[robbedpeter]

It's easy to overstate the technical difficulty of lots of basic IT work, especially if people are tech illiterate.

There might be an element of deliberate fraud if this guy is spelling out the difficulty of the job as justifying his pay to management. I've seen very clever goldbricking similar to this, where management doesn't know enough to understand what good IT looks like, or how to value IT work.

[toyg]

On the other side: the business can clearly afford it, so the value he brings is entirely justified from a commercial perspective. The fact that they can find cheaper alternatives on the IT market is a different issue.

You can buy a new branded car for $$$ and be sure it will work for years with minimal maintenance, or you can shop around and buy a passable 15-year-old car; in both cases it will likely get you from A to B for a while, but the chance of having problems is lower with the new "whip". This guy, to the business, is the equivalent of leasing a new car every year: they can afford it and brings no risk as far as they can see.

The obsession with capital efficiency can often turn into a disease. Why should we drive down our own wages, when the market is willing to pay more?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

This is basically why I do not automatically discount the story as fake. I have certainly been a part of groups that had a wide range of technical skills. It is an odd experience, but it forces you to think about your audience ( and document everything like you would for your parent ).

I do have an anecdote in a similar vein from a buddy, but he does sometimes tend to exaggerate sometimes so I won't mention it. I absolutely believe though there are companies are still run in a very traditional way for one reason or another.

[downrightmike]

how to value IT work-- yup