Here's the problem with the "25x-programmer" concept. There is such a thing, but it's not just about the programmer. It's about the engineer, the company, project/person fit, the team, the technology stack, and the project itself. I've had months that were worth over $500,000 to my employer easily, but I've also had months close to zero.<p>Productivity compounds multiplicatively. Individual ability is certainly a factor, but not the only one. To be able to sustain 10x levels of contribution, you need to be using excellent tools that you know well, on a project that fits your skills and interests, in a position where you can have an impact (and those positions are coveted and usually allocated politically, not on merit) <i>in addition to</i> being a good programmer. I wish these conditions could be reliably obtained, but for most people, they can't.<p>That's why the 10-100x programmers aren't banking $1 million and up per year. Companies can't possibly know in advance whether a person is going to have all those other performance-altering variances in place, and they also know from experience that creating conditions in which 10x programmers can thrive is a political mess.