Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 655 posts

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#621

Post by yellow_and_gray »

cottonseed wrote: post #617
yellow_and_gray wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's incorrect. Maybe it is about wages for companies that don't understand there's huge variance in productivity of programmers. But it is about talent and not wages for companies that do. You do have a valid argument that when you increase supply prices drop. But they drop in proportion to the supply. It would be nice if one could estimate the total number of those great programmers, and then calculate what…

It can only be about wages. That's supply and demand. If more people are fighting over fewer programmers, that means they just have to pay more to get them. If pay is not an issue, then you'll get them. If some companies don't appreciate the variance in programmers, either they have no excellent ones (because they wouldn't be willing to pay the price premium for a trait they can't see), or, more likely, they are lots…

It's not only about wages. It's also about total wealth generated, which is driven by growth. The issue is you hit a limit.

Any startup eventually hits the limits of the market it operates in. But the point is startups don't get the chance to hit those market limits. The limit they hit first is they can't get great programmers. Their growth is stiffled early on.

Here's an example. Assume a startup is working on only one project and doesn't have a great programmer. Result: they don't get to make some breakthrough that would have increased the wealth of the startup by 100x-1000x. Without generating that wealth, demand decreases. You are still looking for just one great programmer to work on the project and can't start other new projects before you finish the existing one.

But if you didn't limit that growth (if you had a great programmer) there would be increased demand, because then you'd have 100x-1000x more wealth and could start new projects hiring more great programmers. It comes down to growth.

So having great programmers increases demand, not decrease it. The more you have, the more you end up needing.

Until you hit a limit. Once all great programmers who are in the US are snatched up, at any price, then you reached a limit to the amount of wealth that can be generated in the US by great programmers.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#622

Post by yellow_and_gray »

jonny_eh wrote: post #465
nhjk wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article itself is of low quality. Entire sections are based on flimsy assumptions or are just plain false. I'll list a few here: "The US has less than 5% of the world's population. Which means if the qualities that make someone a great programmer are evenly distributed, 95% of great programmers are born outside the US." A huge portion of the world can't even feed itself let alone educate itself to the high standa…

> If you can't hire someone at your expected price then maybe you should raise it. Maybe the market price has gone higher than what you perceive it to be. That CEO could find his 30 "10x" engineers in a heartbeat if he offered 300-500k. Its not your god given right to be able to hire x number of employees for the price you hired your previous employees at. It's a zero-sum game. If company X hires all 30 of the best e…

It's not a zero-sum game, and it's not about supply and demand. It's about growth, and hitting a limit on the total wealth generated.

I just explained this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805475

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#623

Post by waterlesscloud »

yellow_and_gray wrote: post #621
cottonseed wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can only be about wages. That's supply and demand. If more people are fighting over fewer programmers, that means they just have to pay more to get them. If pay is not an issue, then you'll get them. If some companies don't appreciate the variance in programmers, either they have no excellent ones (because they wouldn't be willing to pay the price premium for a trait they can't see), or, more likely, they are lots…

It's not only about wages. It's also about total wealth generated, which is driven by growth. The issue is you hit a limit. Any startup eventually hits the limits of the market it operates in. But the point is startups don't get the chance to hit those market limits. The limit they hit first is they can't get great programmers. Their growth is stiffled early on. Here's an example. Assume a startup is working on only…

We are nowhere near the limit of VC wealth preventing the hiring of great programmers.

In other words, the wealth generated by previous waves of great programmers working on projects is most definitely not the limiting factor here.

Why would more wealth then generate more projects?

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#624

Post by vproman »

_xhok wrote: post #542
geebee wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you on one point here. If you use very inflammatory language, you need to accept a degree of responsibility it the discussion veers rapidly off topic. PG chose to appy the phrase "anti-immigrant" to the people he disagrees with. Keep in mind, there are people who support high levels of immigration (the US currently takes 1.2+ million immigrants a year), support a path to legalizati…

In his first paragraph: American technology companies want the government to make immigration easier because they say they can't find enough programmers in the US. Anti-immigration people say that instead of letting foreigners take these jobs, we should train more Americans to be programmers. Who's right? It sounds to me that the word anti-immigration is simply a word he chose to literally mean "people who disagree w…

As the people in question believe that the solution is to train more Americans to be programmers, there are a variety of terms that could be thought of: "pro-trainers," "pro-local labor," etc. Instead, the focus is on what their solution isn't.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#625

Post by vproman »

If depressing compensation isn't a goal of tech companies, than why the collusion between many of the large tech companies via their anti-poaching agreements? Compensate them with the benefits, environment and challenges that will keep them, instead of colluding to prevent their mobility through a free market.

