot more money than they do now and most would make a lot less. A few musicians become big stars and can make a lot of money for themselves and for musicians who work with/for them. It falls off rapidly from there. It would probably actually be worse for coders than it is for musicians, because the big money making projects in coding usually involve a lot more people and a lot more up front investment. A few people who led the project or wrote the truly innovative parts would get most of the royalties. The people who do the more routine parts (which is most of almost all projects) that any decent programmer could have done will get only a small amount. For anyone curious what it is like for a musician, here's an interesting video from a well-known YouTube guitarist who is managing to make a living as a guitarist, going over a variety of ways that a guitarist might make money [1]. He looks at local gigs, touring with a mid level act, touring with a top level act, busking, cruise ships, studio work, teaching private lessons, university instructor, endorsement deals, and content creator. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7t9KGcOPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7t9KGcOPk
butlike 3y ago
Because a song is "done" and software is constantly updated. That's ignoring masters and remixes, but I think my point still stands

phantomathkg 3y ago

Genuine question, it will not be possible for every single engineers get paid 90th percentile, someone has to get less than that for the statistic to work?

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
As long as less than 10% of the labor force is engineers, it is.
interroboink 3y ago
I think they meant 90% across all industries. As in, software developers are well-compensated compared to non-software jobs with similar education, etc. I don't know the full extent of how true that is, but I think that's what they were saying (:
rhplus 3y ago
I think they mean across all job categories.