[Spyro7]

This is a fantastic post. It is well written, and I agree with many of the authors points. Far from being angry, I think that the majority of people reading here on HN actually appreciate this type of critical analysis, and I think that it is a shame that it had to be posted on a throwaway account. However, I would like to present some alternative viewpoints for a few of the issues brought up in this post.

"As a doctor, however, someone like this - a top professional at the peak of their career - would probably make about $400,000. Partners at big law firms commonly net a million a year. Investment bankers are making several million (post-crash!). Top management consultants easily clear $500,000. Even a top accountant - probably a partner at a big 4 firm - would make two, three, or four times as much."

Hold on a second. What is the point that you are trying to make in this post. You say that you are talking about comparing computer programmers as compared to other highly skilled professionals, but then you narrow your focus to the highest percentile in each category. How many lawyers are partners in a big law firm out of the total number of lawyers? How many of these top management consultants clear $500,000?

The top performers in every industry will always make a salary that is amazingly higher than the median. However, unless you know the exact distributions of the salaries in each industry you can not meaningfully compare top performers. What good is it to know that a certain lawyer makes a million dollars a year without knowing how probable that outcome is relative to some more dreary alternatives.

When I started reading your post, I started reading it with the expectation that you were talking about the general market for programmers. Then about halfway through, it seemed to me that you had switched to talking about the very highest performers in the highly skilled labor market. Well, if that is what we are going to be talking about, then we should focus on it.

Look, the highest performers in the computer programming field are no longer called computer programmers. They are called CEOs and there is a high likelihood that they are very, very well compensated relative to the best performers in many other industries. However, as I said earlier, it is pointless to throw around anecdotes about how this 99.999th percentile individual made millions or this one made billions.

So, let's get back down to earth, and try to find some passably good numbers (not perfect, but better than nothing) to use as comparison points. Let's look at some numbers that may be more relevant with what someone around the 50th percentile would experience. All of the following links display ranges for salaries in each field. No, they are not the best samples available, but they are better than going without any data whatsoever.

Note: As stated on the site - all compensation data shown are gross, national from the 10th to 90th percentile ranges.

Physicians: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/People_with_Jobs_as_Phys...

Note: Physicians must have several years of residency as well as an M.D, so a programmer would already have 5 to 9 years of experience compared to a physician that is just beginning.

Lawyers: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2f_Lawyer/...

Lawyers in the states typically need a J.D. before they can actually begin being a lawyer, and law school is very expensive. I should also note, that the gravy train is slowing down dramatically for lawyers - http://www.economist.com/node/18651114

Software Engineers: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer_%2...

Sr. Software Engineers: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Sr._Software_Enginee...

Sr. Business Analyst: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Sr._Business_Analyst...

System Admins: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=System_Administrator...

Computer Programmers: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Computer_Programmer/...

Management Consultants: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Management_Consultan...

Investment Banking: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Associate_-_Investme...

Accountants: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Accountant/Salary/by...

Sr. Accountant (numbers look a little screwy here): http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Accountant/Sa...

Looking at those numbers, it does not seem to me that there is anything particularly wrong with computer programming as compared to other highly skilled professions. As a matter of fact, given that one can become a programmer without needing additional certification, it seems to me, at least, that computer programming is a great field to be in.

"What \"programmers can get rich in startups\" really means is \"entrepreneurs can get rich in startups\", whether they're programmers or bricklayers."

What is the percentage of bricklayers that get rich creating a startup? I don't have the number offhand, but I do know that there is no "Silicon Valley equivalent" for bricklayers. If there was really that vibrant of a bricklayer startup industry, then, due to agglomeration, you would expect there to be at least a few geographical areas where there was a high concentration of bricklaying startup business being conducted (think something like Wall Street).

"I think it isn't. I think the country would be better off if MIT computer science students, like their neighbors at Harvard Law School, could dream of growing up to be President. And I think we'd all be better of if computer science wasn't just seen as a major for socially awkward nerds."

I agree completely, and, actually, I agree with many of your other points as well. That's the thing though, when you are talking about programmer respect it seemed as though confused several different "types" of respect - compensation, entrepreneurship, political pull. With regards to the first type of respect (compensation), I disagree with you because the data for compensation suggests that an alternative hypothesis may be true. With regards to the second type (entrepreneurship), I cannot definitively definitively say either way but neither can you because the data needed to compare the numbers of successful entrepreneurs in different industries does not seem to be readily available.

With regards to the third type (political pull), I agree with you, but I think that perhaps their are deeper things. I have some hypothesis:

1. Perhaps the skills that it takes to do well in politics in the U.S. are somewhat orthogonal to the skills that it takes to build a multi-million dollar software firm from nothing and run it? How could an engineer win an election where the campaigning generally consists of 5 second soundbites and smear campaigns?

