Live data from Hacker News

Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

thinkfaster.co

211–220 of 407 posts

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each FAANG will have on average, 10k engineers? That's..really low. FB has around that many, Google has like 50k, and from what I've heard Amazon has about the same number or more. Considering that everyone I know got >= $100k base out of undergrad regardless of location I don't think it's as uncommon as you would think anymore.

Nobody I know did, I suspect most people outside of the USA would say the same.

AMZN Vancouver pays fresh-grad $95k base + sign-on (30-50k) + RSUs (20-30 units)

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#212
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think programmers tend to underestimate the difficulties involved with becoming a good programmer because once you're good, you only see the even steeper learning curve ahead of you. Good programmers I know also overestimate the skill needed to earn high salary in this job. You don't have to go up the learning curve much; these days, you just learn yourself JS a little bit and go for a webdev job, making shit cod…

I don't see that mass-produced cohort arriving any time soon. My city has 1 developer for every 3 jobs and it's getting worse.

What city is that?

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#213
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAANG companies have engineers staying just 2 years because they made enough money. Your statistics don't account for time. Sure its not "easy" to get into those companies, but it isn't an outlier to get into them either. The simple reality is this: If you are an engineer at a publicly traded tech company, it is customary to get RSUs and Refresher RSUs. These have compounding effects as their vesting schedules start…

People have enough money after two years!?!?!

if you're compensated 300-400k annually, you'll have enough to move somewhere else or take risks if you play your cards right (huge savings, etc).

Or the other options is to jump to a different companies that offer more money or more equities or higher level.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#214

I think programmers tend to underestimate the difficulties involved with becoming a good programmer because once you're good, you only see the even steeper learning curve ahead of you. Some of the smartest people I know work in other domains: biology, chemistry, and even physics. They are sometimes baffled by tasks that seem trivial to me, and I'm under no impression that I'm more intelligent than them. I simply spec…

I think the comparison to biology/chemistry/physics is interesting. Perhaps even more than software, there's a huge spread between the value of low and high performers - the best scientists make new discoveries that can be worth billions. On the other hand, if you think the software industry has a hard time figuring out (at hiring time) who the high performers are... science is driven by serendipity. Nobody can predi…

Part of the issue is that the metric for "high performers" can be well out of line with skill, at least as measured as a product of profitability.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#215

How many software engineers are truly making over $300k as a rank-and-file? Let's be generous and say there's about a dozen or so companies that routinely pay engineers that well. Each FAANG will have on average, 10k engineers? So that's around 120,000 out of an estimated ~20 million developers (from a quick google search). That's around 0.6% earning pay in a "bubble" situation, the rest being senior folks or executi…

You should probably narrow that since you're almost exclusively talking about the US market. There are a few pockets outside the US where you can earn that, it's just quite rare comparatively. The US has anywhere from one to four million software developers, depending on your source. The BLS lists 1.2 million US software developers, with a $103,560 median pay (excludes benefits) in 2017. You have closer to a 5% to 10…

I live in New Orleans (grad school). I have plenty of friends from college who work at FAANGs. The local market here consists largely of DXC, CGI and IBM paying “data scientists” $90k and junior devs $40k and laughing all the way to the bank.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#216
post #158
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said good programmers are underpaid. They should figure out how much they are making their companies and ask for more. The market can often afford to pay more, if you just negotiate better. You can also unionize to get your employers closer to what you are worth to them rather than what they are worth to you.

> just negotiate better In every other aspect of computers, the industry has finally embraced usability as a desirable goal, and not just for end-users. On my first computer, you had to read a 100-page user manual and learn exactly what commands to type. In my first programming language, you had to manually allocate (and worse, deallocate) memory. With my first database, we used to have to go type VACUUM regularly. N…

People who make enough to have agents negotiating their salary (famous actors, professional athletes, other celebrity types) are usually looking at an order of magnitude higher compensation than even the best software developers get. At the lower end of the spectrum (lesser-known actors, musicians, etc.) agents are known for enriching themselves as much as helping their clients. They are just sort of accepted parasites on the way compensation is handled.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#217
I've always wondered if the salaries in the industry are just keeping pace to what all salaries should be at. What if they're not the bubble, but instead everything else is just lagging? I guess that depends on if you think workers should be able to purchase a home where they live, pay for child care, and not live paycheck to paycheck.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'll just leave this here https://books.google.com/books/about/Distributed_Databases.h...

This predates the formulation of the cap theorem by ~15 years, so I doubt it contains everything relevant to a modern distributed database.

It's before my time, but I'm pretty sure people had at least an intuitive understanding of what partitioning does to a datastore before Eric Brewer wrote it down.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#219
There is a lot of bubble logic in these replies - things like "salaries are destined to go up forever because they've gone up since the dot-com days", "smart people in other fields are baffled by things we find trivial", "programming is incredibly hard so it's obvious we should be paid more," etc. There's probably a kernel of truth to some of these statements, but there are eerie parallels to past bubbles here.

