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

451–460 of 655 posts

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#451

Post by pastProlog »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #388
dang wrote: post #327

All: 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…

Perhaps the essay just doesn't say what it wants to say very effectively. It starts right out painting people who disagree with its thesis as "anti-immigration". So no one should be surprised about the quality of conversation that results from that.

Right. From the essay: "But it is dishonest of the anti-immigration people to claim that companies like Google and Facebook are driven by the same motives". "Dishonest", "anti-immigration people", if that's how the "principle of charity" starts off, where do we go from there?

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#452

Post by kar2014 »

bigtunacan wrote: post #154
slantedview wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, studies have shown that IS the goal. It might not be Paul's goal, personally, but generally speaking it is the goal of immigration policy for tech workers - to make labor cheap.

Agreed, the goal is to drive down prices of IT salaries. I find it disingenuous of PG to indicate otherwise since he sits on the side of the table that directly benefits from a cheaper IT labor market. I have worked at numerous places where they have hired on H1Bs. One of those employers did so because they were looking for good talent no matter where they could find it and H1B holders were paid fairly. Every other e…

If you are just worried about keeping your salary up, that will go down no matter what, as the talent pool all over the world increases and companies will offshore more work, that not only means less salary but fewer jobs.

Most of those who argue against pg's argument here are concerned about lower salaries, no one is concerned about fewer jobs (because companies will move work offshore), less innovation (new product development moving away).

Creating boundaries and not letting talent in, is just a big downward spiral and if it accelerates to a certain speed it will be too difficult to turn it around. May be not in short term but in couple to few decades.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#453

Post by swatow »

karmajunkie wrote: post #445
swatow wrote: post #408

I think it's useful to rephrase the emotive, and unclear language used in this debate (like "driving down prices") into the language of economics. Let's assume there are two types of programmers, normal and great. Now in a competitive market (which the labor market basically is, especially since the collusion issue has been dealt with), wages and employment levels are determined by supply and demand for each type of…

High wages are only a bad thing from the perspective of capital. From the perspective of the middle class, they distribute capital (and reward effort) more equitably.

So the theory (see "general equilibrium theory" of "welfare theorems of economics") is that increasing the supply of labor (or any other input for that matter) results in greater total output. And since the more expensive labor is the the labor of "great" programmers, increasing the supply of great programmers results in a greater increase in total output.

In general, economists (including myself) assume that increases in total output are always worth it, because the taxation system can account for the redistribution effects. This isn't guaranteed, since redistribution isn't free (some estimate that $1 of tax revenue costs $1.30 to the economy), but I think it's a very good rule of thumb.

So if you want to help the middle class you should support a more progressive taxation system, not higher wages [1].

[1] and by higher wages I mean higher wages for their own sake. Making workers more productive, which might raise wages, is also a good way to do this.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#454

Post by jacalata »

When I talk to startup founders, I find ones that offer me a 20% pay cut from my current job, a load of bullshit about how exciting their options are as the 156th employee, and a refusal to negotiate on salary, followed by seeing them in the paper complaining that there are no engineers in Seattle the week after I refuse their offer and tell them that it is too low.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#455

Post by kar2014 »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #441
kar2014 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but do people really not believe that if starting salary for an A+ developer was $150k, or whatever, that we might get more high-achievers First, US is already the third country in list for highest paid programmers, there is not much room to grow. Second, Companies are in business, not for charity. Companies are there for profit so if they could hire a beginner programmer for 50k, they should, otherwise they would…

Not much room to grow? Says who? Did I miss the referendum in which the computer science salary cap was enacted into law? The fact that companies are not charitable institutions is exactly the point. If they want more or better engineers they are welcome to pay salaries that will motivate such people to work for them, much as the petroleum industry is currently doing.

Or they could offshore and you could day dream about your double salary all you want. That is a possibility, wait, it is a reality, already happening.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#456

Post by dang »

pastProlog wrote: post #451
waterlesscloud wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the essay just doesn't say what it wants to say very effectively. It starts right out painting people who disagree with its thesis as "anti-immigration". So no one should be surprised about the quality of conversation that results from that.

Right. From the essay: "But it is dishonest of the anti-immigration people to claim that companies like Google and Facebook are driven by the same motives". "Dishonest", "anti-immigration people", if that's how the "principle of charity" starts off, where do we go from there?

> if that's how the "principle of charity" starts off, where do we go from there?

