3 ms·

Ugggghhhhh, there is absolutely no data to back up the proposition that throwing more money at the problem is a magical fix. This is a guess based on vapor out

Ugggghhhhh, there is absolutely no data to back up the proposition that throwing more money at the problem is a magical fix. This is a guess based on vapor out of convenience and desire. As a software developer in the Dallas metro I make over 6 figures, twice the average income. The work isn't that hard and the perks are amazing. At EVERY software development job I have ever held I have worked with a huge number of immigrants. If the pay is so damn good (already) and the benefits are so damn fantastic why aren't more Americans writing software? Why aren't so many of those people who are writing software so incompetent? I get asked all the damn time by young people in my side job how they can become software developers so they too can make the big bucks. Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice. None of them follow through. None. Some of these guys make far less than the national average and they still aren't motivated. So let's propose a hypothetical. Let's say entry level were $150,000 and senior were $500,000. A ridiculous increase. Would more people be interested in programming: absolutely. Would there would be a substantial increase in senior developers? I suspect there would be a minor increase, because it takes effort. Competence isn't a gift and gifting additional income won't work. Now, I could be wrong, but as it stands all the objective evidence is on my side on this.

abakker 8y ago
There are other jobs that are not software development. I don't think a fed chairman has "no data". Many companies are not trying to hire software developers at $150k. They're trying to hire truck drivers, warehouse workers, and accountants. At the minimum possible market wage. What he is saying is that if you raise your wage off "bare minimum possible" you may actually fill some open jobs. I agree, talent isn't infinite, but, workforce participation rates are low and part of that is that for a given job there are those qualified to do it that won't do it for the prices on offer. There are also those who would be highly qualified and would switch into different jobs if the salaries were competitive.
tboyd47 8y ago
> I get asked all the damn time by young people in my side job how they can become software developers so they too can make the big bucks. Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice. None of them follow through. None. Some of these guys make far less than the national average and they still aren't motivated. That's a good point, and I know exactly the kind of people you mean, but that's not because those people lack the drive to struggle for more money. It's because they really have no interest in programming whatsoever but become convinced that they can overcome that lack of interest long enough to learn how to do it. But they all underestimate how freaking boring programming can be and how it really takes a certain personality type to do it. Honestly, I think if programmers all got $500,000 a year and our own private jets, it wouldn't increase the pool of competent programmers by all that much. This is a phenomenon that's pretty unique to programming, so I don't think that's what Kashkari was talking about. I feel like he's talking more about people who want a better job in their same field but perhaps all the better jobs are a little bit too far away from them, or maybe the better jobs contain more responsibility than they can handle at their pay rate, etc. So if you just bump the salary up a little bit, you expand your circle of applicants just enough to include a few more qualified people.
runako 8y ago
While I agree that massively raising salaries wouldn't necessarily cause a corresponding increase in the overall labor pool of programmers, it likely would increase a number employers care more about. Specifically, such a move would likely deepen the pool of programmers who want a W-2 job with a company that is the ultimate target of their work (as opposed to services firms). I would guess a lot of contractors would sign up for steady work at salaries in the range you mentioned. This applies across the experience spectrum, but more especially to more experienced people, who are less valued by current employment structures. A lot of contractors basically act like employees now, and are only contractors for exogenous labor market reasons. For example, independent contractors can easily make more than the prevailing total W-2 comp for their level of experience. Closer to entry level, large system integrators (think: Accenture, IBM, etc.) pay marginally more with better benefits than most entry level jobs at F500 companies, where programmers usually do not make $150k to start. A $150k entry level salary would draw this talent directly into the F500 and away from the middlemen. (This is all to the extent that there are even entry level programming jobs at those firms anymore, since so many have been shifted to consulting firms). Overall, it could end up being cheaper in both short and long terms for many of those roles to be filled by W-2 employees than by system integrators. I'd bet good money that these salary levels would make it relatively easy to hire formerly independent consultants and/or out of the big system integrators. There is also a decent number of mid-career software people who have switched into other fields (law, project management) for potential financial upside. Programming can be a demanding field, and by mid-career for many people the compensation doesn't balance against the relatively low social status, being on call, etc. Many of these people might prefer to be programmers at a F500 making $400k with benefits, but in the main that job doesn't exist. And that's before we look at people running small businesses that are semi-successful. The bar for continuing to run those goes up substantially if the alternative is make $40k/month at a +/-40 hour/week job. To answer your question: yes, a senior development comp of $500k would increase the number of senior development employees.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  I believe you are very correct, mostly because of the fact that the moment somebody becomes a VERY valuable senior programmer, they are very close to -- or already are -- burned out. As you pointed out, when you go the middle of your career, you expect recognition and appreciation -- and appropriate payment. And truth is, most senior programmer roles I've interviewed for use the title as a masked coded language for "we need a battle-hardened veteran to fix our mess for sub-market compensation". As simple as that... and of course they will never admit it -- who would? This is made even worse by the fact that most would throw away the senior programmer the moment they feel their code and business are in a better shape, because at this moment the person usually finally comes to their senses and starts demanding a fair wage. I might be a hopeless cynic but from my interactions with business people I have the impression that they fear and sometimes even despise programmers and they do their very best to keep them under control by any means, including emotional manipulation, guilt-tripping and conditioning that they deserve the lower pay. But leaving my cynicism aside, you are very correct. Most exit the programming career because we're basically used up and tossed away -- and you get tired by it eventually. Programmers are often kept far away from where the money are made and eventually some of them grow smarter and start going exactly there. Which is very often at odds with continuing to be a wage worker. It's a natural evolution. And it's very ironic how the most brilliant of programmers are not for hire.
justin66 8y ago
> Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice. None of them follow through. None. If that's the actual advice you're giving, I wouldn't expect anyone to follow through.
- gspetr 8y ago
  The incentives are already in place and it's never been easier to learn on your own than it is now. I've read elsewhere that even if people want something and have someone in reach that has it, 2% will ask for advice and 2% of those asking will follow through with it. I've also seen 10% and 10% of that, i.e. 1% total. Whatever actual number may be, it's very small.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Then what would you suggest?
  - justin66 8y ago
    If I wanted someone to actually heed what I was saying, I'd suggest a textbook or a set of online lessons to work through and offer to answer questions about the subject matter or the profession. "Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice" would be equally useless advice for learning musicianship, writing, or anything else involving a keyboard. With computers it's especially strange since there are so many resources today for people starting out. In fairness, it's a free country, and these people could have found someone to recommend a textbook or some classes easily enough.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      I have done this as well. Spent my time gathering a large number of resource and good starting points for beginners only to have the audience run away in utter intimidation (i think). Now I just lay it out for people. Programming is like playing the piano. You are as good as your practice allows and its clearly evident in your quality of product.

