4 ms·

The idea that good programmers are as easily trainable as good welders is ridiculous. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a shortage. My company actually d

The idea that good programmers are as easily trainable as good welders is ridiculous. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a shortage. My company actually does try to train people. We hire people who come out of coding camps like General Assembly -- and we actually pay these camps when we hire them. Students attend these camps for free. After that, we pair program with them, and painstakingly explain various concepts to them. We hold them by the hand, and literally teach them. I found it amazing that my company had to do this, and shocking that they literally could not find good developers. My company is just looking for developers that can get shit done. We are not looking for rock stars, or master algorithm puzzle solvers. Just people who can build decent, functioning non-broken software. FYI, I graduated very recently with a B.S. in Computer Science, and my total comp (incl. bonuses) is slightly over $150,000. And, at my company, the typical workday is from 10 am to 6 pm. I am not over-worked, or under-paid. It is clear that you've neither been in a position of hiring developers, nor have an idea of what good programming skill is.

nmrm2 11y ago
It is clear that you've never been through an entire market cycle.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  The need for software doesn't vanish during the low point of a cycle. The dot com bubble primarily wiped out companies with vacuous valuations. Companies that generate useful value will continue to do live. The best developers keep their jobs through the market cycles.
dalke 11y ago
That explains why you have so little knowledge of labor history that you don't know what a "scab", is nor know of the strikes by people in a STEM field. You have neither the training nor the experience. What you might take from that is that, while you are neither "over-worked, or under-paid", you are under-educated about history, and more specifically labor history. Your last line continues your tiring practice of name calling. Please stop.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  How is labor history relevant here? I'm talking about the developer shortage I've witnessed and dealt with myself first-hand, and heard about from many people. You haven't said a word about the shortage, instead you resort to ad hominem attacks criticizing me of not being "educated in history". Paul Graham, Sam Altman, and many other respected figures in industry have said many of the same things I have. You also clearly hold a deep belief in the lump of labor fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy This just goes to shows that your "no shortage" argument is a pure fiction that you obstinately refuse to let go, even when confronted with reality.
  - dalke 11y ago
    "How is labor history relevant here?" It isn't relevant here per se. It's a merger with a cousin thread where you did not know what "scab" meant and didn't know about any STEM-related strikes, when I had heard of some, and was quickly able to find several such examples. "haven't said a word about the shortage" Do try to read what I wrote rather than what you think I didn't write. In the g'g'parent comment to this one I said that STEM is a meaningless term, and that "the shortage is only in from a much smaller subset of primarily programming related skills." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11311160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11311160 . I explicitly acknowledge that developer shortage is meaningful, even though I reject that STEM shortage is meaningful. "ad hominem attacks" Says the person who claims that I do not "have an idea of what good programming skill is". Says the person who claims that ones_and_zeros is advocating a "very nativist, xenophobic, extremely right-wing and anti-progressive" view. The Wikipedia entry for 'ad hominem' points out "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact." Let's go back to your statement "I've never heard of strikes occurring in STEM fields." If you had deep knowledge on the topic then that would be meaningful. If you had shallow knowledge then it carries little weight. In that thread I pointed out your apparent lack of knowledge. Now I pointed out the reason for it. This means I know to attach less weight to future statements you make. My attempt to assess your credibility is one of the non-fallacious uses of ad hominem reasoning. "lump of labor fallacy" Interesting. I'm saying that STEM is a meaningless term because it lumps people together too much. Where is the increased financial and political support for evolutionary linguistics, urban anthropology, and palynology, which are all part of the "S" in STEM? Since by my reading, most people at the policy level equate "STEM" fields with the subset of science, technology, engineering and math that helps solve more business-oriented problems. How you turn that into a belief that I believe in a fixed lump of labor is beyond me.

nmrm2 11y ago

It is clear that you've never been through an entire market cycle.

winter_blue 11y ago
The need for software doesn't vanish during the low point of a cycle. The dot com bubble primarily wiped out companies with vacuous valuations. Companies that generate useful value will continue to do live. The best developers keep their jobs through the market cycles.

dalke 11y ago

That explains why you have so little knowledge of labor history that you don't know what a "scab", is nor know of the strikes by people in a STEM field. You have neither the training nor the experience. What you might take from that is that, while you are neither "over-worked, or under-paid", you are under-educated about history, and more specifically labor history. Your last line continues your tiring practice of name calling. Please stop.

winter_blue 11y ago
How is labor history relevant here? I'm talking about the developer shortage I've witnessed and dealt with myself first-hand, and heard about from many people. You haven't said a word about the shortage, instead you resort to ad hominem attacks criticizing me of not being "educated in history". Paul Graham, Sam Altman, and many other respected figures in industry have said many of the same things I have. You also clearly hold a deep belief in the lump of labor fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy This just goes to shows that your "no shortage" argument is a pure fiction that you obstinately refuse to let go, even when confronted with reality.
- dalke 11y ago
  "How is labor history relevant here?" It isn't relevant here per se. It's a merger with a cousin thread where you did not know what "scab" meant and didn't know about any STEM-related strikes, when I had heard of some, and was quickly able to find several such examples. "haven't said a word about the shortage" Do try to read what I wrote rather than what you think I didn't write. In the g'g'parent comment to this one I said that STEM is a meaningless term, and that "the shortage is only in from a much smaller subset of primarily programming related skills." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11311160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11311160 . I explicitly acknowledge that developer shortage is meaningful, even though I reject that STEM shortage is meaningful. "ad hominem attacks" Says the person who claims that I do not "have an idea of what good programming skill is". Says the person who claims that ones_and_zeros is advocating a "very nativist, xenophobic, extremely right-wing and anti-progressive" view. The Wikipedia entry for 'ad hominem' points out "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact." Let's go back to your statement "I've never heard of strikes occurring in STEM fields." If you had deep knowledge on the topic then that would be meaningful. If you had shallow knowledge then it carries little weight. In that thread I pointed out your apparent lack of knowledge. Now I pointed out the reason for it. This means I know to attach less weight to future statements you make. My attempt to assess your credibility is one of the non-fallacious uses of ad hominem reasoning. "lump of labor fallacy" Interesting. I'm saying that STEM is a meaningless term because it lumps people together too much. Where is the increased financial and political support for evolutionary linguistics, urban anthropology, and palynology, which are all part of the "S" in STEM? Since by my reading, most people at the policy level equate "STEM" fields with the subset of science, technology, engineering and math that helps solve more business-oriented problems. How you turn that into a belief that I believe in a fixed lump of labor is beyond me.