At least in the US, they're generally limited to salaries on the "general schedule", and management gets paid more than technical people, because "it wouldn't be fair" to have subordinates that make more than you. So there's a built-in glass ceiling for tech careers. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

Maybe “it’s not fair to have subordinates earn more” was the justification given to you, but businesses rarely make decisions based on what’s fair. Engineers are valuable, but individual engineers are largely replaceable. Being able to coordinate a large group successfully also has a lot of value.

Let's be honest. Engineer managers are largely replacable and more easily than individual engineers. The pool is larger and can accept more manager unrelated experience. There is more to this.

As the person senior leadership communicates with this person is seen as more important than they are. Senior leadership wants to maintain a leveling system to separate groups of people. It's a hedge a flat organization which makes senior leadership less important.

You could swap out this person with another without losing speed but it doesn't work as well with an engineer.

Then why don’t companies adopt a flatter structure with higher compensated engineers? The goal of a company is to make money after all. If management could be removed and top engineers retained with higher salaries, then a company would surely have an advantage in the marketplace. Since this doesn’t happen, there must be more to the picture than people in upper management simply clinging to their jobs. If removing middle management were so obvious a change to make, then shareholders would demand it.

> Then why don’t companies adopt a flatter structure with higher compensated engineers? The goal of a company is to make money after all.

Let's not forget that companies aren't real sentient beings, do not really take decisions and do not really have their own interest. They are legal fictions. Trying to understand the behavior of a company based on its self interest can therefore be misleading.

Why do bureaucracies develop? Why is Google launching yet another chat app? Why are so many companies disrupted by new techs instead of adapting? All this is against their interest after all.

Companies are ultimately led and controlled by many individuals, in pursuit of their own individual interest (mostly). Some groups of individuals within a company have more control than others, and will consequently bend the company toward what's in their own interest.

I'm not versed into sociology of organisations, but from a cursory look at some big corp internals it seems to me that this easily explains the frequent growth in numbers and importance of the coterie with the more agency over hiring, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the company as a whole, ie the growth of middle management cancer.

I would be careful with the "if they do it it must be sensible" reasoning. There are a lot of reasons that modeling firms using homo-economicus and perfect markets doesn't pan out.

To me, this is a case to apply Occam’s razor. What is more likely, that this decades old, Dilbertesque criticism of management is true, yet somehow eluded the purview of shareholders? Or that businesses are being run in a relatively efficient manner given the current human condition?

Rules for Rulers is real.

It's not that management is dumb, it's that every layer of management is self-interested. Every hierarchy has to contend with principal agent problems. Organizations can do a better or worse job of it, but the incentives are always there and they lead to predictable inefficiencies which are frequently observed. Everyone knows this, but unless you know how to get someone to manage without self-interest, you aren't in a position to solve the problem. Nobody is. That's why it lingers.

Is self-interested management really an inefficiency if it’s unavoidable? You don’t get to run a company in a vacuum. You have to run it within the bounds of human behavior. Saying that “if only all humans acted in some way against their nature, then the system would be more efficient” isn’t an effective management strategy.

You were arguing that RfR / Dilbert coludn't be true because if it were, it would have been optimized away. I argued that no, just because it happens and is broadly understood doesn't mean that it can be optimized away.

You can play semantic games about whether or not it should be called inefficiency -- I don't really care what you call it -- but the RfR / Dilbert dynamic is very real and very prevalent.

Just because something is good for shareholders doesn’t mean it’s good for non-management employees or society at large.

I never claimed it was. I was replying to a discussion on worker efficiency.

Many start out flat and as they grow they need to introduce middle management.

Middle management becomes necessary.

But the question is around pay. Should they always make more because they sit higher in the org chart?

I would suggest they make more because of power structures not utility or because they are not as easy to replace.

Because of first class shares, senior leadership shares percentages shareholders with a vote are often the people in power. Common shareholders don't hold much power.

this kind of reasoning simply does not follow in the real world. There are many, many cases of some companies out competing others. Why? if they were all rational actors none would have any advantage over the other.

I’m not claiming management structure is the only factor in whether or not a business is competitive. It’s just a factor, and business usually try to optimize the factors under their control to be the most competitive. Of course, there are many factors outside of the businesses control as well.

Ironically they see engineers as replaceable and view every member of leadership as a Jeff Bezos level unique business edge. I’m all honesty I have just always viewed managements role as a different skill set, one that has successfully thrived longer then the IT industry has even existed. Even while we as engineers tend to feel they are replaceable I think we don’t see the value in the work they do to ensure we get funding, resources, and leadership support.

