[kumbasha]

On the other hand, without all of the actual programmers you would have no product and no profits at all. Neither group can function without the other, and pay should reflect that rather than the ridiculously unequal spread we just automatically accept as normal.

[untog]

Yes and no. It might be an unpopular opinion (and I'm a programmer myself) but 80% of programmers are relatively easily replaceable, particularly in large organisations. There are indispensable unique unicorns out there, but they tend to be well compensated.

When a project is managed by one manager and coded by five developers, you could easily lose replace two of those developers with little impact. If you lost the manager (who is calculating deadlines, coordinating with other departments, pitching for funding, as well as managing the individual developers) the project could run into problems quickly.

On the face of it, it seems unfair - the developers are the ones actually writing the code after all. But the HN trope that managers are useless and feckless isn't correct.

[nawitus]

>If you lost the manager (who is calculating deadlines, coordinating with other departments, pitching for funding, as well as managing the individual developers) the project could run into problems quickly.

Really? In my experience managers can be replaced rather easily, or at least more easily than it is to a replace a single engineer. It always takes some time for the new software engineer to learn the specifics of the project, and even more time to really grasp the business domain. The new manager has stuff to learn too, of course, but in my opinion it's less than what a new engineer needs to learn.

In addition, if you replace two software engineers, you pretty much lose two man-months of work, but replacing a manager shouldn't cause much problems in the first month.

[nostrademons]

If you're a manager your biggest asset is relationships with developers and with peers across the organization. Those assets can't be replaced at all - it takes time to build trust, and trust is completely non-fungible between people. I've seen departments just decimated (worse, actually...decimate means "to kill 10%", and in this case over 50% of leads & senior engineers left) because a well-respected manager left.

[jasonwocky]

> Really? In my experience managers can be replaced rather easily, or at least more easily than it is to a replace a single engineer.

Possibly true. But think about how most engineering managers attained that role...it was because companies thought they were good engineers, despite little if any evidence that they'd ever make good managers. Throw in a dash of, "we don't really have a training budget" for this new profession (which it is...management is an entirely different profession from engineering), and you have a recipe for disappointing, easily replaceable parts.

[andyidsinga]

It seems you're both right - but that good managers and good engineers are both rather difficult to replace.

The problem being that replacement "good" managers and engineers aren't just sitting around waiting for you to hire them - they're already in good jobs - see also: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html

Additionally, for managers, you can't promote from your summer interns.

[tensor]

I don't think they are useless, but I also do not think that the majority are particularly skilled. In many cases, it seems like teams succeed despite their managers interference. A lot of managers are more like secretaries and I think they should be compensated as such.

There are exceptions of course, but the unequal pay has nothing to do with skill as far as I'm concerned.

[untog]

A lot of managers are more like secretaries and I think they should be compensated as such.

Which is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Optimised database indexes (for example) can be valuable to a company. But if the company lacked a developer who could optimise them, they could get by - they'd just have to get more/faster servers.

You can't throw money at organisational and communication skills in the same way. In fact, doing so usually makes it worse. If you don't have managers that know the company, can interact with other stakeholders and otherwise just manage people, you're screwed.

If you think that kind of stuff is secretarial work then I could just as easily counter by saying that development is basically just glorified word processing. And should be compensated as such.

[tensor]

>Which is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Optimised database indexes (for example) can be valuable to a company. But if the company lacked a developer who could optimise them, they could get by - they'd just have to get more/faster servers.

Look up complexity theory. There are plenty of cases where hardware will not make up for a poorly written sql query. If the people giving direction don't understand the technology, they will make stupid decisions like thinking that they can fix a bad query by throwing hardware at it.

>You can't throw money at organisational and communication skills in the same way. In fact, doing so usually makes it worse. If you don't have managers that know the company, can interact with other stakeholders and otherwise just manage people, you're screwed.

This statement has done nothing to convince me that managers have skill that is so hard to find as to justify their high wages.

You certainly need managers, but I think it best if you pick a suitable engineer for this role precisely to avoid the database example you just provided. An engineering manager should get a higher pay than their peers, because they are not only experts in the domain but also have some people skills.

But a non-expert manager? Their only skill is communicating and giving orders? This is role that should ideally go away.

[sheepmullet]

Frequently, especially in smaller (<500 staff) organisations, the communication and organisation is better handled by developers and, as projects get bigger, supplemented by project managers.

Every communication layer you add to this mix has an enourmous cost. It is a bit like playing Chinese Whispers.

I think the first level of important management is managing teams of teams or portfolios of projects

[kumbasha]

It's true. Once an email hits a certain point where managers get CC'd--that's usually the point where creativity shuts down.

[kumbasha]

Not useless, just not deserving of more pay than the engineers. Same goes for the executives.

[noname123]

Managers aren't useless. They are just a sub-specie of human beings who happen to have the audacity and lack of moral fiber to exploit other people. I for one, upvote them in the name of genetic diversity!

Developers on the other hand are the worker-bees/ants. Individually replaceable but as a collective, the backbone of an colony/swarm! A queen bee cannot survive without its attendants.

Marx got it all wrong, the owners who provides the means of productions and the proletariat who provides the labor are partners in hand.

Why are some people so individualistic to nitpick on why they make $80K yr and drive a Prius vs. someone else who makes $250K and drives a E-class, when we are all together in this together for the same goal for the greater good of the same collective, for the investors and maximizing the shareholder value???

[vacri]

Pretty much every role in a company these days is essential, thanks to economic rationalism. Fire the janitors, see how much people like working in your offices in a month or two.