2. Maybe the problem is the general youth of the industry. The software industry is in its infancy. Maybe, over time, as it grows deeper roots, it will acquire more political power and influence? This is a fairly likely hypothesis.

Finally, I would like to address one last point:

"When the government wants to bring in more workers from overseas - which obviously lowers salaries, and reduces job security - who do they bring in?"

The problem is actually not so obvious:

* Are the programmers entering the country working in the same exact fields and at the same levels of expertise as the programmers that are local? If this is not the case, then the impact on pre-existing salaries would be negligible.

* Are the programmers entering the country located in similar geographical areas to the programmers that are local? If this is not the case, then, again, you are not likely to see much of an impact.

* Do the programmers entering the country require additional training as compared to local programmers? If this is the case, then they would have lower compensation not because they are willing to work for less but because they are being compensated in the form of additional training.

* Is the industry rapidly growing? If this is the case, then it may be conceivable that existing programmers and programmers entering the country would both benefit as the growing industry has room for them both.

* Of course, one can always increase pay through artificial scarcity, but the problem with doing this is that it ends up costing society by resulting in a deadweight loss - consumer and producer benefits that are never obtained due to artificially high market prices.

* There are quite a few other things, but this post is now more than long enough, and I really need to get back to work.

[onemoreact]

If there was really that vibrant of a bricklayer startup industry, then, due to agglomeration, you would expect there to be at least a few geographical areas where there was a high concentration of bricklaying startup business being conducted (think something like Wall Street). Wait, think about that for a second.

There is a concentration of tech startups in SV because the internet lets them sell to the rest of the country without issue. Brick layers / construction are far less mobile because you need to be at the construction site to build a brick wall. Now nationwide startups represent a fairly small percentage of successful small businesses their advantage is how quickly they can go from multimillion dollar companies to multibillion dollar companies.

PS: Read the millionaire next door and you find a lot of people in the use that made a few million from those bricklaying startups. The main difference is it often took them 20 years to get where software companies got in 5.

[presidentender]

Schwarzenegger made a ton of money in a literal bricklaying startup, which was a big part of his early success; he built a multimillion dollar business out of it in a timeframe more like 5 years than 20.

[GFischer]

I didn't know that. From his bio:

"Bricklaying Business

In 1968, Schwarzenegger and fellow bodybuilder Franco Columbu started a bricklaying business. The business flourished both because of the pair's marketing savvy and increased demand following a major Los Angeles earthquake in 1971"

"By the age of 22, Schwarzenegger was a millionaire, well before his career in Hollywood."

http://arnoldaloisschwarzenegger.com/biography.html

[neilk]

FYI, that "marketing savvy" involved going to door to door and giving homeowners a free appraisal of the state of their chimneys, which would invariably collapse. Because apparently it's a lot easier to push over a chimney than it looks, especially if you are a bodybuilder. Schwarzenegger admitted this on the Johnny Carson show back in the 1980s.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2007/04/your_multitask...

[Spyro7]

"There is a concentration of tech startups in SV because the internet lets them sell to the rest of the country without issue."

I don't think so. If the Internet was all that was needed to explain this concentration, then that would not be a sufficient explanation because it would prompt a new question. If geographical proximity was due to the Internet, then why Silicon Valley vs some other location?

I think that it is more likely that there are a high concentration of tech startups in SV because the concentration of tech companies in SV offers positive externalities to firms that locate themselves in SV. This is not a very good article (even by wikipedia standards), but I think that it could help to paint a picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

But then, you are right. If tech companies needed to be within a hundred miles of their customers in order to transact business with them, then they would not be able to benefit from agglomeration effects. But I think that there are probably other things that factor into as well - margins, competition, regulations, etc.

"Brick layers / construction are far less mobile because you need to be at the construction site to build a brick wall."

I agree, this is true. Perhaps I should have been more selective with my examples. One more thing that is also true is that a side effect of their lack of mobility is that it is more challenging for them to scale vis-a-vis the technology companies.

"PS: Read the millionaire next door and you find a lot of people in the use that made a few million from those bricklaying startups. The main difference is it often took them 20 years to get where software companies got in 5."

The OP cited bricklayers as an example of million-dollar startup companies not being unique to the computer industry. I think that your point about how challenging it is to scale more conventional "mobility-challenged" businesses is actually a very convincing argument against the idea that starting a computer company and starting a bricklayer company offer comparable potential rewards.

Holding all other factors constant, if bricklayer startups are more geographically limited than tech startups, then it is reasonable to hypothesize that tech startups have a higher probability of becoming million-dollar companies.

