This is why I laugh when people want to flock into the software engineering profession, or act like we are well paid. Software engineering is the watch maker of the 21st century.

I can't think of any profession where the demands to compensation ratio is so out of whack. As an engineer you're expected to be exceptionally bright, exceptionally creative (we have to invent new things all of the time), exceptionally passionate, deal with stress (an off-by-one error can cost your company millions) all while living a very middle class life. I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into.

> I can't think of any profession where the demands to compensation ratio is so out of whack

Teacher is one that immediately comes to mind. Nurse? Probably. Soldier? If you're deployed, certainly.

I don't think software engineers actually have that high a level of demand, on the whole. Don't get me wrong, many lead very stressful lives but a great many are also coddled with free food and amenities in their office, babysitting relatively static code. Then they go home to their comfortable apartments with smartphone app controlled lights.

Nurses? They average $69K per year, and need 2-4 years of education. 90th percentile salary is $97K (presumably for people in expensive areas, or pulling a lot of overtime). That doesn't seem out of line.

My mom was a nurse, and the thing I noticed about her work was that when she was off duty, she was off duty. Since she was not ultimately responsible for any patient's care, at the end of shift she could just walk out and leave it all behind. If they needed her after that, she got overtime at time-and-a-half, I think. And she got a bit of pay when she was on call, too.

http://work.chron.com/much-registered-nurses-paid-year-6869....

Yeah I sort of disagree, but first let me say that I do not think we have it terrible, or that we have the toughest job. What I'm (inelegantly) describing is vs. perception. I don't think people get into the jobs you mentioned for money. Whereas I feel there is this perception that Software Engineer is an elite level paying job, similar to doctors and lawyers.

And I disagree on this; we are (not all of us, I know there are plenty of clock in-and-out engineering jobs) expected to invent new things on an almost daily basis.

I can't think of any other job where you judged based on the number of widgets you produce where you are also expected, again -- almost daily, to produce new types of widgets (that are only vaguely speced for you).

When I think of jobs where people are expected to create new things; I think of architects, fashion designers, and the like.

Machinists, welders, carpenters, trade jobs in general come to mind when I read your statement.

And, to be honest, teachers again. "Here's a curriculum (specs), make a series of lessons (product)".

You mean "here's a curriculum, download the lessons and tests".

>Teacher is one that immediately comes to mind. Nurse? Probably. Soldier? If you're deployed, certainly.

No, no and yes. Teaching is an incredibly easy job, you barely have to do anything, and you get paid very well. Nursing is more stressful, but still pays quite well.

I think you very much underestimate the job of being a teacher. Do you know any? I do. Their jobs do not seem easy. Could you control a room of 25 inner city teenagers and get them interested in algebra?

I think you very much overestimate it. Yes, I know several. Their jobs are essentially babysitters. Getting paid $80k/year to put snow pants on kids for recess and then take them off again after, and tell them what books to read is an incredibly cushy gig.

> Getting paid $80/year to put snow pants on kids for recess and then take them off again after, and tell them what books to read

So you're talking elementary school teacher, then. An absolute world of difference away from high school teaching.

You just said "teacher". You are suggesting that a profession is difficult and underpaid, and "teacher" is not. If you want to argue just about some specific subset of teachers then make that argument.

Plus every year what we do becomes more and more critical to society. I believe pay will continue to rise. Especially the top precentile.

Another HN article mentioned that top AI researchers get offers comparable to NFL quarterbacks.

> I'm sure being a brain surgeon is much more stressful and takes longer to achieve, but hey, those people live in neighborhoods I can't afford to go into.

Most doctors and lawyers don't make lots of money in comparison to a reasonably well paid software engineer. There are tracks that will lead to bigger bucks (if lucky) where you essentially sell your soul for the chance to get there. Big law firms have "partner track", doctors and lawyers can start their own practice, and various areas in medicine can still be very lucrative (eg, plastic surgery). Those tracks are all super hard. The equivalent for software engineers is starting a company or seeking a high level position at a large, fast-growing company.

I agree that software as it exists today will change: more people will come into it, wages will go down in many areas. Smart people that want to make more money will specialize (hopefully choosing the right specialization).

As a comparison though, an independent consultant with a reasonably sought after technical specialty can make significantly more money, with less school and regulation, than lawyers or doctors at similar levels. If you start a successful software business (even a tiny ISV with real customers), you can make considerably more than doctors or lawyers, again with less school and regulation. I'm sticking with software!

Almost all doctors will make much more than the vast majority programmers. I think you are underestimating how much doctors earn.

