late to the party but hoping someone can answer a quick question. I'm one of those people trying to learn how to code. How i do I know i'm on track to being better than a competent programmer?
Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
561–570 of 655 posts
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#562Here are the H1B Top Ten visa sponsors: 1 Infosys 32,379 $76,494 2 Tata Consultancy Services 8,785 $66,113 3 Wipro 6,733 $69,953 4 Deloitte Consulting 6,165 $98,980 5 Ibm 5,839 $87,789 6 Accenture 5,099 $70,878 7 Larsen & Toubro Infotech 4,380 $59,933 8 Microsoft 3,911 $113,408 9 Hcl America 3,012 $81,376 10 Satyam Computer Services 2,249 $73,374 How many of those are America's top tech companies who are in dire need…
By all means, write to your elected representatives to cut down on importation of cut-rate programmers. But know that this doesn't disprove Paul Graham's point. He is against the importation of cut-rate programmers too (see his footnote [2]). He is only for the importation of top-notch programmers.
And how do you identify a 'top-notch' programmer as a government organization dealing with visas? Seriously. I'd argue 95% of hiring managers in SV can't identify a top programmer.
The problem could be solved easily if H1-Bs could only be given to companies registered and headquartered in the USA. That would get rid of the Wipros and Infosyses etc.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey dang, maybe you should write a critique of pg's post, and how it fails in so many ways with the principle of charity. Just to give this discussion more balance since you've been criticizing other people's responses.
That seems to miss my point, which is not about immigration, but about the quality of discussion on Hacker News.
dang, what can I say, you seem to have missed my point. You're criticizing the way people have responded to pg's post. While that may be valid, you fail to criticize pg's 'quality' of writing, which can also be considered inflammatory. How about a little balance here?
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all means, write to your elected representatives to cut down on importation of cut-rate programmers. But know that this doesn't disprove Paul Graham's point. He is against the importation of cut-rate programmers too (see his footnote [2]). He is only for the importation of top-notch programmers.
And how do you identify a 'top-notch' programmer as a government organization dealing with visas? Seriously. I'd argue 95% of hiring managers in SV can't identify a top programmer. The problem could be solved easily if H1-Bs could only be given to companies registered and headquartered in the USA. That would get rid of the Wipros and Infosyses etc.
That would also get rid of most foreign countries from operating in the states, since they couldn't get visas for management, trainers, or whatever. Maybe you just meant Indian companies?
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people consider a move to a new apartment in the same city inconvenient. There are very few people who wouldn't consider being forced to move across continents, while giving up their rights, a highly biasing factor in the pros/cons of any decision they made.
As a result, I can see programmers from Western and Northern Europe, who as of know may consider relocating to the US, change their mind and say "why bother". Any EU citizen will have easier time relocating to London/Berlin - two places in Europe where a lot of tech companies are located. PG's point is that a lot of people from outside the US (including from Europe) currently would prefer relocating to the US but the…
"PG's point is that a lot of people from outside the US (including from Europe) currently would prefer relocating to the US but they have difficulty getting a visa"
No, from my reading of pg's point: Most of the top programmers live outside of the US, so we should make it easier to get them by changing immigration policy.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#566All: much of this thread is of low quality, below the standard that Hacker News discussion should adhere to, because it doesn't engage with what pg's essay actually says. It merely uses it as a trigger point for passions about other things, like H1Bs and Infosys. In other words it goes on a generic tangent, and generic tangents are the vectors we most need to avoid if we want discussions that are substantive instead…
I have to disagree. PG's essay was discussing immigration at a very broad level, and as such so are the comments in this thread. You seem to be asserting some definition of "what PG said" that isn't apparent in the essay itself. The crux of PG's essay was this (taking from what is a sort of his thesis statement): > American technology companies want the government to make immigration easier because they say they can'…
He did say that he was referring to the most exceptional programmers, and that it would be a matter of "a few thousand " a year. That was quite clear to me on the first read that he was not talking about the H1B system.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a related question that I never see addressed: how big of a programmer shortage do you think there would be if salaries were 50% higher? All the talk seems to assume that the makeup of industry is utterly inelastic. Fine, maybe your small company in Cleveland can't go out tomorrow and hire 10 A+ developers, but do people really not believe that if starting salary for an A+ developer was $150k, or whatever, tha…
So basically you're proposing protectionist policies to limit supply and thus inflate the price of labor (that is, you). Would you also support similar arguments for say, oh I don't know, taxi or hotel prices in the area where you live so the existing pool of taxi drivers or hotel owners can protect the income they are making?
