[gofetch.git] / test / expected / SLASHDOT / 0102640098

     SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS ARE NOW MORE VALUABLE TO COMPANIES THAN   
                    MONEY, SAYS SURVEY (CNBC.COM)                  

  Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
  from the new-breed-of-corporate-leaders dept.

  o Reference: 0102640098
  o News link: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/2024232/software-developers-are-now-more-valuable-to-companies-than-money-says-survey
  o Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/companies-worry-more-about-access-to-software-developers-than-capital.html


    An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC:
    
    >   As   our  global  economy  increasingly  comes  to  run  on
    technology-enabled  rails  and  every  company  becomes  a tech
    company,  demand  for  high-quality software engineers is at an
    all-time  high.  A  recent study from [1]Stripe and Harris Poll
    found  that  61 percent of C-suite executives believe access to
    developer  talent is a threat to the success of their business.
    Perhaps  more  surprisingly  --  as  we mark a decade after the
    financial  crisis  --  [2]this  threat  was  even  ranked above
    capital   constraints   .   And   yet,   despite   being   many
    corporations'  most  precious  resource,  developer talents are
    all  too  often  squandered. Collectively, companies today lose
    upward  of $300 billion a year paying down "technical debt," as
    developers   pour  time  into  maintaining  legacy  systems  or
    dealing  with  the  ramifications  of  bad  software.  This  is
    especially  worrisome,  given  the  outsized  impact developers
    have  on  companies'  chances  of  success. Software developers
    don't  have a monopoly on good ideas, but their skill set makes
    them  a  uniquely  deep  source of innovation, productivity and
    new  economic  connections. When deployed correctly, developers
    can  be  economic multipliers -- coefficients that dramatically
    ratchet  up  the  output  of  the  teams and companies of which
    they're a part.
    
    
    
    [1] https://stripe.com/reports/developer-coefficient-2018
    
    [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/companies-worry-more-about-
    access-to-software-developers-than-capital.html


  ** So why not treat them well? (Score:5, Insightful)
     (by gweihir ( 88907 ))

     
     Naa, that would be un-capitalist. Developers must be cheap
     wage-slaves that do not have a real career-path and are unable
     to find a job once they hit 50. That will surely not have any
     impact on whether smart people go into software writing or not,
     right?

     ** Re: So why not treat them well? (Score:1)
        (by Dannis12345 ( 5512754 ))

        
        This is really true. As the fact that the IT leads the world.


     ** 

        ** Re: (Score:3)
           (by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ))

           
           > But even so, I hear these horror stories about how
           > software developers are treated and I just have not seen
           > it.
           Me neither. I have worked for companies that had catered
           meals, free soda, laundry service, sky diving bonding
           trips, etc. I have had plenty of opportunities to travel.
           I have worked some late nights, and done a few death
           marches, but those only lasted a few weeks, out of a
           career lasting decades.
           Software developers are likely the most spoiled employees
           in the history of the world.
           People will alway whine.

           ** Re: (Score:2)
              (by gweihir ( 88907 ))

              
              > People will alway whine.
              And there you are wrong. I have a pretty good career
              myself. But I see how many coders are treated and I am
              not surprised at all that there are by far not enough
              good ones.

              ** Re: (Score:1)
                 (by NicknameUnavailable ( 4134147 ))

                 
                 As much as I'm for better treatment and perks for
                 coders, the issue of "not enough good ones" isn't
                 because of that. There's only so many smart people,
                 dumb people and mediocre people don't make good
                 coders. Some of the above-average ones might make
                 the cut as maintenance coders or some incredibly
                 soul-crushing AGILE environment where they don't
                 actually have to think, but for the most part any
                 programming position of note requires a 150+ IQ to
                 do even moderately well.

                 ** 

                    ** Re: (Score:2)
                       (by HornWumpus ( 783565 ))

                       
                       How many 3+ standard deviation people are we
                       supposed to believe you know?
                       Same crit as you gave the GP. I doubt you know
                       even one.



                 ** Re: (Score:2)
                    (by gweihir ( 88907 ))

                    
                    The issue is very much that a lot of the few
                    people that could be good at it, see the working
                    conditions and career options and go somewhere
                    else. Also, 150+IQ people basically do not exist.
                    I gather this is some wired non-standard US
                    scale...

