David, I agree with your conclusion but not totally with how you arrived at it.
> In the USA, the most precisely measured people are the > most handsomely rewarded. Sports & other entertainment > folks.
Assembly line workers are precisely measured and the disparity between their pay and a top athlete's pay is large. With the Film sub-industry, your ability to get callbacks is your single metric of importance in your asking price. If 2 or 3 producers want Claire Danes for their films simultaneously, she's in a position to ask for a higher percentage of gross revenues. Our industry flooded the market with labor in the latter 90's, effectively stagnating pay levels. Furthermore, executives started questioning the worth of our product to their organizations post-2K. This drove the search for cheaper labor.
> Technical folks are "above" that sort of thing, leaving > executives to measure our performance by: high salaries, > bug counts, missed dates, incomplete features... Leaving > execs to realize: Hey! I can buy the last 4 for 1/16 the > price overseas!
Professional baseball has a large contingent of South American and Asian players. Yet, pays are still considerably higher than in our profession. It gets back to the value executives assign to our products in their organizations.
> There isn't a metric that will satisfy everyone, but there > *has* to be some way for your group/dept to measure > itself. Otherwise, how do you know you're doing things > better? > > It is in our interest to develop meaningful metrics.
Completely agreed here. To realize a greater pay scale, we need metrics for how our products contribute to the organization. For example, if a software system you and I develop allows Sales to go from lead to sale quicker and cheaper, we should share in the revenue. Find a way of measuring it and you are on the path to greater pay.
Flat View: This topic has 50 replies
on 51 pages
[
«
|
67891011121314
|
»
]
Previous Topic