Downvotes don't faze me but I find it telling that I don't see an actual reply to my point regarding protectionist policies. If you find yourself instinctively downvoting my comment, please also take a minute to form a coherent reply to it and post it. Why is it ok for the (American) hacker news crowd to demand a legally mandated supply shortage to keep the prices of their labor inflated while it's not ok for (usually much poorer) taxi drivers to demand the same (campaigning against Uber and such)?
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#568All: much of this thread is of low quality, below the standard that Hacker News discussion should adhere to, because it doesn't engage with what pg's essay actually says. It merely uses it as a trigger point for passions about other things, like H1Bs and Infosys. In other words it goes on a generic tangent, and generic tangents are the vectors we most need to avoid if we want discussions that are substantive instead…
What exactly was expected by it? The article consists of anecdotes and fictional numbers to argue and support an agenda which has historically been highly politicized by big tech companies. Perhaps PG doesn't have the same intention as others supporters of immigration but the article sure didn't show it or really bring anything new to the table. Truthfully, Im not sure that the comments are any lower quality than the…
PG is discussing a way to bring in known exceptional programmers (a very, very small number) which currently does not exist. I remember seeing a highly respected programmer - I think it was Carmack - wishing for a way he could stamp someone's application for citizenship with a mark of extreme approval.
Given that this point is clear in the essay itself and has been going the rounds outside of it, I find the portrayal of PG's point as if it were about a too-large H1B program or immigrants driving wages down to be a distraction.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#569I know I'll go of a on a tangent here, too, and won't directly address the PG posting, but it really saddens me that every time there is discussion about immigration on HN, it always degenerates into an us vs them argumentation between employer and employee and how each side can maximise their profit. Rarely anyone seems to care about the social or humanitarian angle of it, not to mention the historical significance to the US as a country. Is it really that controversial to allow other people that didn't win the birth-lottery a chance to work here if they proven themselves to be qualified enough? Isn't that what the US was founded on and what at least the H1B was exactly meant for? And can anyone really honestly argue that the 65k H1Bs that are awarded each year could put considerable pressure on the average wage in a country of 300M (especially considering the strict wage requirements which people seem to happily ignore in most arguments here). Why are people so upset about a few immigrants - fearing for their wages - when clearly the wage-fixing amongst Google, Apple & Co. had a much more severe influence? Isn't this obviously the typical spiel of blaming and fearing the immigrants for situations much better explained by internal actors that should be feared (and possibly punished)?
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#570All: much of this thread is of low quality, below the standard that Hacker News discussion should adhere to, because it doesn't engage with what pg's essay actually says. It merely uses it as a trigger point for passions about other things, like H1Bs and Infosys. In other words it goes on a generic tangent, and generic tangents are the vectors we most need to avoid if we want discussions that are substantive instead…
PG's essay was very high level and conceptual. To actually carry out any sort of policy like this, the realities of H1Bs and Infosys would have to be dealt with. You see them as generic tangents, I see them as counter arguments.
Additionally, many people are questioning the motives of PG. I think that's fine and people are free to respond or downvote. It's no different than people questioning the motives of Larry Ellison after an Oracle announcement. This is healthy.
The Principle of Charity is great, but limiting discussion to the subset of topics of an article severely hampers critical analysis. And I'm concerned that would be the effect of what you're advocating.