4 ms·

It really depends on the perspective. If we're considering this a zero-sum situation, we have to conclude that your situation is good for developers in general

It really depends on the perspective. If we're considering this a zero-sum situation, we have to conclude that your situation is good for developers in general because it will cause all developer/engineer salaries to rise to meet the (possibly inflated) salaries that the market has deemed required to recruit talent. On the other hand, does it mean that some employers won't have money to hire talent? And will that result in some businesses failing? And is that ultimately bad for developers? I don't know, but it feels like it's such a big system that it will balance itself if that is the case.

thomascgalvin 6y ago
Short term, yes. Having a company with deep pockets driving up salaries is great for the people working for those salaries. I've definitely benefited from having a bunch of tech companies a short walk down the road. Long term, however, there's a risk of a monopoly forming, which isn't good for developers or society. FAANG are willing to pay big salaries because they are competing. If they use their power to destroy the competition, that market force goes away.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Long term, however, there's a risk of a monopoly forming, which isn't good for developers or society. FAANG are willing to pay big salaries because they are competing. If they use their power to destroy the competition, that market force goes away. Big companies have been overpaying developers for almost a decade now. It is not going away. It is not some short term thing. Instead, that is what these elite tech companies pay. It is not some singular company, that is buying up all of the tech talent. Instead, it is a whole bunch of elite tech companies, paying lots of developers lots of money. The idea that there is one singular company, that is a monopoly on developer talent, that is false, given that there are a whole bunch of them doing it.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Yes. To oversimplify the model, there are n<10(?) companies that have first dibs on developers who can pass their interview process and want the best comp (and/or want to work at one of those companies for other reasons). But there is competition among those companies even if "everyone" else pretty much doesn't even try to compete with them based on comp. (Which makes talking market price a bit odd in this case. I imagine an economist has some term for it. I guess there's a market price for developers who can get a FAANG offer and then there's a market price for everyone else.)
doytch 6y ago
It may not be bad for developers, but it would be bad for customers of the companies in the long run. The companies will need to raise prices to cover the increasing costs of their developers. If the companies sell ads, ads get more expensive. Then the items those ads promote get more expensive, working its way down to the rest of the population again. Those developers will also see the increasing prices, but the extra cash will hopefully keep them happy for a while.
loxs 6y ago
Some employers/enterpreneurs going bankrupt is the definition of capitalism. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't work for the betterment of everyone (as people wouldn't strive to create healthy businesses). This is increasingly becoming skewed though (with government subsidies). On the other hand, capitalism has this great thing where going bust is not the end of the world (or life), compared to previous eons. A system which allows (and encourages) failing is great.

thomascgalvin 6y ago

Short term, yes. Having a company with deep pockets driving up salaries is great for the people working for those salaries. I've definitely benefited from having a bunch of tech companies a short walk down the road. Long term, however, there's a risk of a monopoly forming, which isn't good for developers or society. FAANG are willing to pay big salaries because they are competing. If they use their power to destroy the competition, that market force goes away.

stale2002 6y ago
> Long term, however, there's a risk of a monopoly forming, which isn't good for developers or society. FAANG are willing to pay big salaries because they are competing. If they use their power to destroy the competition, that market force goes away. Big companies have been overpaying developers for almost a decade now. It is not going away. It is not some short term thing. Instead, that is what these elite tech companies pay. It is not some singular company, that is buying up all of the tech talent. Instead, it is a whole bunch of elite tech companies, paying lots of developers lots of money. The idea that there is one singular company, that is a monopoly on developer talent, that is false, given that there are a whole bunch of them doing it.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Yes. To oversimplify the model, there are n<10(?) companies that have first dibs on developers who can pass their interview process and want the best comp (and/or want to work at one of those companies for other reasons). But there is competition among those companies even if "everyone" else pretty much doesn't even try to compete with them based on comp. (Which makes talking market price a bit odd in this case. I imagine an economist has some term for it. I guess there's a market price for developers who can get a FAANG offer and then there's a market price for everyone else.)

doytch 6y ago

It may not be bad for developers, but it would be bad for customers of the companies in the long run. The companies will need to raise prices to cover the increasing costs of their developers. If the companies sell ads, ads get more expensive. Then the items those ads promote get more expensive, working its way down to the rest of the population again. Those developers will also see the increasing prices, but the extra cash will hopefully keep them happy for a while.

loxs 6y ago

Some employers/enterpreneurs going bankrupt is the definition of capitalism. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't work for the betterment of everyone (as people wouldn't strive to create healthy businesses). This is increasingly becoming skewed though (with government subsidies). On the other hand, capitalism has this great thing where going bust is not the end of the world (or life), compared to previous eons. A system which allows (and encourages) failing is great.