Slashdot Mirror
Are Software Developers Really More Valuable To Companies Than Money? (cnbc.com)
Recently the CFO of Stripe revealed a surprising statistic:
As our global economy increasingly comes to run on technology-enabled rails and every company becomes a tech company, demand for high-quality software engineers is at an all-time high. A recent study from Stripe and Harris Poll found that 61 percent of C-suite executives believe access to developer talent is a threat to the success of their business. Perhaps more surprisingly -- as we mark a decade after the financial crisis -- this threat was even ranked above capital constraints.
And yet, despite being many corporations' most precious resource, developer talents are all too often squandered. Collectively, companies today lose upward of $300 billion a year paying down "technical debt," as developers pour time into maintaining legacy systems or dealing with the ramifications of bad software... When deployed correctly, developers can be economic multipliers -- coefficients that dramatically ratchet up the output of the teams and companies of which they're a part.
His article even ends with tips for managers about how to get the most out of their developers.
And yet, despite being many corporations' most precious resource, developer talents are all too often squandered. Collectively, companies today lose upward of $300 billion a year paying down "technical debt," as developers pour time into maintaining legacy systems or dealing with the ramifications of bad software... When deployed correctly, developers can be economic multipliers -- coefficients that dramatically ratchet up the output of the teams and companies of which they're a part.
His article even ends with tips for managers about how to get the most out of their developers.
- Consider very carefully the current and potential allocation of developer time.
- Embrace the cloud, saving in-house developers to work on higher-impact projects.
- Hire leaders who have technical backgrounds, so they can make better hiring and strategic decisions, and offer better management of developers.
But first managers have to decide if they agree with his initial premise.
Are software developers more valuable to companies than money?
Apparently we are just recycling stories that were posted a few days ago.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
If they were valuable they would not be outsourced to India and be the first ones laid off when a recession starts. All other departments get untouched. Manufacturing and IT always get gutted first and get the least respect of any department as we are an annoying cost getting in the way of the CEO's bonus.
At least that is my experience which maybe tainted from the oil and gas industry a little bit.
http://saveie6.com/
I am software developer and I am nothing. Well better yet I am no-thing.
If someone bases their value or the value of their company on someone or something its my opinion they are lost. Or better yet, they have lost whatever they had.
Duplicate story
We need more H1Bs!
Post dups to slashdot are.
Place a software developer and a box of money on the ground, and see which one I grab and run off with.
No where does it say that companies think developers are more important than money.
The results state that the companies perceive the risk of not being able to find skills as higher than the risks of not being able to access capital.
This is especially true if you're a cash rich organisation.
In the current financial climate finding returns on your investments is hard. Interest rates are at historically low levels, bond returns are zero, and so that leaves higher risk investments to get returns. That effectively translates into money moving into the stock market and VC type investments which pushes money further and further up the risk tree making funding generally easy to find.
Given that companies routinely give away money (in salaries) to hire developers, obviously they'd prefer to have the developers. Of course, you can say the same about every employee in every job - the employer prefers to have the staff member rather than they money they pay them.
"Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
The plain sense answer is just one of "No" for the very simple reason that companies have limited resources and have to get as much work done with what they have. There simply is no such thing as a manager who doesn't have to consider money when deciding who to hire and fire the same way they have to consider money when considering other things that can cost or save them money.
When you consider that, managers who are actually trying to do their jobs and looking out for the interests of their employer will obviously try to maximize what they can achieve with their allotted budgets. This is the fundamental reason why so many companies are going for H1B workers and avoiding over-qualified workers
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.
I do actually think I have something else to add, besides a basic criticism of click-bait titles.
As someone that owns a software company, my company provides services that typically either replace, or supplement, internal development skills. We step in and work for our clients for a number of reasons. One reason is when an organization relies on custom software, but cannot manage the development process, typically through the work of a talented, previous, employee that has since left the company where no one in management had any idea of what they actually did, but they rely on it. Another common reason is that the clients cannot actually pay for a W2 employee to do the work. We are able to charge at least 2x as much as an employee, but since we need to work half the time (either through efficiencies, or because they simply do not have full time work available), this is typically a cost savings. Usually, there is some combination of lack of development/management skill, and cost savings, which is why it makes sense to "outsource" to a U.S. based company, as opposed to developing software skills in-house.