A non-specialist physician apparently makes, on average, $195k/year total compensation [1]. This is, as you say, much higher than what the compensation of the vast majority of programmers. While salaries in the Bay Area can be comparable, a doctor's compensation of $195k in Ohio or North Carolina or is equivalent to about $350k the Bay Area.

Specialists earn $284k according to a national average, with some specialties earning far more.

There's really no comparison in what the typical programmer makes versus a doctor, corporate lawyer, investment banker, etc. But those fields are generally much harder to break into, and working conditions can be much worse early on in one's career.

[1] http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015...

Just met a doctor who owns three planes all worth more than $200k, one was $500k. My wife used to audit doctors in NC and some of them pulled $1 million a year net. The plane guy is not a specialist and one of the NC doctors was a podiatrist.

They have lots of opportunities for outside income on top of the peasant level $200k. Speaking and consulting and taking bribes from pharma.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Physician_%2f_Doctor... http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/Sa... http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2f_Lawyer/...

Attorney pay and software engineer pay seem remarkably similar. Physicians earn, on average, double what attorneys and software engineers make. But there's a lot of ways to cut that: engineers can start earning much earlier than physicians can. There is also a much wider gamut in quality, in that some working software engineers are quite bad, but doctors that are quite bad are rightly forced to leave the profession. This arguably skews the average up. Also less ultimate downside risk in software: nobody can take away your right to practice software engineering.

If the question is: "Where can I maximize my earning potential: law, medicine, or tech?" I still say tech. I'd also argue all 3 of these jobs are "middle class professions", but tech has the highest upside for anyone branching out on their own (IE, fortune 500 is not filled with practicing doctors and lawyers).

While the average attorney makes a comparable amount to a programmer, the ceiling on attorney pay is much higher. If you work for a reputable law firm in a large city, you can expect to make $150,000 base, with significant raises annually until the eighth year when it levels out, usually around $250k+ base. If you then make partner, you can of course make much more, e.g. 600k+. Or you can become corporate counsel, and seven figure compensation is not unheard of.

This might not represent the "average" attorney, but there really isn't a comparable track to take as programmer while maintaining the title "programmer."

Regarding physician pay, you cited the average salary of an internist. There are many specialties (orthopedic surgery, cardiology, urology, dermatology, radiology, etc.) that earn far more on average.

FWIW, software engineer track (admittedly mostly limited to SF bay area):

Intern/Freelancer: ~80k p/ year --> Engineer/Consultant: ~150k p/year --> CTO/CEO: ~250k p/year --> post-acquisition or (better yet) profitable founder: $500k-$10M+ p/year.

Sample sizes get smaller and smaller as you go up the scale. To be fair, you're no longer "programmer", but "attorney" can mean so many things at this point, it's almost more like saying "working in tech industry".

> To be fair, you're no longer "programmer"

Yes, that's my point. To travel your "software engineer track," you need to stop being a software engineer and climb the management ladder or become an entrepreneur to get the big salary bump.

> but "attorney" can mean so many things at this point

I don't know what you mean by this. I referred to attorneys at law firms, who can make $250k+/year for life as attorneys. Or doctors in well-paid specialties, who can typically and reliably make $350k+/year for life as doctors.

What's more, in these fields a person's perceived value actually increases with time and experience, whereas a software engineer's perceived value more resembles that of a linebacker.

Even in the Bay Area, I think this track would be an extreme exception rather than the rule. And the Bay area itself is somewhat of an exception. Vast majority of programmers in this country live outside the Bay Area. Another consideration is that 150K in the Bay Area hardly goes as far as 150K in other locations.

I don't know, I think it's far easier to get into the 300k range as a doctor than as a software engineer. There are 300k doctors in every city in the country, whereas there's probably only a handful of companies where you can make that much as an engineer.

My wife is a mental health nurse working with murderers about to be released, preparing them for everyday life in the hope that psychotherapy won't make them re-offend.

That's not a profession that lacks the need to be passionate, or deal with stress (a verbal slip could mean our family is killed) while requiring creativity and years of experience to be effective.

I get to sit on my ass and make over 4 times as much as her.

There are many more professions people could cite, I'm sure.

This is certainly a factor. Family run businesses are, on average, twice as profitable as those run by salaried managers.

A family owned business is no longer family owned after a bankrupcy. A salaried-manager-run business is usually still salaried-manager-run after a bankruptcy.

