[jshen]

The most obvious flaw, a programmer is only worth 5.7 times their 1999 salary if their work is generating 5.7 times as much revenue as it would have in 1999. I see no evidence that this is the case. If it were the case, and the vast majority of programmers are earning 1/6 of what their work is worth, then there is a huge opportunity that you can exploit to get rich. Go for it, and let us know how it works out.

[ObviousScience]

Didn't a lot of major corporations get in trouble recently because they colluded to stop engineers from correcting this imbalance?

Your argument seems to ignore that market forces agreed that engineers were underpaid, and it was only by illegal collusion that their wages were kept to what they were.

[hueving]

The imbalance was mostly on the management side. Even then, it wasn't almost an order of magnitude like that silly blog post suggested.

[jshen]

My point still stands. If this is true there is an enormous opportunity for you to get rich. Try it and let us know how it goes.

[geebee]

To me, the strongest evidence that programmers are worth considerably more than they are typically paid comes form the absolute insistence from silicon valley companies that there is a "shortage" of programmers at the market rate (or well above the market rate).

[frozenport]

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.

[pluma]

For those not familiar with American folklore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29

[michaelochurch]

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.

[jshen]

I can summarize your point of view as, "pay me a million dollars and I'll blame others for the problems"

Who wants to hire that attitude?

[michaelochurch]

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.

[jshen]

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.

[michaelochurch]

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.