You get what you pay for.

Put it another way. He's the only person in the organization who knows what they're doing when it comes to testing. He's in a position where he can have a tremendous positive effect on his organization. If instead of complaining that his fellow testers are incompetent, he could bring a benefit to the organization and pocket part of it.

Here's the script: "Hello Mr. Suit. Notice how I've discovered ten times as many bugs as my compatriots combined in the same amount of time. Why don't you fire ten of them and bump me up to fifty an hour. You'll be saving ninety dollars an hour at the cost of an extra forty-one going to me." Every business-minded manager would at least consider this. Naturally the numbers need to be adjusted, but anyone with a significantly higher output than their colleagues has the opportunity to make this sort of case.

Here's another potential script: "Lemme level with you, Mr. Suit, these guys are all kids who like playing games, while I've got years of experience as a professional tester under my belt. Why don't you replace their manager with me, and I'll train them myself. Ill whip them into shape, their overall bug detection rate will double, and you won't have to pay a penny. Just replace their ineffective manager with me."

Lesson learned: this situation isn't cause for bitching and moaning, it's an opportunity to cut throats.

Out of my experience with great QA in the past the two significant things they bring which poor QA does not are: 1) they create a detailed testing plan that allows them to 'checkbox' off things rather than simply throw time at randomly fucking around. 2) they have very rigorous reporting of issues including detailed repro steps, environment information, issue categorization, and (if the technology is provided) stack dumps.

Perhaps a company that provides this service specifically would work? Especially if the company had a technology aspect that allowed them to automate their own testing. Testing as a partnership service sounds like a business idea that makes great sense to me yet would be a difficult sell. It's rare to acknowledge that defects are guaranteed to exist, that a systematic plan to discover them can be created, that the earlier the discovery is found the lower the cost (exponentially) is to fix.

On the other hand those great QA of my past also had very strong domain knowledge of what they were testing. The audit step to create the plan would be important: the best QA really need to know the intended results for everything inside and out.

It all feels like a pipe dream to me, unfortunately. The norm seems to be "we don't want to invest in Quality Assurance, but we want Assured Quality, so just don't make mistakes!"

It looks like this is just another example of management believing these positions are unskilled labor that a certain type of folk likes to do versus an actual profession.

Now, having low-paying starter jobs isn't a bad thing in general. The local fast food joint probably has a fair number of high school students with no skills that are there for some spending money. People learn job skills by having a job.

Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few business people unable to distinguish between I need professionals and unskilled labor. Ask any graphic designer about this one. I am amazed about how this is so common across multiple professions and roles. I honestly think the business schools in this country need to be overhauled because they are teaching people to make bad decisions.

I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt like you learned something.

One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.

The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment," or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid for, too.

The temporary solution is to refuse to work for such companies and to compete with them until they go out of business, despite their capital advantages.

The kind of places that view software test/dev as labor or "resources" really are missing the point. Owing to work styles, tools, experience, and knowledge, the best people in this field (software) can do things that less talented/experienced people simply can't. Not "I can get it done 2x as fast as the next guy", but "I can find issues, bugs, and defects others wouldn't find, AND I can do it more quickly."

Coming back to reality, a lot of software doesn't need to be the best. For every blockbuster game, or operating system kernel, or billion-user social network, there are hundreds of CRUD apps, Wordpress sites, etc. that are more rote. But to compete in the winner-take-all kind of markets, you have to pay for the best.

I think the point is, buyers and sellers of talent need to be realistic about what they need and what they're willing to pay for it. To the guy who wrote the article, find a place that (1) NEEDS your skills (frankly a lot of places don't) and (2) is well-funded enough to pay market rate for them.

After a few years if they figure out it's not worth it, the company just have to hire again in the endless stream of youngsters.

You need to really re-examine how you deal with people going forward.

I'd recommend we form a trade group and boycott working for the industry, but there are lots of people for which its "one of their passions" who would (as is their right) break ranks and still do it, so it would be an exercise in futility.

In any industry in which lots of people pursue it with little regard for compensation, salaries are going to be in the toilet.

Kid, there are people in this world putting rockets in space, making self-driving cars and making lasers that can shoot flying mortars out of the sky. Maybe one day you will actually have something legitimate to be cocky about, but until then I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for some perspective.