3 ms·

One the one hand, yes. Supply and demand being what they are, we should expect developer salaries to go up. And in some places they have. A lot. Yay, because I

by cwp 8y ago

One the one hand, yes. Supply and demand being what they are, we should expect developer salaries to go up. And in some places they have. A lot. Yay, because I write software and this is good for me. But on the other hand, no. Paying more just ensures that the scarce and valuable resource is allocated to the companies that can make the most profits from it. That's good, as far as it goes, because that loosely corresponds to providing the most value for society. But it doesn't make more engineers. Maybe it will in the long run. Big salaries will cause lots of kids who are in high school now to choose to study computer science in a few years and 20-25 years after that we'll have a lot more experienced software developers than we do today. Great, I hope that happens. In the meantime, there are not enough developers around to write all the software that we need. There is a lot of stuff that just doesn't get done because the software isn't there. Projects cancelled, startups failed, services not performed. Sometimes, you can't hire the developers you need regardless of what you're willing to pay. That's what the article is talking about.

dunpeal 8y ago
> And in some places they have. A lot. Yay, because I write software and this is good for me. In those places, wages often rose to compensate for commensurate rises in cost of living. Where did wages rise the most? SF Bay. How much did they rise? 30-50%. How much did cost of living, especially rent, rise during that time? Roughly the same. Can developers in SF Bay afford to buy a house? No. Yet somehow they are content with these modest raises... > Paying more just ensures that the scarce and valuable resource is allocated to the companies that can make the most profits from it. Even if that's the only advantage, speaking as engineers, that is a huge advantage. It means engineers are paid more. Even if all else remains equal, that's a good outcome for engineers. > But it doesn't make more engineers. This was already covered below. Better pay convinces more and better people to enter the field, encourages existing senior developers (the exact sort that are most needed) to stick around and keep doing meaningful work, and reduces turnover, so years of engineering knowledge and training aren't wasted because the only way to get a decent raise is to job hop. These are just 3 random examples of how better pay will "make more engineers". I still don't get how getting paid more is bad for engineers or the field as a whole. In every other case, rise in demand/supply ratio will increase price. Why shouldn't it happen for engineers? Even if that was the only effect, it would be good. But obviously, there are many more important positive effects to raising pay. In fact, a big reason for the current "shortage" is that pay was kept artificially low for a long time, now you suggest we keep doing that... why?
- cwp 8y ago
  Oh, no. I don't suggest depressing engineering salaries. Companies that want to hire engineers should definitely offer more. Engineers should ask for more and move to companies that will give it to them. Efficient allocation and all that. But I think it's important to recognized that the limitation is not just capital. I think we should absolutely be trying to improve productivity as well. You're right that simply pressuring engineers is useless at best. But that doesn't mean that productivity improvements are impossible.

by cwp 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

> And in some places they have. A lot. Yay, because I write software and this is good for me. In those places, wages often rose to compensate for commensurate rises in cost of living. Where did wages rise the most? SF Bay. How much did they rise? 30-50%. How much did cost of living, especially rent, rise during that time? Roughly the same. Can developers in SF Bay afford to buy a house? No. Yet somehow they are content with these modest raises... > Paying more just ensures that the scarce and valuable resource is allocated to the companies that can make the most profits from it. Even if that's the only advantage, speaking as engineers, that is a huge advantage. It means engineers are paid more. Even if all else remains equal, that's a good outcome for engineers. > But it doesn't make more engineers. This was already covered below. Better pay convinces more and better people to enter the field, encourages existing senior developers (the exact sort that are most needed) to stick around and keep doing meaningful work, and reduces turnover, so years of engineering knowledge and training aren't wasted because the only way to get a decent raise is to job hop. These are just 3 random examples of how better pay will "make more engineers". I still don't get how getting paid more is bad for engineers or the field as a whole. In every other case, rise in demand/supply ratio will increase price. Why shouldn't it happen for engineers? Even if that was the only effect, it would be good. But obviously, there are many more important positive effects to raising pay. In fact, a big reason for the current "shortage" is that pay was kept artificially low for a long time, now you suggest we keep doing that... why?

cwp 8y ago
Oh, no. I don't suggest depressing engineering salaries. Companies that want to hire engineers should definitely offer more. Engineers should ask for more and move to companies that will give it to them. Efficient allocation and all that. But I think it's important to recognized that the limitation is not just capital. I think we should absolutely be trying to improve productivity as well. You're right that simply pressuring engineers is useless at best. But that doesn't mean that productivity improvements are impossible.