I actually have tried to measure the "10x" factor and I've come up with the scale here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gervais-macleod-23-the-sh

I actually have tried to measure the "10x" factor and I've come up with the scale here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gervais-macleod-23-the-shodan-programmer/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/gervais-macle... The reality, though, is that the value ratio between a 2.0 and 1.0 is anywhere from 1-plus-epsilon [0] to 100; usually 3 to 10. Most people would say that 2.0 is the "10x", so someone like me is actually a 6-7x. However, it's context dependent. With a hard problem and limited or no legacy, it can be 20-100. [0] Actually, it might be sub-1, when one considers that a 2.0-level programmer would probably be miserable doing junior-level work. Still, I think it's a fair call to say that even the 3-4x are worth $200k per year. Why? If you treat them very well, you can turn them into 10x-ers and you'll only have to give them ~10% raises as long as you keep giving them interesting problems. People have forgotten that mentoring of untapped talent is a huge arbitrage. Yes, some of them leave. But if the ones who stay are worth millions to you and half do, you're still going to come out ahead. If I were running a tech company, I'd pay guys like Peter Norvig $2 million per year and my juniors $150-200k and just have the Norvig-level guys (and gals) mentor them. Some would jump to Facebook and Google to double up their salary, but I'd make a huge profit margin on the ones who stayed.