                    ** Re: (Score:3)
                       (by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ))

                       
                       Having a measured IQ >150, I can tell you with
                       my excellent two-minute Googling skills there
                       are approximately 300K in the U.S. if you're
                       using the Stanford-Binet scale. For the
                       Wechsler scale, it's more like 140K, which is
                       still a lot of people. Heck, the Prometheus
                       Society's cut-off for membership is 160+. I
                       guess to you, they basically don't exist...


                    ** Re: (Score:2)
                       (by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ))

                       
                       > ... see the working conditions and career
                       > options and go somewhere else.
                       Where do they go?
                       Doctors, lawyers and investment bankers work
                       longer hours than programmers. Nearly everyone
                       else makes less money.
                       Maybe they become underwater welders?







     ** Re:So why not treat them well? (Score:5, Interesting)
        (by spagthorpe ( 111133 ))

        
        It won't really have any impact, because young people don't
        think they'll ever get old. Or it will be different for them.
        Had a 20-something at my last job make a number of comments
        about some of the older developers there, saying they'd hate
        to still be working at that age, and that they are probably
        stuck doing the same work because they can't learn anything
        new. I don't know why he was telling me this, as I was twice
        his age at the time, but it's obvious that he doesn't think
        he'll be in the same position.
        They ultimately did lay off a lot of their senior engineers
        and replace a lot of the position with 20-somethings,
        including in project management positions. A number of those
        projects never saw the light of day after years of re-writes
        into new frameworks.


  ** And yet there's agile (Score:2)
     (by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ))

     
     And open concept offices.

     ** Re:And yet there's agile (Score:5, Interesting)
        (by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ))

        
        I've quit one job and refused two others because of open
        offices. The two I refused were absolutely flabbergasted by
        my refusal. They literally could not understand why anyone
        wouldn't want to be in an open office space surrounded on 3.8
        sides by glass-walled manager offices, loud ugly marketing
        girls, and a bunch of H1B dudes who couldn't be bothered to
        wear deodorant. That place (MX Logic) had the worst looking
        office I've ever seen. One of them offered me the job on the
        spot after the interview and I was already shutting them down
        and refusing it before they even got started. I told them
        there is about a zero percent chance of getting anyone really
        talented to take the gig, because they had this ridiculous
        noisy slave pit thing going. I nearly left before I even
        *did* the interview I was so disgusted with the place. The
        hiring manager was (of course) offended, but he was also
        clueless. About a year after that interview I had a guy come
        up to me at the local Maker Space who was one of the
        "technical resources" for the company during the interview
        (quiet guy in the back of the room). He told me "My god was I
        cheering when you refused them over the goddamn open
        workspace idiocy. My boss was upset over that for weeks. They
        still talk about it during the hiring process and argue about
        it."

        ** Re: (Score:1)
           (by bkmoore ( 1910118 ))

           
           > ....One of them offered me the job on the spot after the
           > interview and I was already shutting them down and
           > refusing it before they even got started.....
           It begs the question, why even apply there in the first
           place.

           ** Re: (Score:3)
              (by Klaxton ( 609696 ))

              
              > It begs the question, why even apply there in the first
              > place.
              So you could see their office environment tucked away
              behind the job description on the internet?



        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by Ocker3 ( 1232550 ))

           
           "But I can See everyone and I know that they're working" -
           Manager If someone doesn't know enough about their direct
           report's job that they don't know whether they're working
           or not without seeing them at their desk, there's a
           problem. Not all jobs are reduced in efficiency by a
           cubicle farm, but if your job is primarily about mental
           focus for the time-intensive tasks, then most people will
           benefit from having their own room. And the employer will
           probably benefit enough that an actual room is a
           worthwhile


        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ))

           
           Sounds like a real horror show. Safe to say you made the
           right move.



     ** Re: (Score:3)
        (by Klaxton ( 609696 ))

        
        I've worked in the industry for many years, usually with a
        private office or shared with one person. Recently got a job
        in an agile "scrum" shop, which went to an open floorplan a
        few months later. Miserable experience on both counts. Every
        day you get a Jira work ticket for some "the user wants to
        see" granule of a thing that you had no part in designing.
        Zero privacy. It is amazingly de-motivating.


  ** 

     ** Re: (Score:2)
        (by HornWumpus ( 783565 ))

        
        Microsoft owns javascript? You have things backwards.

