[rkalla]

There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false.

One source[1] showed that:

- For highly creative jobs, respect and autonomy to function and just enough $ to cover comfortable living expenses produced the best results.

- As you add more money, the performance for these jobs decreased.

AND

- For highly repetitive jobs, performance increased with pay almost linearly.

- Offering more autonomy for lower pay in these types of jobs lowered performance.

Programming is a highly creative job. While you are making very logical assumptions (more $ == more work) I would argue that after the first month or so, that would no longer be the case.

You would then just be equating (more $ == more HOURS working) but not necessarily producing.

The findings of the study did hinge on the person seeking autonomy to make enough to cover their living expenses such that the concern for money was off the table.

Really interesting stuff.

I think from my own experience, after the honeymoon period of the giant paycheck wears off, this tends to be absolutely true.

As for passion, it has to come from the top down.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates...

Thanks to yengz for the reminder where this study came from!

[bugsy]

The "excellent studies", which engineering management uses to claim that low salaries, but enough to survive, are optimal, are a crock. Where are the top CEOs making just enough to survive?

Here is the flaw. If you are properly compensated and don't have any other options, giving you a big fat raise doesn't improve your productivity, that's true and that's what the studies measure. Hey are you a developer? Here's an extra ten bucks, will you now come up with a better algorithm? No, of course not, because money doesn't make you a better developer, just as paying existing public school teachers more doesn't make them any less severely incompetent.

However, if you want to attract more productive people in the first place, you have to pay them more money because there is a competitive environment. The "excellent studies" try to prevent readers from noticing that that's not what they looked into, and it's clear they do this intentionally.

Do you think that Google would attract the same caliber of developers by paying what McDonalds pays its line workers? You must believe that if you really believe that these studies are correct in their claims that there is no advantage to paying more than survival wages.

The simple fact is that sustenance wages are not in fact ideal for attracting the best developers, designers, writers, actors and inventors.

If you don't recognize that, but continue to insist that the opposite is true, then you are intentionally seeking to deceive people.

[microarchitect]

I think you're conflating wages for "comfortable living" with "sustenance" wages.

[bugsy]

Mmmm, the actual amount isn't all that relevant to the argument. But as far as "comfortable living" goes, the average $90,000 salary in Silicon Valley, minus the high California tax burden, does not provide "comfortable living" when a run down 3 bedroom home costs on average $860,000, vastly above the ability of said $90,000 wage earner to afford. It barely provides sustenance living. This is why many of these average paid developers have 3-4 hour commutes from far away, and others are living packed 5 to a room, and few are able to attract a mate.

This is completely a different topic from the discussion though so I'd prefer not to continue with it, if you would like to, it would be best to start a new thread.

Developers in many other parts of the country can live comfortably with an average wage. But watch out if you get sick. Sickness is for the rich. As we found out last month, if you are a long term employee at Microsoft and you get brain cancer, they give you a bad review and then declare you ineligible for disability benefits. Shouldn't have gotten cancer!

My idea of comfortable living is you can afford a house, to marry, and to afford health care. Others may disagree, but I don't consider that to be even worth debating.

[microarchitect]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said but my understanding of the studies that rkalla is talking about is that the extra $$$ won't make your life significantly better so you'd be willing to forgo that money for "better" (I'm being intentionally vague here) work. Obviously, in the situation you're referring to the extra money makes a big difference in quality of life.

Perhaps you're suggesting that there are no cases where this is true? (i.e., one will always be happier with the extra $$$).

[geekfactor]

Dan Pink's RSA talk came to mind for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

He mentions a couple of studies.

[subsection1h]

  There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false.

He used the words "me" and "my". Unless those studies involved him, I think the results are worth little compared to his own experience. If he had used the words "people" and "they", I think the results of those studies would be more relevant.

[yangez]

Daniel Pink also has a book called Drive which goes into this in detail. Highly recommended read.

[rkalla]

Ahhh! Eric that is exactly where I got that info from, I couldn't place it, but I finished reading "Drive" a few months ago so that must be where it came from.