Hacker News Reader

Comment by a8da6b0c91d | Hacker News Reader

The lawyers and doctors who get paid a whole lot are partners in a firm. It's not much different than founding a tech company.

View on HN

It's also different in that there is a very well-defined path to becoming one of these partners from the associate level. All the people above you are also lawyers. There are usually 8 clear levels of associate and then you become partner if you are competent and make 7 figures.

As an engineer, there is no such clear path. Most engineers end up working for 8 years and at the end are only making 150-250k if they are competent. Even if you make it to the management/architect level, you are looking at 250-400k.

Software Engineers are sadly not compensated fairly for the massive value they add to the economy. That's the bottom line. We need to work together to change it.

I don't see a big difference really. Just as some engineers found their own companies and some are employees of other people's companies, there are thousands of lawyers employed in corporate legal departments who are simply employees, because they don't want the stress or responsibility of running their own firms.

The difference being that you don't necessarily have to take the enormous risk of founding a company in order to become a partner in a law firm.

Is there a similar career path for engineers in any tech company that is the equivalent of "making partner" in a law firm? Genuinely curious.

That all depends on whether you think a tech company that has the business model of a law firm is still a tech company. Silicon Valley does like hits.

On the other hand, have you asked any newly minted lawyers about their "career path" recently?

Sure, make partner in a boutique software consulting firm.

Problem is, boutique implies specialty. In tech, specialties involve short term expertise. Experience works against specialists in our field, whereas in fields like law and medicine, specialization is likely to increase value over a career lifetime. We are up against a far more sinister s-curve in the experience/perceived utility equation.

I would argue that specialization in software is more about delivering solutions and value. I agree that in general technology evolves, but there is clearly a 20+ year lifespan for some technologies. Cobol is still in demand. As a botique software shop you offer a company critical business infrastructure that gives them an edge. 90% of the software in business is developed or customized for the client. As developers we don't necessarily like it because it is not always elegant or optimal but it exists.

And how many Cobol jobs do you see advertised? Close to zero. I am an independent consultant, with 20+ years of experience. Let me tell you, noone who is looking to hire me gives a damn what I did 5 or 10 years ago. The technical problems (and tools used to solve them) 10 years ago were very different than today (even though you and I know that certain principles remain the same). I work pretty hard to remain current/relevant. I often joke that software engineers should be paid like star athletes or actors - their shelf time is limited.

Exactly.

I'm not sure if it's the same for lawyers, but with a lot of doctors, they have to buy out the guy that's retiring/buy in to become a partner at a practice.

If I'm not mistaken, Jason Fried made DHH partner at 37Signals.

Not really. A competent freelance developer in the valley will make $150-200/h. A competent lawyer (not a partner) in the valley will make $350+/h.

Interesting. Is that entirely comparable? The lawyer is equivalently a lone freelancer, not part of a specialized organization? The comparable developer would be part of a boutique consultancy.

What happened to the news in the past year or so about the large glut of lawyers in America, having to work for relative peanuts because of supply outpacing demand? Has the valley somehow managed to keep them out?

Or is it that specialized lawyers can make $350+/hr? In which case developers with certain specialities can make that much as well.

You can hire a bar-admitted lawyer for $20/hour, yet some firms bill first year associates at almost $400/hour. The corporate service professions (law, finance, accounting, and consulting) have a self-regulating labor supply. A professional without hands on experience is not valuable to corporate clients, and hands on experience can only be acquired in the context of real litigation/deals/audits/etc. If demand grows, firms need to train and hire more people, and supply grows. I demand stops growing, as happened after the 2008 recession, firms cut back training and hiring to replacement levels, and supply stabilizes. That circumstance is unfortunate for the people who want jobs in corporate law/finance/accounting/consulting that can't get them, but limits the degree to which changes in demand affect the price of services.

Why don't we see more firms created?

We were- right now they're all shrinking and collapsing.

Also, the mode compensation for a lawyer is only like 55,000. The low population, insane compensation segment drags the mean way up.

Please tell me how. I would be forever in your debt for this.

I know lawyers who charge $1000+/hour. Name me one programmer who can do the same. Outsourcing has killed our industry in terms of monetary compensation

I would suggest to you to think your premises carefully before coming to such conclusions. When in an unfair situation, it is easy to be angry at a group that you consider as 'outsiders'. However, even with outsourcing, there are thousands of open positions for software developers/architects that are just not getting filled.

The only real solution to this problem that I can see is for each of us to be so super smart and accomplished that we have the capacity to make a significant contribution that not many others can. And then develop the social skills to demand the kind of money that we (fairly) think we deserve.

Outsourcing has ensured a downward pressure on salaries. Can an employee that is not allowed to leave his employer really ever going to be earning true market rate on salary? That's the case for HS1B in the US. There is plenty of evidence that salaries are manipulated down.

Now, regarding your proposed solution of becoming a master of rare and difficult skills. That's what I strive for, but that can be a challenge in an industry where technologies are replaced every 5 years or so. In reality it becomes that much harder because unlike other professions the mindset of employers does not respect the concept of 'superstars'. Ie. I can't really name a developer that has the ability to command a 50% premium over his peers. However, I can name several companies that can demand a price premium for their consulting services. So, how do we as a field make the shift from companies achieving a price premium to individuals achieving a salary premium?

Might it be related to the fact that becoming a lawyer requires a heck of a lot more training and schooling than a programmer?

An individual freelancer might make that. A consultant with an established firm will be billed at close to lawyer rates, if not more. The consultant isn't being paid that however, as the firm will keep a fair cut for overhead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com