It’s easy and comforting to imagine that someone getting paid more than you must also suffer more than you – certainly well paid doctors and lawyers and investment bankers seem to suffer terrible working conditions – but it isn’t really true. A software developer earning an ordinary good salary (say $80k-$120k to pick some reference point) isn’t going to be working ‘harder’ than someone with a more manual job[1] earning much less pay or indeed your equivalent software developer in a poorer country, and unlike a skilled tradesman, the programmer is unlikely to reach 40 in a terrible physical condition with his muscles shot and some kind of chronic joint pain. And warren buffet is unlikely to be working much harder than the CEO of some smaller company.
Most of the reason those big companies can pay software developers so we’ll is that they are worth it, and they can be worth it because they have more leverage: if you do something that causes a small company to be 1% better, and if that same thing would make a small part of a massive company 0.5% better, the latter can be worth a lot more just because the denominator is so much bigger. It feels harder to explain why they must pay so much. The first order argument is that there is lots of demand for software developers and that pushes up the price, but these companies are active in markets where developers are paid less well (e.g. Europe) and they could adjust hiring to favour candidates who are good but less competitive (e.g. because they are bad at a particular kind of interview) so I don’t understand why market forces haven’t lead to things being more balanced.
Well all the examples I gave were from America. It’s true that at some jobs higher pay comes with worse conditions (eg hazard pay or working a night shift) but generally for programming (and many other professional jobs) higher pay comes with better conditions.
Most of the reason those big companies can pay software developers so we’ll is that they are worth it, and they can be worth it because they have more leverage: if you do something that causes a small company to be 1% better, and if that same thing would make a small part of a massive company 0.5% better, the latter can be worth a lot more just because the denominator is so much bigger. It feels harder to explain why they must pay so much. The first order argument is that there is lots of demand for software developers and that pushes up the price, but these companies are active in markets where developers are paid less well (e.g. Europe) and they could adjust hiring to favour candidates who are good but less competitive (e.g. because they are bad at a particular kind of interview) so I don’t understand why market forces haven’t lead to things being more balanced.