abakker 8y ago

There are other jobs that are not software development. I don't think a fed chairman has "no data". Many companies are not trying to hire software developers at $150k. They're trying to hire truck drivers, warehouse workers, and accountants. At the minimum possible market wage. What he is saying is that if you raise your wage off "bare minimum possible" you may actually fill some open jobs. I agree, talent isn't infinite, but, workforce participation rates are low and part of that is that for a given job there are those qualified to do it that won't do it for the prices on offer. There are also those who would be highly qualified and would switch into different jobs if the salaries were competitive.

tboyd47 8y ago

> I get asked all the damn time by young people in my side job how they can become software developers so they too can make the big bucks. Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice. None of them follow through. None. Some of these guys make far less than the national average and they still aren't motivated. That's a good point, and I know exactly the kind of people you mean, but that's not because those people lack the drive to struggle for more money. It's because they really have no interest in programming whatsoever but become convinced that they can overcome that lack of interest long enough to learn how to do it. But they all underestimate how freaking boring programming can be and how it really takes a certain personality type to do it. Honestly, I think if programmers all got $500,000 a year and our own private jets, it wouldn't increase the pool of competent programmers by all that much. This is a phenomenon that's pretty unique to programming, so I don't think that's what Kashkari was talking about. I feel like he's talking more about people who want a better job in their same field but perhaps all the better jobs are a little bit too far away from them, or maybe the better jobs contain more responsibility than they can handle at their pay rate, etc. So if you just bump the salary up a little bit, you expand your circle of applicants just enough to include a few more qualified people.