        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by gweihir ( 88907 ))

           
           I was thinking the same thing. Although JavaScript, Java,
           and the surrounding ecosystems could have come from MS, no
           doubt.



  ** Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
     (by Anonymous Coward)

     
     If they considered developers more important than money, they'd
     pay the developers more to keep the skilled ones. Every time a
     developer leaves a company, a hunk of business knowledge walks
     out the door with him.
     Companies care about that quarter's finance report, and the
     C-level execs care only about fleecing the company for all they
     can stuff into their own pockets. Look at what they do, not what
     some survey says.

     ** 

        ** Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
           (by Anonymous Coward)

           
           LOL. You've massively understated the ageism and the issue
           of job qualifications.
           First, the ageism problem is associated also with a
           problem that people aren't allowed to take breaks. After
           having great success even to the point of being a chief
           architect on an 80-man program, I quit working for a while
           and now can't find anyone who will let me start at the
           bottom.
           But, the job qualification thing is really ridiculous. A
           good software engineer is a specialist at picking up new
           domains, languages, frameworks,


        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ))

           
           > Don't know where you live, but in most places I think
           > developers are paid fairly well. We offer
           > straight-out-of-school newbies $80-$90k, and still some
           > turn us down for better offers.
           Most places are not the Bay Area or a few big US cities.
           In most of the world, new starter salaries in software
           development are rarely more than 1/3 of that level, and in
           many places they are much lower.


        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by Ocker3 ( 1232550 ))

           
           Your post is probably at zero rep because it was posted
           AC, but you make good points.



  ** 

     ** Re: (Score:3)
        (by Klaxton ( 609696 ))

        
        Software developers generally have to do what they are told,
        and work on whatever the boss thinks is important. You don't
        get to decide whether it is going to bring in money or not.


  ** Yeah haven't heard that one before (Score:2)
     (by Crashmarik ( 635988 ))

     
     Maybe it just sounds too much like 40 years of businesses
     claiming there was a shortage of engineers in the U.S. when what
     they meant was there was a shortage of engineers that could be
     treated really badly.
     Or maybe it's the fact that companies only seem to be willing to
     hire H1Bs that will do anything not to go back to their
     shitholes, or young kids who are stupid enough to believe
     managements promises and have no family or social life to
     distract from putting in 80+ hour weeks ?

     ** Re: (Score:2)
        (by zlives ( 2009072 ))

        
        you misread, and i quote
        "developer talent is a threat to the success of their
        business" thus the hiring of no talent, spot filling h1b. and
        if they accidentally get a talented h1b... replace and
        repeat.


  ** FTFY (Score:5, Funny)
     (by thevirtualcat ( 1071504 ))

     
     Software Developers Who Are Willing To Work For Uncompetitive
     Wages And No Benefits Are Now More Valuable To Companies Than
     Money, Says Survey

     ** Re: (Score:2)
        (by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ))

        
        Fucking-A right. Period.


  ** .ORG (Score:4, Insightful)
     (by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ))

     
     This just tells me that developers need to get organized and
     start saying no to 80+ work weeks collectively. Otherwise it
     will be divided they fall, forever.

     ** Re: (Score:2)
        (by Ocker3 ( 1232550 ))

        
        How do we re-invent Unions without calling them Unions and
        avoid the very real baggage that the term has in the USA?
        Guilds?


  ** In other news... (Score:1)
     (by Robobox Computer ( 5357621 ))

     
     The sun rose today.

  ** Legacy systems are out of control (Score:2)
     (by xack ( 5304745 ))

     
     Microsoft has just announced paid extended support for Windows 7
     as too many companies are using it. There’s a lot of server 2003
     systems out there too, with companies rather risking security
     exploits than upgrade.

     ** 

        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by Ocker3 ( 1232550 ))

           
           A pity that new features aren't separated from security
           patches to allow users to keep their old platform secure
           without feature changes.


        ** Re: (Score:2)
           (by xvan ( 2935999 ))

           
           > Newer file browsers no longer let you edit the file path,
           > you have to click on everything to get somewhere
           Ctrl+L , no, you don't need to thank me.



