On Immigration, Engineers Simply Don’t Trust VCs

One issue is that engineers are underpaid because they tend to oppose the sorts of organization and regulation that could provide real bargaining power. Libertarian ideology runs rampant, and this hugely benefits buyers of engineering talent.

A separate issue is that even if you paid more money, there wouldn't magically be more engineers who can actually do the work that startups need done. We don't ned 10% more great engineers or 20%. We need double. or Triple.

Paul Graham advocates for free trade when it will increase the value of his portfolio and the wealth of his friends. He doesn't say a word about how free trade has been undermined by the illegal collusion of Facebook, Google, and Apple.

Without an influx of new people at a faster rate than education, increased salaries from demand will just shuffle existing engineers around. Instead of working at company A, they'll work at company B, earning a few percent extra; and company A, not being able to afford engineers, will either find something else to do, or close up shop. Higher salaries aren't enough to increase the supply of labour very quickly.

Which one of company A vs company B is more likely to be a startup?

What you are actually arguing for, is for software engineers to seek rent on the creation of new companies. You want to slow down growth in the economy and decrease the rate at which software gets applied to new problems, in order to make more salary (for Americans, in particular, as opposed to people less geographically well off).

It's self-interested, and thus understandable. I don't really fault you for arguing your corner. But you should be aware that it's not necessarily in the interest of your fellow Americans, never mind VCs. Other Americans also benefit from the application of software to all sorts of problems. Increased salaries for engineers mean that software is more expensive (however it's paid for), and there's less of it.

PS: the parasites feeding on nexus of finance are a separate issue. It doesn't make your argument more convincing, because they are a special case, recently in particular. Those parasites need dealing with, but the regulatory system has largely been captured, especially in the US. My problem with working in finance is ethics, rather than salary. Much of those earnings have been against latent risks that the taxpayer is underpinning.

Let's expand on this, because that's me and I'm quite happy (but also willing to be convinced otherwise :D).

Financially, you're balancing lower salary with a potential for a large upside later. That upside can be great if you believe in the company and/or the value of the stock options offsets the lower salary, which it probably has the last two times I've done it, and definitely didn't the first 3. That being said, the first three gave me access to the last 2, and allowed me to see why the last 2 would work in a way that the first 3 didn't. Edit: also, comparing to the risk an entrepreneur takes, the salary cut tends to be much higher for an entrepreneur than an early hire (often the entrepreneur takes little to no salary for a long time).

In some ways you miss out on working with specific talent. You work with fewer people, so by definition you have access to fewer viewpoints. That's a very real opportunity loss, for sure. On the other hand, you get to work on a wider variety of things, and working at an early company tends to give you a better work-life balance which can allow you to learn more aggressively outside of work (and allow me to be a happier person in general). You also get far more control over the company's direction, if you care about stuff like that.

In terms of "might as well be a founder" - my CEO puts in way more work, way more hours than I do, is able to attract better talent than I can, is able to attract money in a way I couldn't, is able to administer the business better than I can etc. If I didn't think that was true, I wouldn't be where I am (this is part of the skillset that I can pick up at an early stage company that I couldn't at a later stage company). If I had those skills, yes it would obviously be better for me to found, but I don't so I don't think the way you've laid out the risk is entirely fair.

There are many more trade offs, but it's difficult for me to see why being an early stage employee is worse than a late stage. In either cases a lot is left to the negotiator and in both cases you can get a great deal, depending on what you are looking for.