Assuming your premise is correct, it's easy to see where the principle of charity would have us go from there: by responding to the strongest interpretation of what that sentence might mean. Its substantive point is clearly something about how companies like Facebook and Google have different interests than H1B body shops do.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#457

Post by LetBinding »

DenisM wrote: post #447

I thought a lot about it, and I think I found a simple solution: Keep the current h1b caps, and then auction off each visa to the highest bidder. The auction proceeds must go to the employee in question, with jail term for anyone trying to claw it back. What this will do is drive the wages for the immigrant engineers ever higher, by extension raising the wages of Americans as well. It will also make sure only the bes…

Except this will only help large employers like Google and completely screw startups. How do you compute wages when it is paid in terms of equity?

1% of Google was worth nothing in 1995. It's worth a lot today. How do you identify if a startup is the next Google when calculating wages for your auction?

The only winners of your auction will be mega corps who will pay a huge salary upfront with no equity.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#458

Post by shanusmagnus »

HillRat wrote: post #414
shanusmagnus wrote: post #376

Earlier 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…

Well, there is a doctor shortage, particularly in the general practitioner space, where salaries are much lower than specialist medicine; likewise, while there's not a shortage of lawyers, oversupply has pushed down wages (and pushed would-be attorneys out of the market), and law school enrollments have fallen appropriately. Comp-sci salaries are really, really good , to the point that a single experienced developer…

My point was less that we bring in the big guns by poaching them from these other fields, then that we address the issue the way it's traditionally been addressed, which is to let the market take care of it. If these development jobs are really magnificent engines of wealth creation, then pay more to hire for the positions and more qualified people will appear. If, as you point out, there's now a lawyer glut, and now lawyers must roll naked in five dollar bills instead of fifties, then that's a sign the process works.

The idea that developers already make enough money, and so instead of letting the market set prices and the shortages work themselves out, that we should rather blow up the current system because some giant companies would just, you know, really appreciate it -- I can't even finish the sentence.

I would really enjoy paying less money to get my transmission rebuilt or the plumbing in the downstairs bathroom fixed. I would love a glut of massage therapists so that I could get my shoulder worked on for the price of an expensive coffee. I do not, however, suggest we change immigration policy to make my dreams a reality. That seems to be what it comes down to.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#459

Post by DenisM »

LetBinding wrote: post #457
DenisM wrote: post #447

I thought a lot about it, and I think I found a simple solution: Keep the current h1b caps, and then auction off each visa to the highest bidder. The auction proceeds must go to the employee in question, with jail term for anyone trying to claw it back. What this will do is drive the wages for the immigrant engineers ever higher, by extension raising the wages of Americans as well. It will also make sure only the bes…

Except this will only help large employers like Google and completely screw startups. How do you compute wages when it is paid in terms of equity? 1% of Google was worth nothing in 1995. It's worth a lot today. How do you identify if a startup is the next Google when calculating wages for your auction? The only winners of your auction will be mega corps who will pay a huge salary upfront with no equity.

It's not a net loss for startups - the ones past series B can easily price their options. The earlier stage ones will be cut out, that's true. To be honest, any effort to raise wages will cause that effect, and it's no reason to oppose better pay for engineers.

On the other hand, an immigrant, once settled, will accumulate wealth and eventually become a startup founder herself, without as much need for investment. That would be a boon for the earliest stage part of the ecosystem.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#460

Post by je42 »

mrrrgn wrote: post #370
je42 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about being "born". I personally don't care how somebody got his skill. I really care about three things: 1. the speed with he/she learns new skills/knowledge/points. 2. the depth of knowledge he/she is able to acquire. 3. how much he/she has learned in his/her career. 1. This first measure is important, because in a startup the situation can change drastically and you have to have a team that can adapt.…

I think your criteria sound very fair. I would be curious to know how many generalists - which is what you seem to be describing - are able to produce the kind of 1000x returns that PG was describing though. Perhaps your definition of a great programmer is simply more reasonable and accessible?

I believe 1000x is likely a combination of luck and a bunch of pre-conditions. Something like this: 1. you got a 10x-person or a bunch of 2x-5x ppl. 2. your organisation doesn't drag down this constellation; but actually supports it. 3. the right problem arrives and the right tools are close to be at the needed level; but before it's obvious to anybody but a few.

A note regarding the "right" problem. I believe there are a lot of problems that a "10"x won't achieve his/her true potential "10"x speed. I think the "right" problem is more like a problem that matches the skills of the tea very well. The match might not be that obvious.

Post reply on HN