So, I feel push back on price when selling sometimes. Often times, organizations will simply leave a position empty than pay the 2-3x contractor rates needed to fill these positions, immediately, with me and my team. For those people, developers are NOT worth more than 2-3x an employee rate. They ARE worth the somewhat inflexible price range their HR department is looking to fill people into.
No.
The goal of any company is to make money. They may restrict or target their approach, but the bottom line is... well... the bottom line. The headline is "semantic bullshit". Does it mean "Devs are more valuable than a cash stack of cash"? or does it mean "Devs are more valuable than the income they can produce"?
For the former: Absolutely. As is every class of employee. That's the entire purpose of employees: to generate more income than it costs to employ them. (The only source of income for a company is sales. Every other department is there to support sales or reduce overhead.)
For the latter: Absolutely not. The only value of a company is money. Absolutely every other "thing of value" is given its value according to it's potential to bring in money or save money.
Most software developers have college degrees or at least equivalent amount of experience. The work required for successful development projects, actually needs such levels of education/experience.
Most businesses need workers, but not too much in terms of highly trained specialists. So the businesses just don't know how to handle Software Developers. Either they just treat them like their normal work staff. Where they are micromanaged and just hindered from creating and thinking, thus paying them and not being able to improve your business because you are leaving skills on the table, because the management just doesn't understand why improving on something (even if it currently works) is valuable . Or they are treated as some aloof subgroup, where their is no leadership or direction thus they are not working on the right things to help improve the business.
Often both conditions are how businesses handle the groups they are hindered from being creative and never working on a project that is needed. In theory if a company (assuming a non software development firm) could properly manger their development staff, then these developers would be extremely valuable to the company. However in practice, the development staff is so inefficient that they would be first to be laid off, not due to bad people, but bad management.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
they're 'worth more' than the crappy paychecks many of them get... especially when h1b recipients (or outright outsourcing overseas) are competing against them for jobs, depressing salaries across the board.
If you are working in a job that is in High Demand, where there is a small supply. You are going to be wanted to be paid more. It isn't entitlement but Economics.
Employees are their own independent business people. Millennial or not they are going to try to get the most of what people are willing to pay for them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee.
Not by definition, no, because no employer has perfect knowledge of the actual value of an employee to their company -- particularly not at the moment they decide to hire that employee. Every new hire is something of a gamble over whether and when the employee will actually yield the quality and quantity of product that the employer predicts they will.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.
It's true in a theoretical world. In the real world, it's not really your manager's money but the company's money. Many people are employed despite their sub-par performance because termination processes are nasty. Termination processes reduce headcount you may not get back. Termination processes may cause employees that actually perform above their pay grade to seek other work. Replacing a hire causes new recruitment costs for a replacement that may not be better than what you had. And even if they are, you've sunk a lot of training cost into the employee you have. If you don't know a mediocre employee that strictly speaking should have been fired but just isn't that horrible, you're not looking very hard or you're it. Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
My lawn mower does NOT need blue tooth!
Why don't software companies do more profit sharing?
Anyone over 35 is a Grump.
I simply can't figure out why everyone keeps making such stupid, schoolboy decisions...
The goal of our company is to employ as many of the owner's family as possible. I'm not one of
them, but I'm sort of ok with this. It is his company. As long as it's interesting, not too crazy
schedule wise, and I'm paid well, I'm fine with it.
I wish they felt the same about systems engineers.
Some I've worked with recognize the value, and treat you accordingly -- or at least they pretend, which is almost as good.
But most? To most, IT is a drag, not an asset.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
The word "economic" is extraneous. Anyone who uses the phrase "more valuable than money" is apparently incapable of logical thought. Money is the medium with which value is measured, not an amount that can be compared. One might as well ask "Is a week longer than time?" or "Is a pound heavier than weight?"
