Now wait a second, Weimar levels of title inflation would be where I would be called "planetary dictator" on the third month of a temp assignment... At the end of Weimar inflation, Wikipedia claims a single gold Mark had reached a value of a billion paper marks.

Perhaps Economist Headline inflation has reached Weimar levels, though.

How long until the word founder means something else? That's at least the one I trust most.

"Founder of the Stationary Cupboard"

I quite liked being a dev and then a senior for years. I felt it meant something that everyone understood the difference between a junior dev, a dev and a senior dev. I also felt that I understood what I needed to know, have experience of and be skilled in to progress through the dev levels. And it was nothing to do with job titles, and everything to do with learning and applying that learning.

I liked that I could take something like the programmer competency matrix ( http://www.indiangeek.net/wp-content/uploads/Programmer%20co... ) and know where I fit into the grand scheme of things and why I didn't yet deserve a job title beyond my experience and knowledge at that time.

IMHO, a slim hierarchy of clearly titled and well understood job titles can be a very good motivator and guide to someone wanting to master their profession. Inflated titles hardly motivate people to improve themselves.

These days there are no "junior" devs and you become "senior" with one year's experience.

Did they really reference "ninja" developers as an example of title inflation? That must be what it's like to be completely on the outside of tech community in-jokes.

Someone should key recruiters in on that in-joke.

Thought the same thing when they mentioned scrum master.

I don't think it matters, really. As the article notes, it leads to cynicism about title changes and promotions, but job title prestige isn't (and probably have never been) a good way to evaluate employee and/or role value.

It used to be that it wasn't the company's president you wanted to satisfy, but his secretary--yet which held more prestige?

I'm with you. Giving someone a grand title is free; If a ridiculous title makes an employee even a little bit happier, who am I to deny him that small boon?

Well, I'm part of a one-man company. I just call myself the 'principal' there.

I've been the newest part of a four-man company for the past three years. I chose "computer programmer" for my job title. It seems that whatever your job title is in the tech industry, any appearance of actively working directly with the tech carries more prestige than sounding like you have some kind of managerial role.

Why assign any meaning to any word then?

C'mon. You're a programmer. You should be used to unambiguous use of language...

with regards to titles, the ship has sailed a long time ago. It's like calling a product or service "cloud" - it can mean almost anything.

The thing is, some words and phrases have a very specific meaning. Say, xen-based virtual private server, and you have a pretty good idea what you are getting. Other words have a very nebulous meaning. say "cloud service" and you might as well say "solution" for all the information it conveys. It's folly to insist on a tight definition of a word once the rest of the industry has decided it's meaningless.

One problem with that that didn't seem to get mentioned in the article is that it's an arms race. If your company doesn't play, you have a resume that might give you a less-fancy name for the same position as your friend's. Sure titles and resumes are not the whole thing when being hired, but everything else being equal, you always have "well that second guy does have experience as manager" when it doesn't mean he actually managed anybody.

The sooner everybody's a VP, the sooner we judge them on their actual competence rather than assumed level of seniority.

I could never present my business card with a straight face if it had a ridiculous title.

In fact I just went to a school reunion and answered most peoples questions with 'software developer', But maybe that's because it shuts 99% of the population up.

Straight faces are seriously overrated. Smiling brightens everyone's day, if a ridiculous title helps you smile, more power to it. (I just finished typing my handwritten notes from How to Win Friends and Influence People into my computer, so this sort of stuff is on my mind right now.)

This was sad:

The number of members of LinkedIn, a professional network, with the title vice-president grew 426% faster than the membership of the site as a whole in 2005-09

If you've ever worked in banking, then anyone who's been there for a few years will be a VP. The original rationale was, as a banker you could be managing the same amount of cash as a VP in another company would have in their budget. Even that was pretty flimsy, but it's long been totally out of hand.

reminds me of student clubs where everyone was a VP

My friend and I ran a chess club in high school. We really just wanted to play chess, but made everyone who joined a "Director." Why not? Plus, It was a bit of a joke reaction to the high pressure competition we saw in other extra curricular activities.

I'm not surprised. I find it very difficult to explain what I do. Tried to summarize it on my LinkedIn-profile as "Opportunity Cloud Builder" but, yeah, it's quite corny. :)

No-one wants to be a "programmer" anymore, kids all call themselves "Certified Enterprise Java Solutions Architect" or something. Architects? I call 'em "Visio resources", and I can draw fluffy clouds myself...

Impressive. They managed to self-Godwin in the subtitle.

Not really. The Weimar Republic's hyperinflation preceded (and contributed to) the rise of the Nazis.

Right, it's the "and contributed to" part that I'm referencing. Godwin's Law is "...a comparison involving Hitler or Nazis..." Usually once you reference the Weimar Republic, people immediately think of the rise of the Nazis ten years later. It's an implicit comparison, even if the words are never mentioned.