I think your first paragraph is on the money, this is indeed how many engineers and engineering managers think. You seem to throw in your cards with that viewpoint in your second paragraph, though, and I think the logic there is circular. Engineers and engineering managers persistently devalue the skillset behind being an excellent technical writer, and the value that an excellent technical writer brings to a project, which in turn weakens the “bargaining foundations” of technical writers artificially. It’s been my experience as an engineer that this artificial devaluation is harmful to projects both directly and indirectly, because technical writers are inevitably aware of the fact that it’s happening. That technical writing maybe has a greater foundation in so-called “soft skills” doesn’t mean that it’s less valuable, and especially in cases like Rust where the documentation can very reasonably be considered part of the product, it’s a huge mistake to undervalue the work of someone like Steve Klabnick that way. In general, I can’t imagine being resentful of a technical writer earning as much or more than me as an engineer: a perfect gem of software engineering that no one uses is a failed product, and it’s very much because of the work of technical writers that good projects see widespread use.