I got seriously lowballed on my last offer, on a company who can definitely afford to pay me correctly. So no, software are not more valuable to companies than money.
Plus I've had discussions with friends and their jobs and what they are paid, and I completely maintain my answer.
Most people are full of shit when they brag about what they make. The reality is pretty shocking.
It depends on the industry.
I got termed and it hurt my career because of this perception. It was a call center like environment where a new manager came in and fired 7 of us within the first week to make his numbers look good. I was fired because my call volume was 2.6 cases per day and not 2.9 and I was only 3 months in.
I exceeded my average the last month as I got used to the job and got better at it. However, he averaged training where i didn't take calls. So all the new guys were fired for being incompetent as only 1 other person hired on the team met this.
Long story short I was laid off before this and now had those 2 events and a gap on my resume which made HR freak out. I almost had to leave the technology field and to this day take temp jobs.
Understand, you need to walk in someone elses shoes before making a general assumption. Many organizations have high turnover as well and fire easily as part of their business culture.
http://saveie6.com/
Um ... money is a medium of exchange. It's not worth anything in itself.
And companies invest money in programmers, in the hopes of making more money than they invested. But only so they can trade that money for other stuff.
So your question is oddly nonsensical. Like asking "is thirst more valuable than sideways" or something.
This just in: Some people are more valuable than money, which also implies that some aren't.
A recent study from Stripe and Harris Poll found that 61 percent of C-suite executives believe access to developer talent is a threat to the success of their business. Perhaps more surprisingly -- as we mark a decade after the financial crisis -- this threat was even ranked above capital constraints.
No where in the above statement does it say anything close to "developers are more valuable than money". It could simply mean that access to capital has already been taken care of. Or that they don't plan on doing any infrastructure investment, so it's not needed. Or any of a million other things.
Executives value software devs exactly as much as their behavior indicates. Now get back to work before the next round of layoffs.
Someone can be very productive but still dreadful employee due to their condesendence and resistance to cooperation. During downsizing criterias are often mandated and more to do with office politics.
Someone doesn't know the difference between economic value, financial cost and opportunity cost.
Nice try at seeming smart to random internet people though. Next up, How are you at shifting goalposts?
All IT is not created equal. There are IT workers in call centers - this work is easily outsourced. There are simpler, "maintenance" type IT tasks programmers perform - this work is also fairly easily outsourced these days. Then there is high-impact, design level IT work. This work requires a high level of business knowledge AND strong developer skills. These are the workers companies are competing for because they're in short supply - it's simply a rare individual that has a high level of proficiency at both. The most effective management people will be able to quickly distinguish between the 3 and spend money only in the category needed for the business needs at hand. Don't pay US developer salaries for outsource type work. Conversely, don't expect most offshore teams to handle your high impact design level issues, at least without very strong management from the business side.
Money is just a tool for the people.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Money has been and will always be more important than human flesh.
How valuable is money?
A penny is money. I think most developers are worth more than a penny. A hundred dollar bill is money and I think most developers are worth more than a hundred dollar bill. A bank account containing a billion dollars is NOT money, although the bank will be willing to give you lots of money in exchange for decrementing the number in their computer.
The whole question "is X more valuable than money" is utter nonsense. What are you measuring the value of X in if not units of money?
The topic of the original article was "Are companies more worried about the difficulty in obtaining sufficient developers or the difficulty in obtaining sufficient money (i.e. capital investment or loans) needed to develop their product?" Obviously they will need to use some of the money they obtain (if they are able to do so) to pay the developers they hire whatever those developers agree they are worth. But they might not be able to obtain the developers even if they have the money.
Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.
There are companies that outsource their entire software development department. Nobody but the execs have any control over that.
Besides, if you want to blame any single employee for outsourcing, why aren't you doing that for downsizing? They could've given 10000% and propped the company up even in a recession.
Owners/Lenders/Shareholders/Managers/Customers
Casteism
That's actually a really good point. It's not just economic reasoning that is problematic in that article, but reasoning all together.