Also, with regards to the Millionaire Next Door, I think that it is worth repeating the old axiom: the plural of anecdote is not data.

[onemoreact]

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, SV still generates a smaller fraction of millionaires than most people in the tech world might think. Around 200,000 Americans made over a million dollars last year and most of them took fewer risks than the classic raman profitable startup does. A tiny fraction of startups generate billionaires but when you start looking at expected payout and risk it's harder to justify as anything other than the best option based on your current skills.

[bmelton]

I think (and have no evidence to support this whatsoever) that the temperate climate may factor in to the concentration of bootstrapped ventures in SV as well.

My logic is that homelessness in somewhere like Juno Alaska would be FAR worse than being homeless in the Valley, so in that sense, a bootstrapped Valley startup with a short runway is more risk averse than that same startup somewhere with more extreme temperatures.

[cmhamill]

I'd like to add another point to this: in the case of doctors, you've also got to include the various types of doctors. (As the son of a general practitioner, I'm particularly sensitive about this.)

General practitioners make wildly less than the various specialists which abound in the medical profession. Now, GPs can certainly make a good living; in rich areas >$200,000 a year isn't uncommon. At the same time, for, say, dermatologists, >$200,000 is the average salary [1].

(I, for one, think this is backwards: GPs, both in private practices and as hospitalists, are the primary diagnosticians and almost certainly save more lives than any other kind of doctor.)

And don't even get me started on residency; doctors deserve every ounce of geld they get for putting up with that.

Anyone, not directly relevant to OP, but I think that saying, "hey, doctors and lawyers are rich, we should be too" is a bit off the mark. Many doctors are rich. Not all.

[drivingmenuts]

I'll hazard a guess that specialists tend to see patients with specific insurance-covered issues, and those issues are the expensive ones. GPs deal with everything and not all of those ailments are worth much, billing-wise, yet take the same amount of time.

Or, 1 hour of a GPs time will usually result in a lower-return ailment than a Specialists 1 hour of time.

Or the problem of the Craftsman vs. Assembly-Line Worker. It may be better product, but you can't make 'em as fast. In this case, the Assembly Line people only deal with expensive items.

[cmhamill]

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Insurance really drives this, too: HMOs, especially, are constantly pushing for GPs to receive less and less for a given procedure. Combined with the role insurance companies play in (effectively) deciding what a patient does or doesn't "need,* insurance post-1990 has been trying very hard to convince doctors to do a worse job.

My father, for example, had a practice for over 20 years in a small, working and lower-middle class town. He was notorious for taking patients in late and for long waiting times. And everyone wanted to see him. He was also notorious, as it were, for consistently finding and correctly diagnosing issues that other doctors failed to find. He talked to patients about the health in detail, with physicals often taking an hour or more. He would "forget" to charge folks who he knew were struggling to make ends meet.

For over ten years, this worked fine. My family was, frankly, rich, with yearly salary approaching $200,000 dollars at times. Starting in the 1990s, my father ran into HMOs, head-on, if you will. Over the next ten years, his monthly salary consistently decreases until his overhead exceeded his revenue, and was forced out of private practice.

Now, my Dad might not have been the model of an efficient capitalist, but he was a damn fine doctor. I, at least, think it's a damn shame that we live in a world where that kind of care is systematically eradicated.

So, yes, I think it is that GPs deal with "less expensive" issues, but that's also because they deal with every issue. The goal of a medical system should be to avoid entirely expensive issues. The fact that specialists are employed frequently enough (i.e., demand is high enough) that their labor is worth so much is a systematic failing of the medical system.

[drivingmenuts]

What happened to your father is just plain wrong.

Growing up, we had a family doctor that we went to for everything and he referred us to a specialist if need be, but otherwise, he handled everything (which was pretty rare, luckily).

I'm slowly trying to establish the same relationship with a new doctor here (well, technically a Nurse-Practictioner).

[mahyarm]

Why does medicine have the hazing ritual known as residency?

[jbarmash]

My wife is a physician, so let me chime in. It's not so much a hazing ritual but a very carefully constructed mentorship program. It's intense, and in some cases maybe overly so, but the goal is to immerse them into the environment, and to provide a lot of experience, while being carefully supervised by more experienced doctors. After three years of this, you come out really knowing you stuff.

In software, we don't really have structured learning like this, which is unfortunate. Something that would be great to have to really make us into a true profession.

[BerislavLopac]

Perhaps we will, once that software development has as much history and tradition as medicine does.

[velihall]

Don't we, to a small degree already? They are called implementations. Often over promised, under-staffed and under-scheduled time-wise. Long hours are spent, a truckload is learned, experience is gained, etc. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a 3-year limit.

