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/
Place a software developer and a box of money on the ground, and see which one I grab and run off with.
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.
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
At the end of the day the bad managers always keep their jobs during a downsizing. There jobs are off the table.
A successful gas company which I will not name here has 75% of all employees managers at their corporate office. Many have just 1 to 2 people in their so called "teams".
Everyone else got laid off and this company is still struggling to remain competitive when half the workforce sits in meetings and gets paid $150K a year to tell their 1 employee what to do!
Yes they wanted me as an outsourced contractor as I was dispensable. But not the managers where 2/3s of the staff left just sit in meetings of course.
http://saveie6.com/