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

641–650 of 655 posts

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#641

Post by DonnyV »

nhjk wrote: post #427
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…

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…

You are 110% spot on. I really don't like PG using his status to push these pie in the sky numbers to back up his buddies in the valley. We all know that the biggest cost tech companies have are there developers and they would love to put the squeeze on them.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#642

Post by [deleted] »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #640
yellow_and_gray wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once all great programmers get a job they like they don't switch, even if you have the money to pay them more. They like what they are working on. If a great programmer is working on the next Google, and you pay them more to work on something boring, they won't switch. The limit is the total number of great programmers.

Yes, there's a limit. And we're nowhere near it. And we won't be until the rewards for being a great programmer exceed the rewards for other options. If it's as crucial as is claimed, increase the rewards. Really simple.

[deleted]

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#643

Post by yellow_and_gray »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #640
yellow_and_gray wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once all great programmers get a job they like they don't switch, even if you have the money to pay them more. They like what they are working on. If a great programmer is working on the next Google, and you pay them more to work on something boring, they won't switch. The limit is the total number of great programmers.

Yes, there's a limit. And we're nowhere near it. And we won't be until the rewards for being a great programmer exceed the rewards for other options. If it's as crucial as is claimed, increase the rewards. Really simple.

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies.

Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and possibly a first mover or other advantages) by not rewarding programmers?

It's not an unreasonable point to make, by the way, which is also an undervalued opportunity. Markets correct themselves. Maybe the only way to be rewarded for the value you generate as a great programmer in the future will require starting a company. I don't know enough to say.

- A related issue: you can't make someone be a great programmer just by rewarding them. Great programers tend to be intrinsically motivated. Which could be an additional opposing force that keeps them from starting companies.

- Another: pg claimed data that say there aren't enough great programmers; you claim there are: can you talk more about your data?

I'm trying to understand the problem better.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#644

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

vehementi wrote: post #610
don_draper wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the idea of pg lobbying to flood the market with cheap programming labor is not only demonstrably wrong" He wants the top programmers in the world to be able to come to the USA. But my suspicion is he has very little concern for your above average, but not great, USA born programmer whose wages are threatened by corporations that exploit and abuse the H1B Visa program.

Who cares if overpaid (compared to other professions) programmers wages are threatened? Are you entitled to make six figures? No, you make six figures because market forces coincidentally put that price on the skill you were lucky enough to land in. Why are you not in the same breath talking about already-depressed McDonalds workers wages? Are you just a better person entitled to a better wage?

By 'market forces' you mean 'employers colluding illegally to keep wages low', perhaps?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-a...

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#645

Post by vehementi »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #644
vehementi wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if overpaid (compared to other professions) programmers wages are threatened? Are you entitled to make six figures? No, you make six figures because market forces coincidentally put that price on the skill you were lucky enough to land in. Why are you not in the same breath talking about already-depressed McDonalds workers wages? Are you just a better person entitled to a better wage?

By 'market forces' you mean 'employers colluding illegally to keep wages low', perhaps? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-a...

No, I meant market forces. Yes, illegal things happen sometimes and perpetrators should be punished and made to make reparations.

Or are you insinuating that all changes in salary are due to illegal collusion? Boy have I got news for you!

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#646

Post by waterlesscloud »

yellow_and_gray wrote: post #643
waterlesscloud wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's a limit. And we're nowhere near it. And we won't be until the rewards for being a great programmer exceed the rewards for other options. If it's as crucial as is claimed, increase the rewards. Really simple.

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies. Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and pos…

pg provided no data, he provided a sketchy anecdote and made an unsupported claim.

The idea of offering more rewards is that people who otherwise go into other fields (which are more rewarding, socially and financially), would then be attracted programming. A percentage of those people will be great programmers.

Grouping great programmers together gives them a tiny, tiny, tiny chance at large rewards. It's a gigantic risk. People aren't stupid. Most go to paths with less risk. The market has corrected itself. It attracts people in a manner appropriate to its risk/reward equation.

The way to reduce that risk is to provide more guaranteed rewards. Which means more compensation. Which means transferring more of that unused capital sitting around in VC accounts to the great programmers. Which means the limiting factor is the capital put into the system.

Absent some big payday from a startup, which is a roll of the dice not in their favor, programmer compensation is low relative to other, much less risky career paths. If the field truly wants to attract the best and brightest, it's got to offer a lot more rewards.

