Hacker News Reader

Comment by blahi | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, but this is straight up proletariat bull. You get hired, you get paid. If it doesn't pan out, you go somewhere else. You have 0 risk and a guaranteed career. And sorry, but 100k for a javascript "engineer" is more than the "fair share" in my opinion, but it's a market, so it is what it is.

View on HN

You say proletariat like it's a bad thing.

Of all the social goals that we have (curing cancer, hunger, war, etc.), it amazes me that we haven't added 'work' to that list. Maybe like 5% of people that I know enjoy work more than 50% of the time (and it's probably not 'work' at that point).

Work sucks - we should eradicate it and let people spend their short time on Earth doing what they enjoy. Many of our ancestors worked hard so that we could have better. I hope that I can work so that my descendents (and your descendents) won't have to.

And, for the people down-voting, I'd love to know why. Send me a message if you don't want to say publicly. The anthropologist in me genuinely wants to know.

I can't understand how anyone would be for work ('they call it work for a reason, right?'). The only reasons I can imagine are 1) inflexible ideology, 2) sadism, or 3) love of power hierarchies.

I enjoy my work. If I go more than a week or two without doing some paid programming, I start to feel listless.

I'm lucky enough to get paid well as a freelancer, so I can work as much as I want from wherever I want. Even if I could retire tomorrow, I would still continue to do similar work to what I'm doing now.

Ok, got it - it's probably semantics then. When I say 'work', I mean doing something other than what you enjoy. If you love it, it's not work, in common vernacular.

If I'm getting paid to do it, I consider it work.

If it is a force acting through a distance, I consider it work.

(I figured I'd toss that one out there for the engineers in the room ;-) )

The word you're looking for might be "toil".

Working as an employee is not without risk. There is the risk that you'll invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan in an employer who squanders it all and leaves you jobless without notice instead of an employer who puts your abilities to good use and recognizes the value that you create. The risk is partially mitigated by receiving a paycheck during those wasted years regardless of the employer's competence.

> invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan ... and leaves you jobless

If you are not an equity holder, that sentence makes no sense. In a standard employment arrangement, you are selling your time for your salary. The job is not your property; it was created by your employer.

Also, you got paid for that 10-50% of your productive lifespan. What else are you expecting?

As an employee, your time and skills are your personal capital (your means of production). The way you invest that capital has risk like any other investment.

Again, this is partially mitigated by salary. But as an employee, you probably don't expect to earn your negotiated starting salary for the next 40 years. You enter the relationship expecting some form of advancement, bonus, or other rewards in relation to your performance over time. Those expected returns don't manifest when the employer turns out to be a bad employer. Employers are not the only ones taking risks.

Returns to your productive capital being less than expected is quite different than being jobless. Though that is the worst-case outcome.

Asking about those advancement opportunities up front is very important during the interview stage. Getting it in your contract is even more important.

I agree that the employee takes risks when choosing an employer. I was confused about the scope of upside expectations.

And software developers are different from literally any other kind of employee in this regard... how?

At a company, devs and come and go and they are just people working in a job. The difference is that at this time in history, there's a huge shortage of us. A company can hire as many secretaries as they need, and its a lot easier to hire directors and vps. But if you can't hire enough devs, a company that builds software isn't going to be able to do anything. The acute shortage is the difference.

If there was a big shortage of say people with business skills, then they'd be worth more, or sales. Good sales and biz dev is always valuable. But there's not really a shortage of them, in the same way that there is in software.

To give an example, I worked at a startup. We had millions to pay salaries. We were paying 150-200k in salary. We couldn't ever grow over 5. We wanted to hire about 20 more. We had plents of designers, office managers, and leaders. Devs were far more valuable than a new hire in those other areas, because we were short. I left after a while, we couldn't ever hire anyone to work on a group I was supposed to lead.

