Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
paulgraham.com
Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
1–10 of 655 posts
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#2That or they can pay foreign programmers a lot less and drive the average rate down for everyone.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#3We shouldn't restrict expansions to digital talent.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#4I am surprised by this. It would be so much more efficient to concentrate on building technology that makes working with people around the world as seamless as working with them in the same office.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#5There exists no practical, reliable method to identify the "great" programmers from the rest (other than by employing them or working with them over a significant amount of time). Many of them interview poorly. If you could actually identify these people, you'd have a billion dollar idea.
So that implies that in order to grant entry to the "great" programmers, the door needs to be wide open to everyone. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it doesn't appear to be addressed by PG.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#6"American technology companies want the government to make immigration easier because they say they can't find enough programmers in the US."
Clarification: can't find enough American programmers willing to work for low foreign wages.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#7> The only explanation is that they're telling the truth: there are just not enough great programmers to go around.
Hardly the only explanation.
First, the "career fakers" are unlikely to be seeking international relocation, which means that imperfect interviewing/hiring systems don't exhibit their latent flaws as much.
Second, "post-purchase rationalization" becomes a factor: "I went through this effort in the past, it must have been worth bit."
Third, how much more time is spent vetting a single international hire, versus the same attention to a local candidate? If the outcome is better, how much of that is due to a deeper engagement by the company?
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#8I am surprised by this. It would be so much more efficient to concentrate on building technology that makes working with people around the world as seamless as working with them in the same office.
All the technology in the world won't prevent the person on the other side of the world from being asleep when I need to talk to them.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#9I am surprised by this. It would be so much more efficient to concentrate on building technology that makes working with people around the world as seamless as working with them in the same office.
It would, if it would work. 90% of the technology is already there, in the form of email, videoconferencing, shared docs, DVCS, etc. The problem is that the remaining 10% will probably mean the difference between the success or failure of your organization, and so until somebody can make brilliant chance creative ideas happen between people on different continents as easily as they happen over dinner, people will still have to colocate.
Re: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In
#10>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.
This assumption is repeated throughout the essay, but I'm not particularly convinced it's true. Why would the qualities be evenly distributed between first world countries such as the US where programming is respected and well paid vs failed states like Nigeria or the war-torn Congo?