3 ms·

Or quadruple or more... The industry -- all industries, in fact -- should be paying employees commensurate with their contribution to the success of the firm.

Or quadruple or more... The industry -- all industries, in fact -- should be paying employees commensurate with their contribution to the success of the firm. Explain how to do that well and I'll nominate you to the Nobel Committee. In the meantime, we have startups for realizing returns from out-sized contributions.

michaelochurch 13y ago
In the meantime, we have startups for realizing returns from out-sized contributions. I don't think they solve the problem anymore. The VC-funded ecosystem is just another shitty corporate ladder (engineer => eng. manager => founder => angel investor (i.e. rich) => VC). It's now a reputation economy that depends more on pleasing the right people than on engineering excellence. Hot off the press: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/three-capitalisms-yeoman-corporate-and-supercapitalism/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/three-capital... Most of how the current crop of startups defines engineering excellence is not talent or CS expertise but "track record", especially if it involves "scaling" (that's a business anti-intellectual's nomenclature for "hard stuff I don't understand"). That has more to do with careerist maneuvering than any real drive to understand the fundamentals of computer science, software engineering, or anything else that's truly important. I think that game's done. Yes, there are outsized returns due to the fact that the real value potential of a talented software engineer is $500k-5M, but engineers aren't going to capture the next 10 years of surplus in VC-istan. Management will. The opportunities are somewhere else. I'd like to see more action in the mid-risk/mid-growth space that's currently underserved (too risky for bank loans, not risky enough for VC): http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...

michaelochurch 13y ago

In the meantime, we have startups for realizing returns from out-sized contributions. I don't think they solve the problem anymore. The VC-funded ecosystem is just another shitty corporate ladder (engineer => eng. manager => founder => angel investor (i.e. rich) => VC). It's now a reputation economy that depends more on pleasing the right people than on engineering excellence. Hot off the press: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/three-capitalisms-yeoman-corporate-and-supercapitalism/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/three-capital... Most of how the current crop of startups defines engineering excellence is not talent or CS expertise but "track record", especially if it involves "scaling" (that's a business anti-intellectual's nomenclature for "hard stuff I don't understand"). That has more to do with careerist maneuvering than any real drive to understand the fundamentals of computer science, software engineering, or anything else that's truly important. I think that game's done. Yes, there are outsized returns due to the fact that the real value potential of a talented software engineer is $500k-5M, but engineers aren't going to capture the next 10 years of surplus in VC-istan. Management will. The opportunities are somewhere else. I'd like to see more action in the mid-risk/mid-growth space that's currently underserved (too risky for bank loans, not risky enough for VC): http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...