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…
Why is it called the Principle of charity? From what I read, it means assuming the best possible interpretation of the argument. But is that "charity"? I would have called it something different.
I assume it comes from a secondary meaning of the word in English, "leniency in judging others", applied here to others' arguments.
The reason we're thinking it may be appropriate for HN, by the way, isn't moral, but intellectual: uncharitable interpretations of others' arguments is all too easy and makes discussion tedious and uncivil.
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…
Increasing the availability of any kind of labor (whether ordinary programmers, or "great" programmers) always lowers the price, and if it didn't lower the price, there would be no effect. The startups looking for great programmers could find them if they stole them from Google or Facebook for huge salaries. The problem with this debate is neither side has the intellectual courage to state their side properly. The pr…
> Increasing the availability of any kind of labor (whether ordinary programmers, or "great" programmers) always lowers the price, and if it didn't lower the price, there would be no effect.
It turns out that high-wage employees (e.g. software developers) actually benefit from high immigration because of the resulting increase in capital inflows.
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…
The best, strongest interpretation of PG's essay merits far less charity than even exists in this thread. There is barely anything of substance in the whole piece, and the parts that are substantive are just so far out of line with the empirical data we have regarding this issue as to be baffling coming from somebody with the cache of PG. If I were not being "charitable" I'd use words like "peurile," "ignorant," "tra…
I think you are proving dang's point. Instead of challenging assumptions and conclusions, all you've done is call the post "peurile", "irrational", etc.
I didn't particularly like the use of "anti-immigration people," but there is certainly a way to charitably interpret it. You would interpret it as just so - a phrase he's using to refer to people opposing loosened immigration policies, which unintentionally is a poor choice of words. Rather than uncharitably interpreting it as an an intentional attempt at putting down these people.
I have a quick question for those arguing against PG's position: Do you genuinely believe that increasing the number of talented software engineers emigrating to the United States is bad for the United States? Or bad for you ? In the same way that I would argue for public policy that benefits us all (not just me), I think we should have immigration policies that benefit everyone, not just Software Engineers.
It's bad for me, and I would likely try to switch to another profession and get an MBA or something with higher pay. Then do interesting programming on the side
What "wage-fixing" are you talking about? Are you referring to the brief period in which a handful of tech companies colluded to tamp down salaries and cross-recruiting? Because that involved only a tiny percentage of the software developers in the US and had no significant impact on the national average salaries. Or has there been broader wage-fixing that you're aware of?
> Are you referring to the brief period in which a handful of tech companies colluded to tamp down salaries and cross-recruiting? Ignoring for the moment I don't think four years is very "brief" or eight is only a "handful"[1] (and it may actually be even more[2]) It's a bit naive to think this "had no significant impact on the national average salaries" - some of these companies are/were among the largest and most d…
What is naive is to assume without evidence that the actions of a handful of companies that employ a tiny percentage of software developers had a significant impact on average salaries nationwide. In the absence of any such evidence, it makes more sense to assume it had little impact, which is what I do. The example you cite is mere speculation, and one could easily speculate about an opposite effect, i.e., companies that would not ordinarily be able to compete with Google et al could offer candidates more than they otherwise would have, that is, they might be inclined to stretch salary offers for star developers rather than shrink them. But, there's no evidence that either thing happened to any significant extent.
That or they can pay foreign programmers a lot less and drive the average rate down for everyone.
Or pay them the same as American workers and allow that money have an amazing effect on the world. Or we can continue only hiring Americans. Those $100 hoodies aren't going to buy themselves.
So the laws of supply and demand don't apply to labor markets?
Increasing the supply lowers the price. Are you disputing this?
Increasing the availability of any kind of labor (whether ordinary programmers, or "great" programmers) always lowers the price, and if it didn't lower the price, there would be no effect. The startups looking for great programmers could find them if they stole them from Google or Facebook for huge salaries. The problem with this debate is neither side has the intellectual courage to state their side properly. The pr…
> Increasing the availability of any kind of labor (whether ordinary programmers, or "great" programmers) always lowers the price, and if it didn't lower the price, there would be no effect. It turns out that high-wage employees (e.g. software developers) actually benefit from high immigration because of the resulting increase in capital inflows. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497
Sure, my claims are actually consistent with this result. I was describing a partial equilibrium effect while the paper is describing a general equilibrium effect.
Let's put an exemple of what PG is saying: Ellon Musk Ellon Musk is from South Africa, he was not born in America. He has created an enormous amount of wealth in the US. It is as simple as the US won't have self landing space rockets today without this man. Tesla would be bankrupt today, like Fisker. It seems clear to me after reading comments here that Americans feel entitled to the position of world rulers they enj…
I get the same feeling reading the comments in this thread. I can see why your comment would get down-voted. Most ppl in this thread do not want to hear the real fact that they are no different than the rest of the labour force. But because they grew up with an entitled expectation they cannot even imagine that someone out there can even be marginally talented as them.
How does your logic apply to the superrich ownership class?
Are they actually any more talented than the people they rule over?
Why is questioning their wealth taboo, but undermining my modest career prospects virtuous?
every tech worker's salary will drop significantly if the United States allowed more open immigration laws. But think about this - what would have happened if elon musk, vinod khosla,Sundar Pichai See, this is just crazy. Why would you or I or anyone want to make ourselves materially worse off, so some guys we've never met, and who couldn't care less about us, can become richer than the dreams of avarice? Politicians…
The thing you are suggesting leads to a frighting conclusion. Are you saying that you are against people like elon musk from doing what he does ? He wasn't born into wealth and was middle class just like you and me but was just too damn smart. The free market rewarded him for his smartness and we are all better off because of it. Yes he became really rich but the net sum of wealth he provided in return has made every…
Elon musks are the exception. Look at the average rich person.
They have often used protectionism(doctors), manipulation(sales) and other methods to get rich. Lots of people get rich in finance by finding ways to transfer risk onto other people. Is that productive overall?
Not every rich person is someone who adds unbelievable value.
> 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. Increased wages for engineers would encourage more people to become engineers.
In the long run. IIRC labor supply is a lagging indicator, so in the short run (e.g. 1-2 years) it would be a bit closer to a zero-sum game.