You don't see CEO's being CEO's in their free time. Nor do you see sales people selling stuff just for the fun of it. With open source, developers will spend time and effort building very valuable stuff for free. This perpetuates the perception that programmers like programming so much they would do it as long as their living expenses are met.
I honestly think open source has depressed the wages of programmers. Linux probably has generated billions of dollars of value, but it has not really accrued to the programmers. In addition, open source allows companies to get very valuable intellectual property without having to write it themselves or buy it from someone. Basically it devalues the cost of software and there the value of programmers.
>You don't see CEO's being CEO's in their free time.
Every single successful business leader I know[1] is a leader at more than just their business. They also sit on charity boards, sit near the top of their social circles etc.
We as devs have to get over this adversarial relationship with other departments. Sales people, business people, accounting, etc. aren't really that different than engineering.
[1]: It's frustrating to me that "CEO" seems to have morphed into a generic term that means "business leader".
> Nor do you see sales people selling stuff just for the fun of it.
Do you hang out with many sales people? In my experience, it's a very personality-driven field and they certainly do at least act like sales people outside of work, even if not literally selling a product or service for money.
Exactly, I knew a sales guy at a former start-up who, when not selling for our company, was off selling watches or hustling something else. He lived and breathed sales in his free time, like an open source programmer lives and breathes programming in his free time.
> I honestly think open source has depressed the wages of programmers.
I strongly disagree. Linux and many other amazing open source projects have helped build a tremendous amount of software products leading to the incredibly high demand for tech workers we see today. Good open source software lets smaller players enter the game, standing on the shoulders of giants. See: Rails
I think this is analogous to the "lump of labour" fallacy. You argue there is less demand for software engineering because lots of software is available as open source, but actually there is more demand because this enables a wider range of software to be made in a cost effective way.
It's interesting; in the past companies were afraid of open source because some of it had no direct support, you couldn't yell at someone if something goes wrong, and "how can you trust something you just downloaded from the internet?"
Now I see private and government organizations mandating the use of open source because it's mostly functional and most importantly, it's free (as in beer).
I do see sales people doing sales in their free time, though. The best ones in my company always seem to be at parties and events with potential clients. They make it look fun!
Nailed it. A commission structure is key when it comes to sales and a good one puts all of the right motivators in to all of the right places. It keeps them hungry, selling more, and they are motivated to structure deals and sell the product. Devs, the very best ones, don't want to punch a time clock either and they aren't a production line. We want to build good reliable products that are sold and ultimately used by clients. We too want our company to be competitive and to hit important goals and milestones to become bigger and stronger and compensation tools from management should reflect that. A good balance of 'Smart, Get things Done and Doesn't Jeopardize the entire business by building crap' must be handsomely rewarded and free beer doesn't cut it. It's hard to find those people, but, I know it's hard to find really good sales people too that are interested in selling aggressively, meeting goals but also building sustainable and fruitful relationships with clients instead of building a house of cards. I think startups nail this with the first few hires, they are incredibly critical to get right and they usually get a pretty good amount of stock.
> A good balance of 'Smart, Get things Done and Doesn't Jeopardize the entire business by building crap' must be handsomely rewarded and free beer doesn't cut it.
Those who do are called founders. It sucks, but the reality is that if you aren't an owner, you don't get rewarded.
That is a good point. When I wrote my note, I was wondering about the middle-ground. An engineer that meets the criteria above but aren't interested in risk so instead of the spoils of millions, they trade their risk for the spoils of tens or hundreds of thousands. Basically, good bonuses for being a high-performer in a high-performing organization. The more I thought of it, the more I realized the middle ground already exists in Corporate America. If you want to trade ping pong tables for income, found a start-up or move in to Corporate America and starting playing the ladders.
I know it's hard to find really good sales people too that are interested in selling aggressively, meeting goals but also building sustainable and fruitful relationships with clients instead of building a house of cards.
I think it's down to the incentive structure. Commissions need to be split between sales and earned revenue from prior sales, and the split needs to be just right in order to incentivise building long-term profitable relationships with clients but without making it too easy to just coast on last year's results.
Dev salaries are pretty high? Are sales people really making what engineers make? I took a quick look at glassdoor for my company and it doesnt seem like it.
I personally know sales folks in large enterprises (say Cisco) who do a lot of travelling and are able to get base salaries of ~250k and commissions of ~400-500k a year, on top of essentially life time personal unlimited travelling due to millions of miles points accumulated. So yea, pretty high.
Salespeople in the tech space in SF start on about $70k (first year) and can expect to get to $200 (all in) after 5-7 years. Top reps aren't going find it hard to get $250k+ by their early 30s.
I don't know a huge amount about engineering salaries, but my guess is they're actually pretty similar across the board (although engineers start a lot higher).
I've done sales recruiting for about a year. I've only ever talked to one guy who's made more than $1m in a year. He was on a base of $125 or $150k. Last year he made $750k, and the year before that $1m.
But if you're a rep who's truly making $1m+ a year, you probably aren't planning on jumping ship anytime soon.
The myth that great developers aren't interested in compensation is terrible for our collective pay.
It really does not matter what people think. Set your price, hustle and be patient. The price for engineers is set by other engineers who are willing to work for less.
If you wanna great salespeople you gotta pay them.
You want great devs. You should put in a ping pong table and give out free soda.
The myth that great developers aren't interested in compensation is terrible for our collective pay.