If Mike can just make one employer think that other people want to hire him, he can command these otherwise absurd rates. It's a sort-of mirror world.
Prestige, log-rolling, extended-Ponzi scheme. It's all representation chasing more representation.
(Especially since he wrote a few others about saving endangered species and homeless people.)
As long as no bunnies were made to cry during the production of a Tesla Roadster, I'm confident I wouldn't feel conflicted about driving one. :)
There are exceptions, of course - I guess if I was a surgeon and I would refuse to operate on somebody because they can't afford me, the ethics would be very questionable.
There's also the "all developers are the same, therefore commodity pricing is in effect" phenomenon which is annoying to encounter. And the "just tell me rate, because I know exactly how many hours this will take, and no other factor matters" phenomenon. Crazy stuff.
One good takeaway from the Lee article I had was that if you set a really high rate, even if you scare away a lot of people, all it takes is 1 client to agree to that, billing anywhere from 1 to a few hours in a given month, and you're in the holy "Ramen profitable" zone. Well, able to cover food and shelter anyway. But then you'll have tons of free time and energy leftover for other activities.
What a person says reveals aspects of who they are. The Internet is not some special place that is exempt from all normal expectations of conduct that otherwise hold in meatspace. Just as simply being part of a business enterprise does not exempt one from being judged as a human based on your behavior.
Also note I said "suspect" not "knew for certain" or anything as extreme or decisive as that. Important distinction, and one I chose intentionally when picking that word. :P :)
Indeed
Sidenote: It seems that people like this have to deal with a trough on their way up where a lot of judgment gets thrown their way for their outgoing manner. If they hit it big, though, that seems to be quickly forgotten and everyone loves them. We've seen it with all of the above. Those who fail to cross the trough, end up forgotten.
I think his conclusion is wrong but the analogy is good. It's unnecessary to be literal with the term "household." Most of the world's top scientists, lawyers, and bankers aren't household names, yet they can command extremely high levels of respect and, often, grants or income due to being a "household name" in their field.
I'm not arguing Mike is a "household name" amongst developers - he's not, IMHO - but there's no reason why a "household name" developer couldn't get the Brad Pitt treatment. John Carmack would have his arm bitten off if he were available at $1000/hr. Is Mike Lee the iPhone equivalent of John Carmack? No. If he were? His analogy seems OK to me.