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.

• 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?

Comments

Obviously.

[OldMugwump]

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.

Budgets?

[The Cynical Critic]

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

Article Lacks Basic Economic Reasoning Ability...

[brian.stinar]

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.

Re:Article Lacks Basic Economic Reasoning Ability.

[Kjella]

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.