It is my opinion that we are not in a programming bubble, but in a venture capital bubble. The latter causes the appearance of the former. Let me explain the meat of how I think it works.

1) A well-to-do person decides to start a VC fund. This person recruits a few high net-worth friends and convinces them to invest a sum of money in the new fund. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that this person gets $1m to play with in total from 10 individual investors.

2) This new fund does around 10 unpriced seed investments with its $1m (convertible notes). 50% of these companies do not go on to raise more money, and thus the money spent on them is written off. The other 50% go on to raise a priced A round, whereupon some bigger funds lead the rounds and mark up the price of each company's equity by between 50% and 150%.

3) Our seed investor is now sitting on equity roughly worth $1.25m. This person has made a 25% return on the capital under their management. They take a 5% fee off the top - for a handsome payday of $62,500. The investors are pleased.

4) Then, this thought crosses our brave new fund owner's mind: "Boy, I'm really good at this." So our owner goes out to a wider network and solicits $10m this time, with the intent to participate in A rounds instead of seed rounds. They cite their successful 25% returns in seed stage companies, and people scramble to hand them money to manage.

5) Goto step 2 (but increase the numbers and change up the preferred investment round occasionally)

The sums get bigger, the paper returns get bigger, and the management fees get bigger. But what brings this all to a crashing halt? Where does all that VC money come from?

I believe that this is all a consequence of the zero-interest rate environment in the United States throughout the last decade. People with assets have largely had no attractive places to put their money, so they were forced to chase riskier and riskier investments. Venture capital was the perfect target - the compelling narrative of technological progress makes for a feel-good investment avenue, and the general opacity of tech concepts to non-technical people makes the mystique that much more compelling. Plus - there's a mathematical strategy here! Why buy bonds and get a lower rate of return than inflation when you can chase unicorns? Why not take the probabilistic and "scientific" approach by investing in 100 companies - expecting 90 to die, 9 to do okay, and 1 to be a mega-success that makes your investment worth it?

The hunt for the fabled "unicorn company" is this economic cycle's equivalent to "housing prices are always going to go up." But the models work! you say. The success and failure probabilities are accurate! So were the models that led to mortgage-backed securities - if we bundle enough of these loans together, on average they will have to be profitable - right? The problem then, as now, is that such a model is only accurate when the broad macroeconomic conditions underlying it remain true. When you run out of money coming in, the music stops. Loan defaults started to spike and the MBS model fell apart. Likewise, I suspect that less money entering the VC world will presage the whole thing falling apart - and as interest rates climb, it's only a matter of time until debt is more profitable again and the easy-money faucet turns off.

I've ranted for a bit, so you're probably wondering - how in the hell does this relate to the OP's article? Let's now address the other side of the equation here - where does all that VC money go? Well, that money that was invested in all those failed startups (or the successful ones) gets spent on something. But what? It clearly doesn't all get spent on catered lunches and ping pong tables (much to the chagrin of our industry's critics). But it does get spent somewhere - and I'd hazard a guess that the most popular targets for that spending would be Facebook Ads, Amazon hosting, Apple hardware, Google Ads, Microsoft software, etc. The VC money gets spent on stuff the tech giants are selling, fueling the dramatic increase in their share prices over the past ten years.

Given that OP's article makes the point that compensation is huge and primarily driven by share price increases, it's easy to see how VC money could be actively impacting this situation. But as a gut check - if all of this talk of "US economic conditions fueling a domestic venture capital bubble" does have a grain of truth to it - what would you expect economic conditions for software engineers to look like in other parts of the world?

London: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/london-software-engineer-...

Paris: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/paris-software-engineer-s...

Berlin: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/berlin-software-engineer-...

Interesting, right? Proximity to the nexus of Sand Hill Road does appear to have an impact. I'm no data scientist, but I imagine there's enough publicly available data about venture rounds and salaries that a more rigorous assessment of this general thesis is possible. If anyone knows of existing studies, please let me know.

Re: Are We in the Middle of a Programming Bubble?

#220
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your standards for acceptable software were frozen in time in 1985 Haha in 1985 Amiga had a multitasking GUI desktop in 512k and 7Mhz. Now we have millions of times more computational power and struggle to deliver an experience as crisp and satisfying. I wish people still made software like it was 1985, that actually used the full power of the hardware for something useful...

Yeah but Exec/Kickstart/Workbench was missing some basic niceties that are table stakes today: - No process or kernel security (processes could rewrite kernel code) - Processes could effectively disable the scheduler - Supported only a single, fixed address space: both a massive limitation and a performance hack that made the system bearable to use - Single-user - No security model There are embedded applications the…

That and the fact that amiga was clean room design. IBM Pc was already old and even x86-64 won over itanium. Backwards compatibility has a cost but also gains. Amiga wasn't even compatible with c64.
Post reply on HN