Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#31

Post by dilyevsky » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 1:50 AM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #15

modbait wrote: post #2

Good insights. In addition, there are good reasons to think that the value that programmers produce isn't even measurable in any practical way. A couple of years ago, I spotted a latent bug in a piece of core infrastructure software that would have caused a lengthy world-wide outage of the company when triggered. I can see that that saved the company at least $10M. But how can managers/HR/etc measure such effects? An…

When you save a company $$$, it's important to bring that up at annual review time, and definitely place it on your resume.

At Google I was explicitly told not to use $ value in my perf review/promo form by multiple managers. There and at other companies i worked for i found that management cares more about revenue (more engagement, new features, releases, etc) than costs (code quality, performance, etc).

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#32

Post by mac01021 » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #22

> The most productive programmers are orders of magnitude more productive than average programmers. But salaries usually fall within a fairly small range in any company. Even across the entire profession, salaries don’t vary that much. If some programmers are 10x more productive than others, why aren’t they paid 10x as much? Because the 10x Programmer is a pernicious myth. Even if you believe the original study from…

I don't know.... I have not seen this study, but:

1> I feel I can safely say that I am more productive than the median programmer, as are probably a majority of visitors to Hacker News

2> I am aware of many famous programmers who are more productive than I am by at least an order of magnitude - probably two orders of magnitude.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#33

Post by gp7 » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

ropeadopepope wrote: post #26

frank_nitti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe - I think the missing component is their level of "laziness" as Bill Gates defined it. A brilliant, but "lazy", coder will find the most efficient way to compose a solution that meets the requirements. But it's definitely not an oxymoron to say that some brilliant coders can go down rabbit holes at the expense of their own (and company's) time and productivity. They may spend lots of time reading white papers,…

This reminds me of the following by General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord: > "I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. > Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy…

I'm clever and stupid.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#34

Post by duxup » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

Measuring productivity is hard. Everywhere I've worked there were attempts and the system always became gamified and skewed. Incentive hitting a number(s) and folks will hit it.... at the expense of a lot of other things.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#35

Post by IncRnd » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:13 AM UTC

qume wrote: post #5

FTA: "Programmers are most effective when they avoid writing code." I'll take an average coder who only codes what is needed over a brilliant one who is constantly going down rabbit holes unnecessarily.

That makes sense, but our experience is slightly different.

We have a 20x (not a 10x) programmer. He closes literally 20 times the number of issues that other programmers close for a given time frame. Plus, his issues are almost always fixed or completed properly without needed to be re-opened. So, his actual throughput is greater than 20x that of others.

He is good at what he does, better than almost everyone else put together. I don't care if he goes down rabbit holes, spends 90% of his time walking down the hall mumbling, or if he sits in the break room staring into space. His salary is higher than others in the same role, but not 20x. He wins and we win.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#36

Post by ehnto » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:20 AM UTC

modbait wrote: post #2

Good insights. In addition, there are good reasons to think that the value that programmers produce isn't even measurable in any practical way. A couple of years ago, I spotted a latent bug in a piece of core infrastructure software that would have caused a lengthy world-wide outage of the company when triggered. I can see that that saved the company at least $10M. But how can managers/HR/etc measure such effects? An…

A good accountant can save you hundreds of thousands by spotting misreported line items. Bugs in your accounting so to speak.

Being able to demonstrate tech cost savings in monetary value is a very powerful skill to have come negotiating time.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#37

Post by doctorless » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

alain_gilbert wrote: post #27

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #22

> The most productive programmers are orders of magnitude more productive than average programmers. But salaries usually fall within a fairly small range in any company. Even across the entire profession, salaries don’t vary that much. If some programmers are 10x more productive than others, why aren’t they paid 10x as much? Because the 10x Programmer is a pernicious myth. Even if you believe the original study from…

Am I the only one who believe that the "10x programmer" might actually be someone who is just as good as the others, but actually work constantly and is self sufficient ?

I believe this, mostly. There are those who refuse to learn and do poorly, but compared to an average programmer instead of the worst, the real difference is ability to remain focused despite interruption (or a good mitigation strategy), a desire to improve oneself, and a willingness to continue working through a solution to either completion or determination of it being the wrong answer and finding an alternative.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#38

Post by ehnto » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:24 AM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #31

skookumchuck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you save a company $$$, it's important to bring that up at annual review time, and definitely place it on your resume.

At Google I was explicitly told not to use $ value in my perf review/promo form by multiple managers. There and at other companies i worked for i found that management cares more about revenue (more engagement, new features, releases, etc) than costs (code quality, performance, etc).

Interesting! I have had the opposite experience at smaller companies.

A cynical view might be that in larger companies, the goal setting only materializes as dollar values higher up the chain so that they can benefit from that negotiation leverage.

A less cynical view is that business-speak and goal setting naturally abstracts away from money as you try to manage larger goals down a chain of people.

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#39

Post by ghufran_syed » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:25 AM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #3

modbait wrote: post #2

Good insights. In addition, there are good reasons to think that the value that programmers produce isn't even measurable in any practical way. A couple of years ago, I spotted a latent bug in a piece of core infrastructure software that would have caused a lengthy world-wide outage of the company when triggered. I can see that that saved the company at least $10M. But how can managers/HR/etc measure such effects? An…

likewise I found a bug on a major UK website that was costing them > 500k£ per week an also early one the web as one of a two person team delivered I a month what another part of the company has quoted as a 2 year project :-(

You should have quoted them a 1-year project, at some eye-poppingly high rate to solve the problem

Re: Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity (2009)

#40

Post by AznHisoka » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #15

modbait wrote: post #2

Good insights. In addition, there are good reasons to think that the value that programmers produce isn't even measurable in any practical way. A couple of years ago, I spotted a latent bug in a piece of core infrastructure software that would have caused a lengthy world-wide outage of the company when triggered. I can see that that saved the company at least $10M. But how can managers/HR/etc measure such effects? An…

When you save a company $$$, it's important to bring that up at annual review time, and definitely place it on your resume.

Maybe its just me but everybody seems to follow this advice in resumes these days. It has gotten to the point where I become more skeptical of the candidate because I highly doubt a single person was responsible for $x million in addition revenue (even if it is true)

I wonder if the best advice now is simply put your impact in non-monetary terms in your resume.