I've often viewed this as Thinkers vs. Workers. Society places a high value on Thinkers, those who make decisions, strategize, make connections, build relationships, etc. Those who fall in this camp are doctors, lawyers, consultants, CEOs, etc. The Workers -- programmers, engineers, designers -- are often fungible. They are in a competitive market of manual laborers that has driven down the price of labor to levels that, for many, increase the opportunity cost of learning the tech yourself. Over time, Thinkers accumulate social capital that can be leveraged to gain benefits, both related and unrelated to their profession -- e.g. a doctor being given preferential treatment by a restaurant host. Workers accumulate labor capital; they're more efficient at their work, can develop more creative solutions. But put a 50yr old coder up against a 50yr old lawyer/doctor/banker and the latter will be given more praise, more money, more influence 9 times out of 10.
Even Workers eventually outsource their labor once they're in a position to become a Thinker. Few successful startup CEOs and execs are actually coding themselves. Their roles shift to strategy, operations, so on and and so forth, for that's where they're valued and will be rewarded the most.
And getting a graduate degree is often the ticket to be considered a Thinker, whether MD, MBA, JD, PhD.
That's the game, whether you like it or not, and it certainly won't be changing anytime soon. If money is a priority, becoming a Thinker might be in your best interest.
Those are the roles where you can't trust anybody to do them for you without fleecing you. Even MBA's are loath to fully entrust those roles to other MBA's. The top management of our company has an elaborate review process for strategy and operations, and no high level review process for coding.
Also, the median total compensation is $181,500 USD for an MBA graduate of arguably the best business school in the country. They have a median of four years of work; Assuming they started at 22, and the MBA took two years, they're 28 when receiving this compensation. Unless they have corporate sponsorship, they've also paid around $185,000 for that degree, most likely in loans which will increase the cost. I wonder if a software engineer of similar caliber (smart, dedicated and possessing competent social skills to get into GSB) could pull off a similar compensation at 28 and how his life time earnings would compare. I'd be willing to wager the difference isn't that drastic; if it isn't, it's probably better to just pick the path where the work suits you better.
I think a good grasp of programming combined with being business-savvy and being able to communicate confidently with people can get you pretty far monetarily if you seize the right opportunities; its a useful skill that has the potential to create significant revenue/cut losses for businesses. It seems like some people manage to become well off by becoming consultants and doing just that, but I'm just speaking from second-hand information.
If you'd rather work as a Roman galley slave, maybe not.
No money is worth doing a job that you hate.
If you don't actually enjoy writing code, no amount of money is worth it.
Well, if it helps, that really applies to just about any profession.
Or maybe "10X" is true, but it isn't realized due to whatever non-technical reasons (political, etc.)?
10x is arguable. But the 1000x programmer (who is as good as a team of 1000) definitely doesn't exist. IMO.
The other aspect is that just being good and fast doesn't make you money. You have to be good and fast at solving the right problem in the right way and then convince people to give you lots of money for that solution. If you can't do those last bits, you'll always end up working for someone earning more than you, no matter how good you are.
But isn't it more measurable than what an MBA in a senior/executive position does? If being part of writing a large software system is complex and hard to get right, and hard to measure progress on (technical debt v.s. features, for example), I can't imagine that running or managing a system of people - which are much less predictable than system components - is less complex, and in turn easier to measure when you factor in all external factors and things that an executive can't really do anything about (even though he might be responsible for it on paper).
But I don't really know anything about the management world.
OTOH, I'm no better at filling out random paperwork than they are, maybe even less effective, since they will readily gamble that a sketchy answer in a form won't bounce back for clarification.
So, if there is a lot of low level busy work, you might as well hire entry level workers. Just don't let them build stuff that perpetuates more busy-work, or it can become a tough pit to climb out of ... and now I'm off on a tangent.
:)