I hate to say it, but I can imagine that a group of engineres with a manager nipping at the heels can be much more valuable in total to a company than a group of engineers left to their own devices. Some may be great at being independently productive but most probably are not.

Of course some random idiot nagging the engineers won't be worth much, they need to be experts at the specific business and domain to bring value in this situation. Which also makes them harder to replace.

Certainly, companies with engineers who are capable and independet problem-solvers, and who are experts at the company's needs and the domain it operates in, are the most valuable. These are not uncommon either. But a fast-growing company in a fast-growing industry has zero chance of solely hiring such people. They need to widen their net to people that require managing.

The project manager has the nudging role and the best insight on deliveriables. A manager usually manages other administration aspects and inspirational at times.

The Rules for Rulers theory vs the Leveraged Value Creation theory.

Naturally, reality is a bit of both, but people on top push LVC hard while they never mention RfR. A good leader earns their salary multiples over, but many poor leaders rake in the dough just from RfR.

Think it has a lot more to do with proximity to those controlling the purse-strings.

Intra-firm compensation is not nearly as "rational" as you are making it out to be.

Is it really proximity to the purse string? Because even large, profitable founder-led tech companies, where founders have full control and motive to run the company efficiently, adopt middle management. And what evidence is there that middle management is unnecessary? The only evidence presented is theoretical critiques from engineers who feel they stand to gain from the removal of management.

“They” (political leaders) choose to limit salaries, and if a problem is urgent enough, they can somehow find a way pay more. It is just politics. Paying more today increases cash spend today, and that looks bad for them come election time.

The annual budget of the entire NSF is $8.28B. The NIH is $42B

Google's net profit was $40B in 2020. Apple's was $94.6B in 2021. (all according to wikipedia).

Edit: The above is net income, so AFTER paying all the exorbitant salaries.

Apple alone makes enough money that it could fund pretty much all current publicly-funded science happening in the US at the current rate. That is a ridiculous amount of money, and publicly-funded science just cannot compete at that level.

(Currently on publicly-funded grants. Underpaid relative to what I could make elsewhere, but happy to be contributing to the greater good rather than helping some advertising company).

I'm torn on this. No doubt money is important but how much is needed? I've been thinking about this for a while [1] and I think more important to drive innovation is to change our culture to admire people who dedicate themselves to solving big problems over a long period of time. And a close second would be a culture that prizes modesty and eschews material wealth.

I realize this may be a pipe-dream but it feels like a better long-term strategy than "pay researchers more than FAANG".

[1] https://www.curiousjuice.com/blog-0/bid/89407/How-much-salar...

If you want to stop the brain drain from more worthwhile areas to less worthwhile areas, you need to at least pay better starting salaries in the more worthwhile fields.

Otherwise, you'll end up with potential Einsteins playing with spreadsheets in investment banks rather than discovering relativity, simply because they wanted a bit of disposable income.

Stupid, yes, but that's the situation we're in.

Governments do, if they work on bombs. Or spying. Or on figuring out the other guy's bombs.

Do you have a source for this? Spying sounds like a pretty interesting job if you can make something similar to FANG.

Algo coders, predictive analysis of publicly available data, large societal trends prediction, using social media data to detect malign intent prior to action, analyzing the same to look for foreign activity, hacking foreign infrastructure, etc etc, CIA/NSA and other agencies hire these types right from University typically.

They also fund startups which may be used for national interests and so on.

Much of the time, they contact you, not the other way around.

Source?

Lived and worked in D.C. and have a TS/SCI, sat for FSP…. The IC doesn’t pay even close to big tech rates. There is also no mystery around someone contacting you, just apply to the NSA / CIA / etc. if those paths pique your interest.

Startups working on IC-relevant tech getting funding via non-traditional means is absolutely true but not guaranteed.

I looked at NSA/CIA when I was graduating college and the compensation was notably below market and with very rigid structures. I was given to understand a common path was to put in some time at the actual agencies and then go over to a contractor where you could make good money.

That was 30 years ago, though. Could be completely different now.

Same deal when I graduated. They told me there was no big paycheck and no glory and I just noped out mid interview.

There's that fantasy crystal ball company...

Then why are the NSA and NRO postings always so uncompetitive? DoE research postings are even worse.