Yes, I find it quite ironic that one of the most privileged groups on the planet is suddenly supporting an essentially communist argument of wage theft, as soon as there's even a slight possibility of them being underpaid. Apparently they are also entitled to unprecedented upward mobility.

I sincerely doubt many software developers here spend any sleepless nights wondering what it would have been like had they been in another field or profession, which are just as much victims of wage theft as supposedly these engineers are.

Compared to say being a surgeon? or a lawer some one on here mentioned that a transplant surgeon can make over $15M.

I work in software myself but come on, it's fair to say that being a surgeon is way less trivial and far riskier than being a programmer.

And what will the programmers who automate surgical procedures make?

true but 30 or 40 times the average programmer? and I am say this as some one who is a transplant list in the UK

Why shouldn't everyone care about getting paid as much as absolutely possible (i.e. the only meaningful definition of "not underpaid")?

It's a somewhat free market, shouldn't we all be striving to maximize our take? Or are you suggesting that the central planning committee should be handing out salary guides?

Can you tell me the reason behind you thinking that "100k for a JavaScript engeneer is more than the "fair share"? And why you highlight the word "engeneer"?

Because you can achieve high proficiency rather quickly. Contrast this with engineers who optimize compliers who need much deeper and broader knowledge to make decisions in their day to day work, yet have the same comp. How is this fair? Again, it's a market and it is what it is.

I think there is a flaw in your logic here. You are saying "you can achieve high proficiency rather quickly", but at the same time you are saying that "it's market and it's what it is". Since it's a market - it means there is a high demand in those "JavaScript engineers", and if it's so easy to become proficient then what prevents those "engineers who optimize compilers" to become proficient in JavaScript and compete in that market? Maybe it's not that easy to become somebody who can manage to bring enough value by "just" being a "JavaScript engeneer" for whom employees can pay 100k+ wages?

>and if it's so easy to become proficient then what prevents those "engineers who optimize compilers" to become proficient in JavaScript and compete in that market?

Because money is not the only motivator for someone to work. And besides that, from a macro perspective the "free market" is simplistic propaganda. I don't know why people keep bringing it up. Nothing in the real world works that way. Real world is messy, arbitrary, impractical and irrational decisions are made every single day by all human beings. Normal human beings don't sit down and try to "optimize" some cost function in their life/work.

Because we're not actually engineers.

https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe

Although there does appear to be a PE exam for software: http://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SWE-Apr-2013.pdf

Having a PE license is by no means the definition of being an engineer. And if it was it would be a very narrow one. I work at an aerospace company, most of my peers with advanced degrees in mechanical, aerospace and electrical don't hold a PE and don't need it. Are those not engineers? I have a degree in aerospace by currently write software exclusively, am I not an engineer either?

Specific to the US

No, we're not "professional engineers," which means we cannot testify in court as an expert in our field, and have limitations for what we can consult on based on the licensing requirements of your state.

However, the title of "engineer" can be conferred upon an individual by an employer, during the term of their employment.

And to be fair, PE's have to take two licensing exams, the FE, then the PE.

We on the other hand, have to take an "exam" everytime we show up for an in person interview.

PE of course is a special term for that single accreditation agency. We can call ourselves whatever we want. The PE types have sued people in some places for calling themselves software "engineers" but they've pretty much given up on that. The work I do is engineering, I'm a professional.

Sorry, but the NSPE has no say on the definition of what an "engineer" is or isn't.

I mean, they say so as much:

> "What makes a PE different from an engineer?"

They're talking about a specific type of certification, not what an engineer is or isn't.

True, but it doesn't work like that in many parts of the world. I personally know Javascript engineers working for 20k just for geographical reasons and, like GP said, they should all smarten up imo.

Prices for goods and services are determined by supply and demand, not by what, "in your opinion", is "fair".

Exactly my point.

His point is that supply and demand has dictated that engineers who create $1.5M in value are worth approximately $100k. It works both ways.

Yes... but only on paper!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com