Also, if "natural born, exceptional" programmers are so rare, would you not have to invite 999 "competent" programmers, of which we supposedly need no more of, in order to get that 1 "exceptional" programmer which Graham claims we desperately need? So to get thousands of exceptional programmers, how many competent programmers would have to be invited into the workforce as well?

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#626

Post by ryanSrich »

OmarIsmail wrote: post #105
buro9 wrote: post #44

There is more than immigration in the way of non-US programmers moving to the US: 1) Immigration 1) Health care 3) Living standards (some part cost of rent, some part accessible lifestyle, some part relationships and future plans, etc) I'm a London programmer and yes immigration is an issue, but health care (for themselves and their partner) is joint #1 on that front. It's hard not to look on US healthcare as being t…

Any reputable tech company (or startup) will provide health insurance and or sufficient wage so that you and your partner will be able to afford more than adequate insurance. It's not the upper-middle class programmers that get screwed by the US' ridiculously evil and horrible health care system. It's the 99% that make less than 100K/year.

$100k doesn't even approach upper-middle class. It's not 1995 anymore. $100k is arguably lower-middle class. Consider the fact that most college students are graduating with $50-$100k in student loan debt, then they move to the Bay Area and pay $3k per month for a one bedroom. After 28% federal income tax and food costs it's surprising that they even survive on $100k.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#627

Post by inourtime »

ryanSrich wrote: post #626
OmarIsmail wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any reputable tech company (or startup) will provide health insurance and or sufficient wage so that you and your partner will be able to afford more than adequate insurance. It's not the upper-middle class programmers that get screwed by the US' ridiculously evil and horrible health care system. It's the 99% that make less than 100K/year.

$100k doesn't even approach upper-middle class. It's not 1995 anymore. $100k is arguably lower-middle class. Consider the fact that most college students are graduating with $50-$100k in student loan debt, then they move to the Bay Area and pay $3k per month for a one bedroom. After 28% federal income tax and food costs it's surprising that they even survive on $100k.

$3k is a pretty nice 1-bedroom... which isn't really necessary if you're just going for survival (e.g. you can get a studio, share a place, etc.).

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#628

Post by ryanSrich »

inourtime wrote: post #627
ryanSrich wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k doesn't even approach upper-middle class. It's not 1995 anymore. $100k is arguably lower-middle class. Consider the fact that most college students are graduating with $50-$100k in student loan debt, then they move to the Bay Area and pay $3k per month for a one bedroom. After 28% federal income tax and food costs it's surprising that they even survive on $100k.

$3k is a pretty nice 1-bedroom... which isn't really necessary if you're just going for survival (e.g. you can get a studio, share a place, etc.).

So thats ageism then. Because a studio almost requires you to be single and or have no dependents. Also - you're not finding a one bedroom for under $3k in SF proper in 2014 regardless of condition.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#629

Post by inourtime »

ryanSrich wrote: post #628
inourtime wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3k is a pretty nice 1-bedroom... which isn't really necessary if you're just going for survival (e.g. you can get a studio, share a place, etc.).

So thats ageism then. Because a studio almost requires you to be single and or have no dependents. Also - you're not finding a one bedroom for under $3k in SF proper in 2014 regardless of condition.

Is ageism an issue when you're talking about recent college graduates (which you were)?

And try looking beyond the most popular neighborhoods.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#630

Post by tomp »

cmdkeen wrote: post #153
wrs wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying more will just shuffle around the exceptional programmers who are already in the US. But pg's point is that the US should be trying to attract more exceptional programmers. And the more the better, because they don't just add talent, they multiply it. (That's one thing that makes them "exceptional".) The secret sauce of Silicon Valley is not just the exceptional people, it's that they're all in the same place.

And that another country could attract those 95% and do great things with them. Several European countries are keen to do so, and with access to the EU's pool of citizens it would be a great place to try and a new tech hub from. Sadly anti-immigration and/or anti-capitalism feelings are also strong in many EU countries which hampers this movement. I wish the UK could make more of our draw.

> Sadly anti-immigration and/or anti-capitalism feelings are also strong in many EU countries which hampers this movement. I wish the UK could make more of our draw.

AFAIK, there's no problem with freedom of movement for employees in the EU, not even to/from the UK. The only issue is wages; London startups pay really shitty salaries (£40-50K). Berlin's aren't much better (lower than London, but in a much cheaper city). It's the exact same problem as in the US - the salaries just aren't high enough to justify moving to and living in an expensive city.

Post reply on HN