BrkAway21

Reading this article put me in mind of how everyone says "things aren't made like they used to be." Someone was just telling me this above a washing machine. I think we've seen that cheap and fast won and the lower quality became normal. I think it's fair to say that there is a fear software is heading the same way. AI is going to help people ship more, faster.

I think part of the answer is product management, which tends to get lost when the conversation is only about tools and code. Good product work isn't about how the software gets built. It's about helping a user do what they're trying to do better, faster or more enjoyably. The author's confidence-threshold example shows this well. "0.9 sounds about right" isn't really a technical decision. It's a product decision that nobody made on purpose.

For me, the real takeaway is that we will probably find a new balance of crappy, cheap software that people are willing to accept. However, I think that good, talented companies will still choose to ship good, high-quality products because it matters to them. The will not value simply shipping more, they will still be focused on achieving their goals.

Maybe I’ll get maligned for saying this, but as someone who’s managed and successfully delivered software projects of all sizes, I’ve become somewhat of a convert to the Scaled Agile Framework. I treat it exactly as intended, as a framework. It’s a strawman to adapt based on context, and what I value most is how it led me to explore deeper source material and form my own conclusions.

Over the years, I’ve learned that true success starts with clearly understanding why you’re building something. Without clear goals, it’s impossible to prioritize or even know where to start. That clarity drives better sequencing, and sometimes the wisdom to not build something at all.

The next critical factor is empathy. You have to see through your customer’s eyes and validate that what you’re building actually solves their problem. That doesn’t mean giving them everything they ask for, but rather understanding their pain points well enough to deliver real value.

Ultimately, most projects go over budget or underdeliver because teams spend too much time building the wrong things. If we instead focused on continually steering toward desired, valuable functionality (things people genuinely want or will pay for), more software projects would appear like successes.

> I have software engineers on my team who are literally creating twice as much business per year despite being at the same level. (The actual peak to trough ratio is probably higher than that, but it's at least 2x.) Why should they be paid exactly the same or even within 5% of each other?

I'm not exactly sure I would say they are performing the same duties then. Are they all responsible for generating business? I would argue they aren't actually doing the same job. This could be the difference between their salaries being the same versus their compensation being the same. Generating business can be a highly variable achievement from year-to-year, so providing total compensation that is higher for those generating more business than others. If their primary job is to do software engineering, then I would imagine their salary would reflect that job. Additional compensation could be given for doing essentially additional responsibilities over and above their job. You could give the feedback to your other software developers to explain the difference in their total compensation vs. salary. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "creating business" though.

> No, your example is bad management incentivizing bad employees and turning away good employees.

Well I definitely agree it was bad management. And I did leave when I realized that despite my performance, they weren't going to compensate me appropriately. To excuse it away as "oh, that's bad management" is being willfully ignorant to the truth that this kind of stuff does happen, in general, more to women. I was in a position where I was fortunate that I could leave and find a better opportunity. But not all women have this luxury. Many need their incomes and don't have the time to look for other opportunities that will value them appropriately.

> Women being paid less due to being women is illegal discrimination.

It's great there are laws to protect women from illegal discrimination. But it's not like that just "magically" corrects itself. You have to bring a suit. Or you just have to leave if you don't want to deal with it. It's like saying "well that's wrong." Sure, it is, but the effort is disproportionately on the "wronged" person to fix it.

> You should have made whatever the maximum you could negotiate. If this employer did not want to pay you more, you should switch employers. A good employer would have paid you much more than the others.

Well yes, and I thought I had. But as I said, it wasn't until I had been at the company, better understood what my "peers" were doing and then finding out that they were paid SO much more than me that I realized I needed to go somewhere else. But I believe the point that many others are making is that if there are been better salary transparency, I could have saved myself some time by realizing they weren't going to value me and what I brought, so I could have passed on the opportunity altogether.

The problem with your example is that you are making the assumption that someone with 10 years of experience is less likely to make mistakes in practice than the person with 0 years of experience. I've seen several examples over my career where the technically "more experienced" individual is not truly the better suited for the job. You won't know that until you hire them and, in my opinion, is a good reason for why you should pay someone based on the job (so long as they qualify for it). It doesn't mean that everyone needs to make exactly the same amount, because I think there is an argument to be made for someone who has more tenure at a company to retain them and for their role-specific experience. But that shouldn't be a >5% difference.

Also, I don't see how people can't see that this is precisely the logic that contributes to women generally getting paid less for doing the same job. Anecdotally, I joined a company and had about 7 years of experience. My "peers" in performing exactly the same duties as me had probably about 25 years of experience. I was responsible for the 2nd largest revenue generating P&L that generated the highest profit margin (which I actually turned around from losing money in 6 months). I found out I was getting paid $70k less than "my peers." Are you going to tell me that despite performing the exact same job and actually performing it objectively "better" that I should have made less money? This is the kind of stuff that routinely happens to women.