This is quite interesting because we are living a similar experience, but now in Microsoft not 7 years ago. We do not know what is going on with PMs. The ratio

This is quite interesting because we are living a similar experience, but now in Microsoft not 7 years ago. We do not know what is going on with PMs. The ratio is 1 PM per 6 Software Engineers which is justified, by them because they are overwhelming in tasks. However, we do not have clear requirements, neither clear job to do. Most of the time, we also have to work on the same thing again and again because they are changing their mind before we even release any bits. At the end, like you said, I think it is a politician job because they do not do any budget or schedule management, just giving verbal indication of their vision. I do not agree with your last paragraph through. Concerning the removal of testers, I think this is also wrong in some extends. Software Engineers are having a hard time to catch up with the code and testing. The goal was to create a better quality and having more people being able to understand the code but at the end we become more specialize in some part of the system and know less of the overall, mostly because we are working longer on the same part because automating everything take a lots of time. I also think that PM does not help the whole process of being fast to deploy new bits. However, this is something rotten in the code of big business with multiple hierarchy. This goes far beyond the PM problem, it goes with a paramount management hierarchy where everyone can override any decision. Oh well, I guess any big top 500 companies has the same problem at some point. Isn't?