So let's say a star programmer is worth ten, hundred or thousand times more than your average programmer. Now, you claim that this difference in productivity won't be reflected in star programmers' salaries. They could consider themselves lucky to get two or three times more money than the average programmer.
OK, then.
Why isn't anyone making solid profit by paying the star programmers only ten times more than the average programmer? It's still at least one order of magnitude margin to their real productivity. It's a free market out there. The free market should be able to exploit such gross margins.
Or is someone making money recruiting star programmers with absurdly high salaries?
(Yeah, I know that it's hard to find the star programmers. Or even know who they are.)
[permalink] [2 comments] 05.07.2006, 20:25
- Comments:
Posted by Stuart Langridge at 05.07.2006, 23:38
Two reasons why not.1. Companies with lots of money are old-fashioned suit-oriented business companies who in no way believe in the star programmer concept.
2. The few companies that do have money and do buy the idea do pay the programmers highly, just not in raw salary. Look at, say, Microsoft, where you can get as many free drinks as you want and as many computers on your desk as you want and really plush offices. So you're not pulling down the money in notes at the end of the month, but equally that bit of your money goes towards you never having to fill out a change request form to get a new keyboard. Joel Spolsky's firm is similar, I think.Posted by DeanG at 07.07.2006, 16:40
Please keep shouting. :D