[bmelton]

That's actually fairly common in fields where mistakes can be dangerous. Most places refer to it as apprenticeship, but it's fairly common in even less glamorous trades like electrical work, carpentry, etc.

[mahyarm]

The difference as far as I know, is that apprentices have normal working hours, while residents are sleep deprived to counterproductive levels and they could be barred from becoming a doctor at the end of it. If residents had normal hours like the rest of the doctors, I wouldn't nearly be nearly as apprehensive about it.

[bluekeybox]

> How many lawyers are partners in a big law firm out of the total number of lawyers? How many of these top management consultants clear $500,000?

Even with doctors, to be solidly in the above $200,000 layer, you pretty much need your own practice established and smoothly running (with nurses, staff, and everything) -- not every M.D. out there has that, and the effort required to get there is equivalent to the effort required to start your own business (with 80-hour work weeks etc.)

[pkandathil]

Also guys, doctors are saving lives everyday. I would say as a programmer I do not have a that direct an impact on someone's life. I agree a doctor has to setup their own practice before they make that much money. They also go through a lot of school for a very long time. Comparing a programmer and doctor is not the same in my opinion.

[falcolas]

Someone wrote the software for the equipment they use. I was recently at the hospital for surgery, and there were scant few pieces of equipment that didn't have some kind of programming in it.

[krschultz]

And what % of people writing software write that kind of software? It's a really small number.

What % of doctors have an impact on the health of their patients? Almost all.

We are dealing with statistics here.

[wes-exp]

Maybe a small percent of software is written for life-critical systems. That's because software is a huge market. But a growing percent of life-critical systems rely on software. How many adverse outcomes (even death) are you willing to accept caused by programming failures?

You know, a big part of the prosecution's evidence in the Casey Anthony trial turned out to be false; it was due to faulty software. She could have been imprisoned due to a software bug! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Anthony#Evidence

Now consider that anybody can call themselves a software engineer without even picking up a book. Next time your life hangs on the proper functioning of some computer system, think about that.

[falcolas]

In percentages, sure. In the raw number of people, I imagine the numbers are a lot closer than you imagine.

As for the remaining percentage of people, we may not deal with their physical health, but our work can impact their financial or family's well being fairly easily. Some of the code I have written has touched billions of financial transactions that have decided the future of whether people will be able to buy a house, or a car, or any other line of credit.

Not trivial.

[bluekeybox]

> They also go through a lot of school for a very long time

And that school is very expensive. Also, many highly-paid positions carry the risk of getting sued by the patient's side for having made a silly mistake (can happen to anyone) or even for things that were unavoidable but which the patient's side believes otherwise.

[rcfox]

People should be paid according to the value they provide, not their need. (Correcting for basic necessities.)

[analyst74]

That'll be ideal. But realistically most people are paid based on market/political factor.

[kadmia]

Maybe not the software you write but software is used to run all sorts of things, such as medical equipment that could easily kill. Part of the articles claim is that it is the pervasiveness of software that warrants higher compensation, social status, etc.

[thomasgerbe]

Funnily enough, many political representatives in China are engineers.

[thematt]

However, look at the age of those politicians (at least in China). They became engineers in the 60's and 70's when China still had a planned economy. They tested well in the national exams, which meant they likely went to an engineering school. Likewise, the fact that they tested well meant they were put on the political path. I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion that they are politicians because of some advantage an engineering background gave them, it's more likely the card they drew.

[16s]

India too. "If you are not an engineer, you are nothing" I was told that by a friend from India once.

[kubrickslair]

I don't want to come off as arrogant but I should say this. People generally do not select engineering as a profession in India- it's one of the default professions for most of the middle class.

I have been involved with computers since I was 6, so for me it was a pure choice. But most of my friends, some of them working for big name SV places don't really love or care about software or technology. In fact, some of them actively hate their jobs. Unlike in America, where people actually go to computer science because they love it. In India it's just the default way for a better life.

[tejaswiy]

+1. I would hate to classify any Indian politician as an engineer. More like chose the easiest career path to get a decent amount of respect + a degree and moved into politics.

Influence can buy you grades and admissions in India :/

[IsaacL]

IIRC many political figures in Latin America are doctors.

[GFischer]

Indeed, here (Uruguay) it's, along with lawyers, the most respected profession.

Former (and probably future) president Dr. Tabaré Vázquez is an oncologist (and is an actual practitioner in between political campaigns).

So are several prominent politicians (my own political party representative, Dr. Daniel Radío, is a medical doctor as well)

[ra]

Could that be because they don't have to win a media driven popularity contest to 'win' office?

[hack_edu]

Or that they have thousands of years of history where civil servitude is a scholastic meritocracy.