It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money. I have seen many a John Henry try to save a project from technical failure when it was a business failure.
It's even worse because you might code up a storm and not add any value. You might work a dead project and only loose the company money.
Very true. We have the value-add potential that, on paper, would justify upward of $700,000 per year. Unfortunately, most of us are managed ineptly and so much of that value is squandered. There are plenty of ways that the surplus generated by our talents could be spent (expansion, higher salaries) but right now it's wasted on a high tolerance for mismanagement.
With all due respect, you're interpreting what I say in the most negative light possible, and I don't think you understand the point that I'm trying to drive through.
Programmers can add immense value relative to the cost of employing them. There are many ways in which this surplus could be reinvested. Unfortunately, it tends to be invested in tolerance of mismanagement.
We're capable of adding value at 5x our base salary (and that's a low estimate; 20-100x is defensible) but this gives corporations an excuse to run us at ~20% efficiency.
It sounds to me like the value is coming more from management than the programmer. After all, you admit that few people have the skill to deliver that value and the programmer can't deliver it themselves.
I would argue that many programmers can deliver that value directly. However, most corporate management filters get in the way.
The percentage of managers in technology/software who add more than they take away is small: maybe 5 percent. Another 15 percent or so are essentially neutral, and the other 80 percent do more damage than they add.
