6 ms·

For me its pretty simple: Pay me what I'm worth. None of this managerial shite, just dollars. I will be happy.

by fein 12y ago

goodreel 12y ago
That's only simple in a fictional world where everybody agrees on what you're worth.
- hell-ban-me 12y ago
  Hm, Best Korea is real.
jshen 12y ago
What are you worth?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-a-mid-career-software-engineer-actually-worth-try-779000-per-year-as-a-lower-bound/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-a-mid-c...
  - jshen 12y ago
    That's flawed reasoning in so many ways.
    - ionforce 12y ago
      How is it flawed?
      - jshen 12y ago
        The most obvious flaw, a programmer is only worth 5.7 times their 1999 salary if their work is generating 5.7 times as much revenue as it would have in 1999. I see no evidence that this is the case. If it were the case, and the vast majority of programmers are earning 1/6 of what their work is worth, then there is a huge opportunity that you can exploit to get rich. Go for it, and let us know how it works out.
        ObviousScience 12y ago
        Didn't a lot of major corporations get in trouble recently because they colluded to stop engineers from correcting this imbalance? Your argument seems to ignore that market forces agreed that engineers were underpaid, and it was only by illegal collusion that their wages were kept to what they were.
        jshen 12y ago
        My point still stands. If this is true there is an enormous opportunity for you to get rich. Try it and let us know how it goes.
        hueving 12y ago
        The imbalance was mostly on the management side. Even then, it wasn't almost an order of magnitude like that silly blog post suggested.
        frozenport 12y ago
        It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money. I have seen many a John Henry try to save a project from technical failure when it was a business failure.
        pluma 12y ago
        For those not familiar with American folklore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29
        michaelochurch 12y ago
        It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money. Very true. We have the value-add potential that, on paper, would justify upward of $700,000 per year. Unfortunately, most of us are managed ineptly and so much of that value is squandered. There are plenty of ways that the surplus generated by our talents could be spent (expansion, higher salaries) but right now it's wasted on a high tolerance for mismanagement.
      - mateo411 12y ago
        The figure 779,000 makes sense if you could take a programmer today and have him travel back in time to 1999. While the programmer was back in 1999 he(or she) would have access to everything that is available in 2014. The programmer would have access to the frameworks, the infrastructure(AWS), and everything else that we have available. The reason average programmers today don't make on average 779,000 dollars a year, is because like many things, programming hours and talent have been commoditized. There are many people that can learn how to perform these programming tasks. It's easier and more accessible than ever.
        geebee 12y ago
        An easily commoditized skill can still generate a tremendous amount of value. However, the worker is unlikely to capture most of that value. In fact, if a worker captures all of the value, there would be no benefit to the employer. The point of the post is that we aren't in a labor bubble, because the amount of value created by a programmer is much higher than the programmer's salary. For instance, suppose that a contractor installing marble countertops on luxury houses out in the desert gets paid 100k a year. It turns out that the value of those countertops is below 100k a year. This could be used to suggest that the jobs themselves will disappear (or salaries must drop dramatically), as the value they generate isn't sufficient to justify that pay. Now suppose installing those countertops generate 200k a year in value, but that it is relatively easy. That would suggest that salaries could drop even though there is a surplus of value in the existing salary structure. However, it wouldn't suggest that salaries need to drop because value generated isn't sufficient to justify the pay level. I think that's the point here - that the amount of value generated is so great that programmer salaries could remain high. It doesn't necessarily mean then will, just that we aren't in a salary bubble where salaries are higher than value generated.
        michaelochurch 12y ago
        because like many things, programming hours and talent have been commoditized. True. We should have fought it. We should still be fighting it. If commoditization is doomed to happen, then there's a structure (called a union) that enables it to happen on our terms rather than theirs.
  - petercooper 12y ago
    I don't disagree with the initial premise of the article, but I think it misses that while developers have become substantially more productive, it has also become substantially easier to be a productive developer which has caused the value to maintain its current equilibrium.
baddox 12y ago
You're worth any amount of money that both you and your employer agree on.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  That's not your worth. It's your worth to that particular employer. It is defined by what value you can deliver and how much the other side needs that value. It sounds pedantic but I think it's a very important distinction.
sliverstorm 12y ago
But what if you are worth more, managing a group of engineers? Sure, it is a bit of a new skill, but the ace engineer who can guide a team with his engineering wisdom is way more valuable than the engineer who just works by himself.
- sheepmullet 12y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. You can guide a team while "just" being a member of the team. Leadership and management are not the same skill. I guess what you are saying sort of makes sense in teams with a high ratio of junior:senior engineers. But I'd question whether that is a good way to structure a team if you are working on complex tasks.
netcan 12y ago
There is an underlying assumption to a lot if this thread that it's the person that is "worth" an amount. But, worth depends on what you do and price depends on how hard it is to find someone else to do it. Managers are worth a lot and the difference between the best option and the second best one is greater, at least that's what the market seems to be saying. You are worth x doing X job and y doing Y job. It may also be true that you are worth more to employer x than y. It's ok to make decisions not solely based on price.