Bankrupcy is not the only way to stop being family owned. Walmart and many other major companies used to be a family business. Overall, family's are more likely to think long term and extract money now instead of aiming for growth for growth's sake, both of which promote profitability.

Your fundamental argument seems to be that the board was shortsighted, not necessarily Marissa. No argument here.

> the actual outcome of Yahoo's business is irrelevant to her

Maybe, but I doubt. An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important. Instead of becoming the CEO that saved Yahoo, her legacy is that she will become the last CEO of Yahoo (when the worst case happens) that didn't turn Yahoo around plus acquired a bunch of expensive startups. Oh yeah she did turn the culture around inside Yahoo more Google-like benefit, but history book usually tells the bad things first.

In fact it doesn't take an executive role to understand. I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do.

> An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important.

> I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do.

Bullshit. Most people would be fine feeling a little shitty for a few years for THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

This theory that somehow executives are motivated "differently" is totally bonkers. They're just as selfish and short sighted and apathetic as you or me, but they're playing at the high-roller table with other people's money.

Quite; consider that in terms of both jobs and shareholder value destroyed, Fiorina has a decent claim on the title of "worst CEO ever" but she did alright out of it herself and is now bragging about how her corporate experience makes her presidential material.

The part of me that loves satire was hoping for a joint Trump/Fiorina bill where they'd both be talking about applying their fantastic business experience in the White House.

Very good and apt reply. I mean there wasn't much of a "push" for her to perform as compared to an engineer. She was already making way too much more. But so do many a politicians. They just successfully sell themselves to "foolish" willing buyers.

This is excellent response. All this 'Greater calling' by most people at top of corporate ladder is bullshit. They have orders of magnitude more time and money to talk about issues irrelevant to business. This way they can ensure tragic/glorious profiles by hacks about their life and times.

No bullshit. Ego plays a huge factor here. I have a high ego and I work competitively, so I am going to be extremely upset if I can't deliver my promises when I sign up for the job. If you are the kind of person that doesn't have high ego for anything you do, be my guest. Would you rather have people mention all the greatness of your accomplishment behind your back or would you want to hear rumors of you getting fired and all the shit work you did? How would you feel if your boss has doubt about your performance? She probably should take a pay cut because she's doing a poor job but I am arguing that some people aren't all about money.

Please don't call my point bullshit because that's horseshit plus we aren't her, so everything here is simply personal perspective.

300 MILLION DOLLARS is not as much to Marisa Mayer as it is to most people. She was already fabulously wealthy before yahoo. I'm not saying she doesn't want the money, but thinking it's her only or main motivator is naive

There is no reason to use bullshit here.

I think you're completely wrong, maybe you dont know what youre talking about (by not being at exec mulit m position). You judge compensation from your perspective.

My argument is: you forgotten (financial) starting point of her. Jump to yahoo didnt increase her situation x7 (capital) and this is currently widely believed change which must happen to individual to have permanent happines increase because of financial change (inducing financial backed motivation). She for sure is aware of how it works.

That being told your argument against that success and image is not important to her is wrong. It is much more important to her than money compensation.

Have a look at the history of "failed" CEOs. Do they end up back at middle management? How does one measure success in industry? Simple answer: by the size of the check you receive. With $55 million, she could bloody retire and laugh her way to the bank.

Who's shortsighted, here?

There are cases where the CEO deserves many millions of dollars. They are supposed to move the business in ways that are growing very fast and profitable.

There are all kinds of startups that Yahoo could have bought or invested in, all kinds of areas that have the potential to be wildly successful. Who would have thought Amazon, a retailer, would be the platform of the cloud computing world.

It's the CEO job to see this, what not everyone else can see. That's what deserves the many millions of $.

Amazon is an interesting case. With their radical reinvestment strategy of quiet, organic growth, they are the absolute anti-Yahoo. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single high profile acquisition that Amazon did, whereas Yahoo has a reputation for being the place where the flickrs of the world go to die. Amazon contrasts this with being more like a old economy corporation with merely an internet front. They invest in boring brick-and-mortar logistics-factories, computing-factories and so on that no "true internet company" would touch with a long stick.

Maybe Yahoo has long ago accepted that their only remaining shareholders must be in it for the exciting, flashy news headlines. In that case, they might feel compelled to go for an exceptionally expensive CEO only for the news value, just like very expensive watches are not bought despite their price but because of it. Marissa Mayer then would not have made it if she offered to do the job for half the price, not beating everybody else's CEO spending would have been out of character for Yahoo.

Has Marissa Mayer achieved what you say is the job of a CEO, though?