People writing software are generally in the top 5% income level. Why do you feel that they are not being paid what they are worth?
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
I still think that the 9.15% stat supports my claim though. I hang out with mostly non-engineers so its a bit comical to be shamed by hacker newsians for proposing that we get paid enough. Most studies on the matter have demonstrated that any income over 75k has no correlation on happiness, so for me I guess I feel more concerned about finding meaningful work than a higher salary.
On another note, I am not sure why all of these people claiming to providing value equal to 10x their salary don't simply work for themselves and see if they can really rake in that much without the support of their company.
So we have this disparity where the market is not reflecting what the media (et. al.) are reporting. I can see how that is leading to much confusion for those in the industry.
In 2014, the median income for software developer, applications was $103,054.85[1] (in 2017 dollars). Today, the median income for software developer, applications is $102,212.06[2] (again, in 2017 dollars). Developer incomes are on the decline.
It appears that we're reached equilibrium. If the industry was honest and said "go away, the industry is full" people would have less belief that they're worth more, but that's not the message we continue to hear.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/oes151132.htm
[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
On top of that, there are well known cases of illegal wage suppression: https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tech-companies-are-payi...
I was once told by a recruiter that "industry standard" was to only expect a 5% raise with a new job. But I once tripled my salary in a single job offer, no lie.
You can produce significantly more value than you're paid, even at high income levels.
If I'm making $50,000 as a developer at Company X, but I know that other developers using the same tech I do at other companies are making $75,000, what are the chances I'm going to get a $25,000 raise from Company X? Probably nothing. But the chances of me getting myself a raise by switching jobs are pretty good. Likewise if I know that developers using Tech Y are making $100,000, I'm going to try and get my company to adopt Tech Y, regardless if it's good for the company or not. Then, once I know enough about it to impress an interviewer, I'm gone. I have a theory that this dynamic is behind the phenomenon of new techs coming out of Silicon Valley suddenly becoming extremely popular and then causing huge waves of buyer's remorse.
My observation from working in this industry for 10 years, is that the true potential of software is not unlocked until it's been in production for at least 3 years. This is a bit of an oddball view of mine but I believe it's backed by research. 3-4 years is around the time when the developers are familiar enough with the requirements and the code to make big, bold plans and execute on them. But usually that doesn't happen -- usually, the developers who created it leave before then for greener pastures, and the new folks who come in have zero context on the decisions behind the original system. So they try to rewrite it, repeat all the original mistakes, and maybe even add some new ones.
The easiest thing companies can do to fix this is just get more aggressive with counteroffers. If a developer quits, ask them how much they're getting and then match it. Counteroffers happen all the time with new hires, but rarely with existing employees. It should be flipped; companies should try harder to retain than to hire new.
If one replaces the word "hot" with "high demand" then isn't that a desired property of a functioning market?
Because they perceive that there are other people in their organizations making far more money, who don't contribute much value.. or at least certainly not 2x, 3x, 4x, 10x, whatever, more value.
Whether that is actually the case or not is tough to say, exactly because it's tough to directly measure the value created by an individual developer (in most cases).
Profit GM em 1955: 1 billion http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,807967,....
1955 today: $9,042,397.00 https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1....
GM Employees in 1955: 576,667 http://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/21/americas-biggest-c....
Google employees in 2015: 57,100 https://www.google.com.br/search?q=number+google+employees&i....
Google operating income in 2015: $23 billion http://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q4-2015-earni....
The numbers: * GM profit/employee: 9 Google profit/employee: 403,000 *
So a Google employee would have a wage 45,000 times that of a 1955 GM engineer.
I couldn’t find an amount for the wage of an engineer in 1955 to get a final result.
It is an unfair calculation. Google workforce proportionally has a lot more engineers than GM in the 50’s. Their wages would be way bigger than this.
The ratio between Google and GM is closer to 25 times. Which, I think, is an indication of how much more automation there is now compared to 1955.
It shows how much of the profits goes for the labor force or for the Capital owners.
We are more productive, but now earning more money.