For me its pretty simple: Pay me what I'm worth. None of this managerial shite, just dollars. I will be happy.

by fein 12y ago

For me its pretty simple: Pay me what I'm worth. None of this managerial shite, just dollars. I will be happy.

goodreel 12y ago

That's only simple in a fictional world where everybody agrees on what you're worth.

hell-ban-me 12y ago
Hm, Best Korea is real.

jshen 12y ago

What are you worth?

michaelochurch 12y ago
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-a-mid-career-software-engineer-actually-worth-try-779000-per-year-as-a-lower-bound/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-a-mid-c...
- jshen 12y ago
  That's flawed reasoning in so many ways.
  - ionforce 12y ago
    How is it flawed?
    - jshen 12y ago
      The most obvious flaw, a programmer is only worth 5.7 times their 1999 salary if their work is generating 5.7 times as much revenue as it would have in 1999. I see no evidence that this is the case. If it were the case, and the vast majority of programmers are earning 1/6 of what their work is worth, then there is a huge opportunity that you can exploit to get rich. Go for it, and let us know how it works out.
      - ObviousScience 12y ago
        Didn't a lot of major corporations get in trouble recently because they colluded to stop engineers from correcting this imbalance? Your argument seems to ignore that market forces agreed that engineers were underpaid, and it was only by illegal collusion that their wages were kept to what they were.
        jshen 12y ago
        My point still stands. If this is true there is an enormous opportunity for you to get rich. Try it and let us know how it goes.
        hueving 12y ago
        The imbalance was mostly on the management side. Even then, it wasn't almost an order of magnitude like that silly blog post suggested.
      - frozenport 12y ago
        It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money. I have seen many a John Henry try to save a project from technical failure when it was a business failure.
        pluma 12y ago
        For those not familiar with American folklore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29
        michaelochurch 12y ago
        It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money. Very true. We have the value-add potential that, on paper, would justify upward of $700,000 per year. Unfortunately, most of us are managed ineptly and so much of that value is squandered. There are plenty of ways that the surplus generated by our talents could be spent (expansion, higher salaries) but right now it's wasted on a high tolerance for mismanagement.
    - mateo411 12y ago
      The figure 779,000 makes sense if you could take a programmer today and have him travel back in time to 1999. While the programmer was back in 1999 he(or she) would have access to everything that is available in 2014. The programmer would have access to the frameworks, the infrastructure(AWS), and everything else that we have available. The reason average programmers today don't make on average 779,000 dollars a year, is because like many things, programming hours and talent have been commoditized. There are many people that can learn how to perform these programming tasks. It's easier and more accessible than ever.
      - geebee 12y ago
        An easily commoditized skill can still generate a tremendous amount of value. However, the worker is unlikely to capture most of that value. In fact, if a worker captures all of the value, there would be no benefit to the employer. The point of the post is that we aren't in a labor bubble, because the amount of value created by a programmer is much higher than the programmer's salary. For instance, suppose that a contractor installing marble countertops on luxury houses out in the desert gets paid 100k a year. It turns out that the value of those countertops is below 100k a year. This could be used to suggest that the jobs themselves will disappear (or salaries must drop dramatically), as the value they generate isn't sufficient to justify that pay. Now suppose installing those countertops generate 200k a year in value, but that it is relatively easy. That would suggest that salaries could drop even though there is a surplus of value in the existing salary structure. However, it wouldn't suggest that salaries need to drop because value generated isn't sufficient to justify the pay level. I think that's the point here - that the amount of value generated is so great that programmer salaries could remain high. It doesn't necessarily mean then will, just that we aren't in a salary bubble where salaries are higher than value generated.
      - michaelochurch 12y ago
        because like many things, programming hours and talent have been commoditized. True. We should have fought it. We should still be fighting it. If commoditization is doomed to happen, then there's a structure (called a union) that enables it to happen on our terms rather than theirs.
- petercooper 12y ago
  I don't disagree with the initial premise of the article, but I think it misses that while developers have become substantially more productive, it has also become substantially easier to be a productive developer which has caused the value to maintain its current equilibrium.

baddox 12y ago

You're worth any amount of money that both you and your employer agree on.

enraged_camel 12y ago
That's not your worth. It's your worth to that particular employer. It is defined by what value you can deliver and how much the other side needs that value. It sounds pedantic but I think it's a very important distinction.

sliverstorm 12y ago

But what if you are worth more, managing a group of engineers? Sure, it is a bit of a new skill, but the ace engineer who can guide a team with his engineering wisdom is way more valuable than the engineer who just works by himself.

sheepmullet 12y ago
That's a false dichotomy. You can guide a team while "just" being a member of the team. Leadership and management are not the same skill. I guess what you are saying sort of makes sense in teams with a high ratio of junior:senior engineers. But I'd question whether that is a good way to structure a team if you are working on complex tasks.

netcan 12y ago

There is an underlying assumption to a lot if this thread that it's the person that is "worth" an amount. But, worth depends on what you do and price depends on how hard it is to find someone else to do it. Managers are worth a lot and the difference between the best option and the second best one is greater, at least that's what the market seems to be saying. You are worth x doing X job and y doing Y job. It may also be true that you are worth more to employer x than y. It's ok to make decisions not solely based on price.