How much of a reward are "great programmers" 71-100 that company needed in pg's example going to get, anyway? How huge a success does the company have to be for someone that far down the line to come out way ahead? You have to offer those taking such a position a lot of up front compensation, or you won't get them.

As far as "great programmers" being intrinsically motivated, that's only true of people who are currently in the field, as the extrinsic motivation isn't really there, is it? So how do we know extrinsic doesn't work? We're not trying it.

It's ludicrous to think we have all the great programmers we could have. There are any number of people who are capable. Any number of highly intelligent, incredibly driven people who could fit the bill. They just go into other fields with better odds of superior rewards.

Want more great programmers, offer better rewards. They will come.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#647

Post by [deleted] »

yellow_and_gray wrote: post #643
waterlesscloud wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's a limit. And we're nowhere near it. And we won't be until the rewards for being a great programmer exceed the rewards for other options. If it's as crucial as is claimed, increase the rewards. Really simple.

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies. Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and pos…

[deleted]

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#649

Post by yellow_and_gray »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #646
yellow_and_gray wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies. Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and pos…

pg provided no data, he provided a sketchy anecdote and made an unsupported claim. The idea of offering more rewards is that people who otherwise go into other fields (which are more rewarding, socially and financially), would then be attracted programming. A percentage of those people will be great programmers. Grouping great programmers together gives them a tiny, tiny, tiny chance at large rewards. It's a gigantic…

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I also see holes in some arguments.

1) I agree there's gigantic risk.

If I understood you correctly, you are saying great programmers should have less of the downside of risk with more of its upside.

2) Are you saying great programmers apply to this hot startup in pg's example, pass the interviews, and then refuse the job offer because the compensation offered is too low? If that's what going on, then pg provided something worse than a sketchy anecdote: he lied. He omitted the startup is low-balling candidates it wants to hire. Is this what you are saying?

Or are you saying there are people with the potential of being great programmers who went into other fields because the average compensation of competent (but not great) programmers is low (which may very well be true), and this is the main reason we don't find them?

Also a small correction in "There are any number of people who are capable." It's great programmers we are looking for, not merely capable.

Another in "highly intelligent, incredibly driven people". It's not enough to be highly intelligent and incredibly driven to become a great programmer. You may have aptitude for, but not interest in programming.

3) Is it possible for a great programmer to go into another field? Because if it isn't, maybe the opposite is also true. That you can't take someone from another field and turn them into a great programmer. It's probably as hard for a great programmer to become a great sales person as it is for a great sales person to become a great programmer for example.

4) On the effectiveness of extrinsic motivation of great programmers, we already know extrinsic motivation doesn't work in general. It shouldn't be hard to find research on this. A quick search points to the following. Please correct me if this impression of mine isn't true. I want to find the truth:

http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~hugur/study_hard/Intrinsic%20and%20...

You are suggesting extrinsic motivation of great programmers specifically is an exception.

Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

#650

Post by waterlesscloud »

yellow_and_gray wrote: post #649
waterlesscloud wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pg provided no data, he provided a sketchy anecdote and made an unsupported claim. The idea of offering more rewards is that people who otherwise go into other fields (which are more rewarding, socially and financially), would then be attracted programming. A percentage of those people will be great programmers. Grouping great programmers together gives them a tiny, tiny, tiny chance at large rewards. It's a gigantic…

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I also see holes in some arguments. 1) I agree there's gigantic risk. If I understood you correctly, you are saying great programmers should have less of the downside of risk with more of its upside. 2) Are you saying great programmers apply to this hot startup in pg's example, pass the interviews, and then refuse the job offer because the compensation offered is too low?…

I'm going to simplify this down.

1. I believe the type of person who is capable of being a great programmer has a very large number of career options open to them, most of which don't involve becoming a great programmer.

2. Thus, I believe there is a set of people who could be great programmers who are not actually are great programmers. I believe this set to be fairly large compared to the existing set of great programmers.

3. I believe that a good sized percentage of that set of people could be motivated to become great programmers if the rewards were increased substantially. I believe they have chosen other paths which they believe will be more rewarding. If you want to change the number of great programmers, you need to change that calculation.

My position is fairly straight forward. You can agree or disagree as you wish.

Post reply on HN