4 ms·
Because there’s a longstanding view that since programmers love what they do, they shouldn’t be compensated as highly as other fields with demanding requirement
by tomkarlo 13y ago
Because there’s a longstanding view that since programmers love what they do, they shouldn’t be compensated as highly as other fields with demanding requirements. Employees at large tech firms are as profitable as bankers, yet they get paid a fraction as much compensation. Not to mention that it generally takes years and years of unpaid homework / hobby work to learn how to be a good software developer - just taking four years of college CS with no outside hobby work will not prepare you in any way. Nobody expects that from doctors, lawyers or bankers.
So the pool of great programmers is generally limited to those who love the job _so much_ that they’re willing to forgo income to do it. Someone with a “125 IQ” and strong math abilities could get a job on Wall Street, or as an actuary, etc and make more money for less frustration.
At Amazon, they target 75th percentile comp – but I really doubt they also target hiring 75th percentile developers on average. So they’re basically trying to hire 90th percentile employees for 75th percentile comp. I’d argue the entire industry does that in comparison to non-engineering industries.
The next time a CEO complains they can’t hire enough engineers, ask them how much over market they’re offering.
- jskulski 13y agoI see your point but I think "forgo" is a strong word. I have made and will continue to make a great salary with great benefits and be able to choose companies based on cultural fit. That's something that I would never give up for an extra 50k a year.
- jshen 13y agoFor an extra $100k a year? I think a lot of programmers don't realize how much some other programmers get paid once you factor in other incentives outside of salary.
- cantankerous 13y agoAgree with you there. I have some friends that do the kinda dev I feel is radioactive, but then they tell me about their benefits and wages and I'm like "where's the hazmat suit?"
- djKianoosh 13y agosome benefits are hard to quantify and/or equate to $. For example, each person would value commute time differently, but how many people actually compute the cost of a longer commute beyond just gas and time? What about its effect on your health and mental state? Sometimes we neglect/forget to take these things into account, but sometimes it's just hard to factor them in altogether...
- tomkarlo 13y agoYes, but you're also hanging around on HN. :) I'm thinking more of the other guy, who was just as smart as you but perhaps not in love with tech, and had to decide if he wants to give up 50K to be an engineer. (I think you're referring to choosing between engineering jobs - I meant choosing between career paths.) Also: it's sad that beyond the comp issue, they're often sacrificing prestige, at least in the US. It's just as hard to become a qualified engineer at top firm, but the general public just doesn't find that as impressive as being a lawyer, doctor or banker. I know lots of lawyers and bankers for whom a big reason they're in that job was the prestige and ego-boost associated with it.
- rayiner 13y agoThat's why you need to move to Silicon Valley, where being a programmer is considered prestigious by people in barbershops.
- tomkarlo 13y agoI did.
- jshen 13y agoI've been doing this a while, and have found that prestige from non techis, for us engineers, is based on the company we work for. Tell someone you're an engineer at google or facebook and you get the prestige. Tell them you're a programmer at some startup they've never heard of and their like "yeah, whatever". I think a lot of it has to do with people overusing the term "engineer". I know people with that work for the phone company that have lower skill jobs but still get the title "network engineer" or some such. Normal people can't distinguish between this and the hard profession.