I'd suggest rather than look at it as you being overpaid, look at it as everyone else being underpaid - in other words, corporate profit sharing is not what it should be.

We automate things. As Jaron Lanier says, "code is people who aren't there". We create substitutions for labor. The lot of mankind only began to improve rapidly after human and animal muscle power was substituted-for by engines.

All production is a mix of land, labor and capital. So it depends on cases, but when we are in the right place at the right time, we deliver stupendous amounts of value.

I've been involved in cases where two, three, four, twenty people could address tens of millions of cost $US per year. The interesting thing is that sometimes, even though you have the numbers on your side, the management team demurs.

It's all but impossible to actually evaluate what we're worth.

Appealing to supply and demand may involve what's called "The Lump of Labor Fallacy". We're not stevedores, and we're not surgeons. We're somewhere in between.

Nonsense. Relative to the value we provide, even average or mediocre developers are underpaid. "Everyone" else is, too, who isn't in upper management.

Define 'value'.

That turns out to be a deep and interesting question.

One response: https://archive.org/details/lectureonnotiono00lloy

No, we're not. Considering how much money our stuff makes/saves, we're drastically underpaid.

Compared to our peers in the law and medicine and other professions we are not even more so outside of SV.

In the UK the average GP is on around £120k I bet very very few chartered (Peng) engineers make as much.

If we were overpaid, companies with a large portion of developers would all go out of business. But they're not. Where is the money above the value we create coming from?