5 ms·

Don't get too caught up on which job role has more risk, responsibility, or communication skills. Salaries are apportioned based on how close a job role is to

Don't get too caught up on which job role has more risk, responsibility, or communication skills. Salaries are apportioned based on how close a job role is to the company's revenue stream. Executives come out on top because they control the money and payscales. Sales is often second because they can very easily point to new revenues and say "I brought that in". Profit center staff (most Valley engineers) would be somewhere up there because they are at least creating the actual product that the business sells. Support staff - cleaning, office managers, accounting - bring up the rear because they have the hardest time claiming responsibility for a share of the pie. Within each of those groups you'll see normal salary dynamics based on wider market forces and hierarchy. Engineering manager's gonna make more than most of the line engineers. Comptroller will probably make more than a line engineer too even if she's considered a cost center because she's in a position of relative authority and individual responsibility. Study questions: - How close are you to the money? - How legible are your contributions to the bottom line? - Could you get significantly more elsewhere for the same role? - Is management incentivized to retain top-shelf people for your job role?

geocar 11y ago
Salaries don't get apportioned. You either bring value, or you don't. If you can make a company £1m by yourself, you should have no problem getting a £500k salary. If you and your team of nine programmers can bring in £1m then it's reasonable to pay them £48k and pay yourself £66k. If you want to make more money, just make more money.
dwc 11y ago
Ok, so I've spent my career as a "line engineer" (aka programmer), but in my previous job we were heading for a crisis. I stepped up to manage because there was only so much I could do to avert the crisis by typing code. I (we) needed something done that was wider in scope than that role. I got a raise as part of that. We made things work and met our deadlines and obligations. I deserved that raise. Now I'm back in the trenches (and happy about it), but I have a somewhat different take on management than I did before. I'm more sympathetic to management concerns, and that much more appreciative of managers who do their job well. OTOH, I may be even more unhappy than before with managers who don't do their jobs well.
- scient 11y ago
  I feel like a lot of people do not realize how much problems managers have to deal with. I am a CTO who started of as an engineer, and my current job is all about people skills and taking responsibility for technical decisions in front of upper management, as well as making sure all engineers agree with those decisions or at least understand why they are made. Having been in that role definitely changes perspective.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
RodericDay 11y ago
I'm so glad this post is at the top vs. the other "it seems fair to me" replies. I also find it illuminating to compare to three other careers that I consider intellectually similar to engineering in that they are not "management", and yet they capture way more of their value in their corporate zenith (or did at some point in time when their reputations as careers were made). - Lawyers: Lawyers aim to make partner. They become owners. None of this "engineers are afraid of risk" stuff. - Doctors: Doctors control supply. I have met many socially odd doctors, without "negotiation skills" or "business acumen", but they don't worry about their salary precisely because this "union-like" aspect to their profession. - Finance people: a.k.a "bankers". Most people have no better proxy for their "value" than what they agree on a job interview ("the value of your work is what people are willing to pay for it"). But "bankers" do know what their work is worth, outside of this exchange. And they know how much their peers are making, and are basically immune to the collective cluelessness that is "I don't need to know how much my peer and my boss make to be satisfied with my salary". Engineers? No union. Meek personality and culture plus cluelessness about labor economics means they are ecstatic making 200k even if their company is making 1M+ for their work. Some scattered thoughts here, but thank you for your post.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

geocar 11y ago

Salaries don't get apportioned. You either bring value, or you don't. If you can make a company £1m by yourself, you should have no problem getting a £500k salary. If you and your team of nine programmers can bring in £1m then it's reasonable to pay them £48k and pay yourself £66k. If you want to make more money, just make more money.

dwc 11y ago

Ok, so I've spent my career as a "line engineer" (aka programmer), but in my previous job we were heading for a crisis. I stepped up to manage because there was only so much I could do to avert the crisis by typing code. I (we) needed something done that was wider in scope than that role. I got a raise as part of that. We made things work and met our deadlines and obligations. I deserved that raise. Now I'm back in the trenches (and happy about it), but I have a somewhat different take on management than I did before. I'm more sympathetic to management concerns, and that much more appreciative of managers who do their job well. OTOH, I may be even more unhappy than before with managers who don't do their jobs well.

scient 11y ago
I feel like a lot of people do not realize how much problems managers have to deal with. I am a CTO who started of as an engineer, and my current job is all about people skills and taking responsibility for technical decisions in front of upper management, as well as making sure all engineers agree with those decisions or at least understand why they are made. Having been in that role definitely changes perspective.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

RodericDay 11y ago

I'm so glad this post is at the top vs. the other "it seems fair to me" replies. I also find it illuminating to compare to three other careers that I consider intellectually similar to engineering in that they are not "management", and yet they capture way more of their value in their corporate zenith (or did at some point in time when their reputations as careers were made). - Lawyers: Lawyers aim to make partner. They become owners. None of this "engineers are afraid of risk" stuff. - Doctors: Doctors control supply. I have met many socially odd doctors, without "negotiation skills" or "business acumen", but they don't worry about their salary precisely because this "union-like" aspect to their profession. - Finance people: a.k.a "bankers". Most people have no better proxy for their "value" than what they agree on a job interview ("the value of your work is what people are willing to pay for it"). But "bankers" do know what their work is worth, outside of this exchange. And they know how much their peers are making, and are basically immune to the collective cluelessness that is "I don't need to know how much my peer and my boss make to be satisfied with my salary". Engineers? No union. Meek personality and culture plus cluelessness about labor economics means they are ecstatic making 200k even if their company is making 1M+ for their work. Some scattered thoughts here, but thank you for your post.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]