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

How Paul Graham Is Wrong

ma.tt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 206 posts

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#31

Post by wavefunction »

smtddr wrote: post #8

I am still convinced that before anyone can confidently determine if a talent shortage really exists, they must first fix the transportation issues. I've made this comment a few times already, but if I had a magic wand and made a BART-like bullet train materialize that connected San Francisco to San Jose, Danville, San Ramon, Mountain View, Palo alto, Cupertino, Foster City, the "out-of-reach"'ish areas of SF like wh…

I don't know if I'm one of the great engineers PG and others are talking about but I have no interest in living in the Bay area, whether as it currently exists or with even more people.

You can solve the "transportation" issue by avoiding having to transport anyone in the first place, which is exactly what the author is speaking to when they suggest remote working arrangements.

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#32

Post by drawkbox »

Programmers, if they have a choice, like remote or at least some remote.

Managers + VCs, if they have a choice, prefer all in the office so they can keep power but this actually makes them less competitive and more susceptible to physical disruptions: moving an office, an employee moving, time, office politics, commute, distractions, over meeting and more.

The PG essay on this was glaringly overlooking that you can be a US based programmer and be good or great even if you aren't in SF. Tech companies have a responsibility to not be so monoculture and they currently have a single point of failure in Silicon Valley, which from an engineering perspective is poor distributed design and very little redundancy.

There are benefits of being in one place, the ability to meet physically and be on the same page but we all know the real work gets done back at our desks in our solitary focused modes when it comes to programming and making products. Then we open up for feedback and iteration, then again back to work.

The work part should be setup so programmers perform their best. Just like some of the best scientists, writers, etc, they need their lab/office where they can get somewhere with the problem at hand, not an open office in SF.

Glad Ma.tt mentioned this as he is a leader in the right kind of tech leadership we need: spread it around, live better, work hard, deliver solid products, from anywhere...

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#33

Post by trustfundbaby »

walshemj wrote: post #28

Oh dear sorry to rain on your parade experience shows that the way to get the best performance is collocated teams of developers ideally coloacted with the end customer. I know this isn't what a lot of HN readers want to hear but I bet Paul and many other VC's would bear me out.

Do you actually have data on this, or is this completely anecdotal?

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#34

Post by YuriNiyazov »

jweir wrote: post #24

Remote workers present challenges. Which is worth more a company with 5 employed engineers or 5 oversea contractors? Managing developers across time zones can be a big problem. If the developer in the Ukraine has a question for a manger asleep in California, he has to wait. There is no casual connection between people - no going to a bar to talk things over, no stepping away from the computer to talk. All communicati…

The larger point of this discussion is that mass immigration presents other challenges, some much harder to overcome. For example, the nightmare that is the political discussion of immigration in the USA, and for another example, the skyrocketing living costs in US cities that are tech hubs.

Trying to solve the problems you outline seem to be technical, which are easier than the fundamental problems of politics or economics.

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#35

Post by walshemj »

ryanSrich wrote: post #7
tptacek wrote: post #2

The idea that remote work is a solution to immigration is also a meme on Twitter. I'm not sure I understand it. A San Francisco tech company can employ developers in Krakow to work remotely without dealing with visas. But those developers either need to be 1099 contractors, or loaned out from an outsourcing firm. Both options are poor. Outsourcing firms for obvious reasons (introducing a middleman that serves no purp…

Remote work isn't a solution to immigration, and I'm not sure that was the point of the article. For me remote is the solution to the so called talent shortage in the Valley. If companies were really interested in hiring the best developers they'd drop their archaic view of remote work and remove location-dicated working.

Part of the talent shortage is the SV is competing with other higher paying and higher social status professions.

Its even more pronounced in the UK and Europe.

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#36

Post by intortus »

This is where I think Paul Graham gets it wrong:

> Exceptional programmers have an aptitude for and interest in programming that is not merely the product of training.

This is the old "you're either an exceptional programmer or you're not" myth. This is one reason why diversity in tech has regressed since the 80s.

I agree that geopolitical boundaries should matter less in the software business. However, I strongly disagree that this is the solution to programmer scarcity. Expanding your source of resumes to the entire world only delays the inevitable. Why focus on removing the dependency on the passport variable, when we still have such a strong dependency on gender and race?

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#37

Post by jfaucett »

TimPC wrote: post #19
jfaucett wrote: post #10

The author is forgetting that this is very unattractive for remote developers. Maybe not so bad if you live in a country without decent health insurance and retirement, but for others you'd lose these benefits by becoming a contractor. EDIT: being more explicit I was specifically thinking of remote workers from other countries when writing this statement. Obviously, remote work within the U.S. wouldn't make you a con…

Getting SF type pay in a place with rural US type cost of living makes it quite easy to afford decent health insurance and your own personal retirement savings. Not everyone can be a contractor, and there is a lot more planning and responsibility with managing the larger pool of money yourself and getting the key things you need, but saying it's very unattractive is extreme. In fact, I'd be more comfortable with fund…

From my perspective "living in germany" it would be very unattractive unless I were to earn substantially large sums. I would never be eligible for german retirement, would have to purchase the more expensive private ensurance, and would lose a lot of what I've paid in until now. So that is what I would stand to lose.

I definately see how looking at from within the US this could be completely different, and there you make many valid points.

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#38

Post by jasode »

>Use WordPress and P2, use Slack, use G+ Hangouts, use Skype, use any of the amazing technology that allows us to collaborate as effectively online as previous generations of company did offline.

I've been a 100% remote worker for 5+ years but I think we have to be honest here. All those teleconferencing/videoconferencing/virtualwhiteboards/etc are not as effective as everyone sharing the same physical workspace. Yes, they do help mitigate many issues of isolation and they do help collaboration but there's still some "bandwidth loss" when people are not in the same room or even down the hall from each other.

I'm not advocating an open floor plan with noise and distractions. Even a set of private offices that share a common corridor to facilitate spontaneous conversation with a side conference room for group brainstorming, is superior to keeping Skype windows open.

Yes, there are the common examples of virtual remote workers at basecamp, Automattic, github etc. Those are not billion dollar companies. A lot of startups have ambitious goals and very hard technical challenges and you can't compete with a team made up of 99% remote workers. I see no evidence that this has ever been successfully done. Small scale modest businesses, yes, but not big ones.

Maybe you can hire a 5-person 100% remote team to launch a new web magazine. Journalists and editors by their nature seem to fit the remote work paradigm quite nicely. At first glance, it seems programming also fits, but only for modest projects.

Yes, the remote workers themselves will insist "I'm 100% just as effective offsite as onsite -- in fact, I'm more productive because I'm not interrupted by office nonsense." No doubt they feel that way but the whole team isn't more effective.

Remote workers even with today's fanciest collaboration technology is not the answer to finding the best talent.

Re: How Paul Graham Is Wrong

#39

Post by na85 »

Hey Matt, I'm so glad you felt it necessary to include that DHTML snowstorm. My laptop fan really needed the exercise and I have your ~500-line JavaScript workout to thank for it!

Of course, I closed the tab pretty much immediately after noticing it so I didn't read the article. Can't wait for unnecessary js to go out of style.

Post reply on HN