Ask HN: Why do managers tend to make more money than engineers?

I think you're right about the mental modelling that leads to these market outcomes.

I am perplexed by the weak arguments from sources -- comparing dev work to 9 mothers trying to have a baby in one month? What point are they trying to even make there? My crystal ball is cloudy but I think they mean delivery time is immutable? The other, saying productivity differences encourage lack of communication? That's not even relevant to the exploration of the fact of how much productivity difference there is!

The whole question is somewhat beside the point: I don't understand the benefit of homogeneity. I don't have amazing productive work every minute of the day, heck, I don't have good productive work every week of the year. Making a system that homogenizes output would limit _all_ employees, because we all have times we are 100x better than us at our worst.

And yet, in order to get predictability, we strive to build systems where engineers are cogs, because if things are predictable, targets are met, and managers get their bonuses. But it ultimately doesn't serve the best interests of the business.

There's no one answer. Instead, it's a combination of factors that others have touched upon - closeness or influence relative to the decision makers, "force multiplier" effect, good old supply and demand. Instead of reiterating the point, I'm just going to get right in the face of the commenters who think it's unjust that managers tend to make more. I'm just a developer myself, I've never been a manager, but come on, let's not be total a-holes about this.

(1) It's just wrong to measure managers by the same yardstick one would use for individual contributors. Of course people who perceive themselves as the most technically proficient believe that less technically proficient managers should make less, but there's no rational business case for awarding pay on that basis. What managers do and understand might not be as technical, but that doesn't mean it's less important for the bottom line.

(2) You're probably wrong about the technical-profiency thing anyway. Sure, managers might not understand your favorite two-year-old technology as well as you do, but it's highly likely that they know some other still-relevant technologies better than you and have a better "gut feel" for technology overall.

(3) Business sense and general technical judgement are harder to hire for than narrow momentarily-relevant skills. Also, what managers do is often a lot less fun than what developers do. Who wants to spend all day every day in meetings or dealing with budget/personnel issues or balancing long-term development with the fire drill of the day? Thus, even if what managers know were less intrinsically valuable than what developers do, the demand for good managers would still drive up pay.

To flip this on its head, think for a moment about what the world would have to be like in order for managers not to make more (in general - I know there are already plentiful exceptions). Then you would have less technically able managers, making worse decisions, not resolving interpersonal issues, pushing more work onto the team or onto HR. Whee. What fun. Instead of grousing about it, accept it as the way as the world and get on with getting ahead yourself.

It sort of depends on what you mean by this. If you are asking why someone who manages engineers is making more money than the engineers they manage a couple of things come into play:

- Frequently engineering management plays a double role, both senior engineering roles (guidance, architecture, big design, project/product management etc) and "people" management (hiring, salary negotiations, compliance, etc). It is relatively easy to argue (though not necessarily correct) that someone with more things to be responsible for, "deserve" more compensation.

- Frequently engineering managers are elevated to that role because they either have aptitude, interest, or experience translating engineering feats into business relevance (ie revenue generation or cost reduction). It is relatively easy to argue (though not necessarily correct) that someone who captures more money for the business "deserve" more compensation.

- Compensation is also largely a market transaction. Managers tend to have more accurate information about both market rates and what the business can bear. This serves them in the form of more optimal negotiations, both in relation to the engineers that work for them and with their own compensation negotiations with other management.