     ** Re: (Score:1)
        (by Anonymous Coward)

        
        So I'm supposed to upgrade the single Windows 2003 system I
        have, running as a non-networked VM, hosting a proprietary
        application on a system we need to lookup legacy data that
        never changes so I can pay to upgrade to a modern system,
        figure out a way to migrate the data from one proprietary
        application to a new and different system just so I can have
        support I don't need on a system that can't realistically be
        exploited in the first place?
        OR I'm supposed to pay a premium for extended support on the
        curren


     ** Re: (Score:3)
        (by gweihir ( 88907 ))

        
        That is a different problem. Their new offerings are just
        really bad. Also, nobody sane used MS crap on server-side.


  ** Yet us 50+ folks are unemployed (Score:4, Informative)
     (by Snotnose ( 212196 ))

     
     Forget how long I've been out of work, it's been 2-3 years now
     since I quit looking.

     ** Re: (Score:3)
        (by Locke2005 ( 849178 ))

        
        I'm 57 and got at least 3 calls TODAY offering to submit me
        for contract software positions. Granted, a lot of recruiters
        try to low-ball me on the hourly rate, but they change their
        tune as soon as you call their bluff and tell them you're not
        interested at that low rate.

        ** Re: (Score:1)
           (by Anonymous Coward)

           
           > I'm 57 and got at least 3 calls TODAY offering to submit
           > me for contract software positions. Granted, a lot of
           > recruiters try to low-ball me on the hourly rate, but they
           > change their tune as soon as you call their bluff and tell
           > them you're not interested at that low rate.
           I get recruiters wanting to submit me all the time. Then
           after a week, I follow up and the "the position is
           closed." I think recruiters are assholes who got fired
           from see car lots for ethics violations.
           So, when you get a real job with health insurance, you'll
           be an outlier.
           Of course, that's assumimg you're not full of shit.

           ** Re: (Score:2)
              (by Locke2005 ( 849178 ))

              
              I agree; I regard recruiters as people that weren't
              ethical enough to get jobs as used car salesmen. I
              interviewed for a job once, didn't get any response, so
              I started another position. A month after the initial
              interview, the recruiter for the first position offered
              me $1500 cash in a plain, unmarked envelope to quit the
              job I'd just started and take the other position
              instead! (Apparently the cash came out of his
              commission.) So yes, recruiters know nothing, rely
              almost entirely on keyword searching in r




  ** So, the old adage? (Score:2)
     (by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ))

     
     Employees are our most valuable asset? I'm pretty sure it's
     actually still money.

  ** Nonsensical headline... (Score:2)
     (by JoeDuncan ( 874519 ))

     
     It's like saying "gold is worth more than money!" - totally
     meaningless.
     One (gold, developers) is a commodity that IS exchanged, the
     other (money) is the medium OF exchange.
     Saying that "commodity X" is worth more than "exchange medium Y"
     makes no sense because a commodity CANNOT be worth "more" or
     "less" than the medium of exchange used - it can only ever be
     worth a specified amount of Y.

  ** Talk about not understanding an article / Poll (Score:2)
     (by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ))

     
     No where does it say that companies think developers are more
     important than money.
     The results state that the companies perceive the risk of not
     being able to find skills as higher than the risks of not being
     able to access capital.
     This is especially true if you're a cash rich organisation.
     In the current financial climate finding returns on your
     investments is hard. Interest rates are at historically low
     levels, bond returns are zero, and so that leaves higher risk
     investments to get returns. That effecti

  ** lots of employees are "worth more than money"... (Score:2)
     (by bkmoore ( 1910118 ))

     
     What management school fails to teach young inexperienced
     executives: If the company's future existence depends on whether
     or not an employee does the job correctly or not, they are
     "worth more than money".

  ** Tech debt is a business decision (Score:2)
     (by swm ( 171547 ))

     
     Incurring technical debt is a business decision.
     And it may well be the right decision.
     For example, in a startup, time to market typically trumps
     software quality.
     And there are a lot of startups in the software field...

  ** Not at my compamy (Score:1)
     (by dccase ( 56453 ))

     
     Not at my company, and certainly not at any other
     publicly-traded company.
     Maybe at some privately-held company until it gets bought out.

  ** Employees are our Most Valuable Asset (Score:3)
     (by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ))

     
     Right behind [1]carbon paper. [dilbert.com]
     
     
     
     
     [1] http://dilbert.com/strip/1993-03-03

  ** And this is why we keep them chained to (Score:2)
     (by Ranger ( 1783 ))

     
     a cubicle.