runako 8y ago

While I agree that massively raising salaries wouldn't necessarily cause a corresponding increase in the overall labor pool of programmers, it likely would increase a number employers care more about. Specifically, such a move would likely deepen the pool of programmers who want a W-2 job with a company that is the ultimate target of their work (as opposed to services firms). I would guess a lot of contractors would sign up for steady work at salaries in the range you mentioned. This applies across the experience spectrum, but more especially to more experienced people, who are less valued by current employment structures. A lot of contractors basically act like employees now, and are only contractors for exogenous labor market reasons. For example, independent contractors can easily make more than the prevailing total W-2 comp for their level of experience. Closer to entry level, large system integrators (think: Accenture, IBM, etc.) pay marginally more with better benefits than most entry level jobs at F500 companies, where programmers usually do not make $150k to start. A $150k entry level salary would draw this talent directly into the F500 and away from the middlemen. (This is all to the extent that there are even entry level programming jobs at those firms anymore, since so many have been shifted to consulting firms). Overall, it could end up being cheaper in both short and long terms for many of those roles to be filled by W-2 employees than by system integrators. I'd bet good money that these salary levels would make it relatively easy to hire formerly independent consultants and/or out of the big system integrators. There is also a decent number of mid-career software people who have switched into other fields (law, project management) for potential financial upside. Programming can be a demanding field, and by mid-career for many people the compensation doesn't balance against the relatively low social status, being on call, etc. Many of these people might prefer to be programmers at a F500 making $400k with benefits, but in the main that job doesn't exist. And that's before we look at people running small businesses that are semi-successful. The bar for continuing to run those goes up substantially if the alternative is make $40k/month at a +/-40 hour/week job. To answer your question: yes, a senior development comp of $500k would increase the number of senior development employees.

pdimitar 8y ago
I believe you are very correct, mostly because of the fact that the moment somebody becomes a VERY valuable senior programmer, they are very close to -- or already are -- burned out. As you pointed out, when you go the middle of your career, you expect recognition and appreciation -- and appropriate payment. And truth is, most senior programmer roles I've interviewed for use the title as a masked coded language for "we need a battle-hardened veteran to fix our mess for sub-market compensation". As simple as that... and of course they will never admit it -- who would? This is made even worse by the fact that most would throw away the senior programmer the moment they feel their code and business are in a better shape, because at this moment the person usually finally comes to their senses and starts demanding a fair wage. I might be a hopeless cynic but from my interactions with business people I have the impression that they fear and sometimes even despise programmers and they do their very best to keep them under control by any means, including emotional manipulation, guilt-tripping and conditioning that they deserve the lower pay. But leaving my cynicism aside, you are very correct. Most exit the programming career because we're basically used up and tossed away -- and you get tired by it eventually. Programmers are often kept far away from where the money are made and eventually some of them grow smarter and start going exactly there. Which is very often at odds with continuing to be a wage worker. It's a natural evolution. And it's very ironic how the most brilliant of programmers are not for hire.

justin66 8y ago

> Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice. None of them follow through. None. If that's the actual advice you're giving, I wouldn't expect anyone to follow through.

gspetr 8y ago
The incentives are already in place and it's never been easier to learn on your own than it is now. I've read elsewhere that even if people want something and have someone in reach that has it, 2% will ask for advice and 2% of those asking will follow through with it. I've also seen 10% and 10% of that, i.e. 1% total. Whatever actual number may be, it's very small.
austincheney 8y ago
Then what would you suggest?
- justin66 8y ago
  If I wanted someone to actually heed what I was saying, I'd suggest a textbook or a set of online lessons to work through and offer to answer questions about the subject matter or the profession. "Simple, put fingers on keyboard, struggle, and figure it out through practice" would be equally useless advice for learning musicianship, writing, or anything else involving a keyboard. With computers it's especially strange since there are so many resources today for people starting out. In fairness, it's a free country, and these people could have found someone to recommend a textbook or some classes easily enough.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    I have done this as well. Spent my time gathering a large number of resource and good starting points for beginners only to have the audience run away in utter intimidation (i think). Now I just lay it out for people. Programming is like playing the piano. You are as good as your practice allows and its clearly evident in your quality of product.