3 ms·

Great, keep on doing it until supply matches demand and you will be back at an average salary of 70k.

by theknock23 5y ago

Godel_unicode 5y ago
This is not a zero sum game, no need to pull the ladder up behind you.
- theknock23 5y ago
  You should learn basic economics before submitting such an asinine comment.
  - dang 5y ago
    You can't do this here. We've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- curtisblaine 5y ago
  Why is it not?
  - invalidname 5y ago
    Because the more programmers you have the more software you need to write. As a tool vendor, our market is exploding. This was a market that was "problematic" just 10 years ago. Methodologies and scale are growing which means more developers. Markets are expanding where "everything" is becoming software driven. Generally, give me more programmers and I'll give you more things that need programming. Our world has barely begun automation.
    - curtisblaine 5y ago
      Not necessarily: maybe the faster you go, the sooner AIs will replace developers or low-code tools will get rid of juniors. Or maybe the market will physiologically contract because we though it would expand more than it will in reality. In all these three cases, and probably more that I can't imagine at the moment, the zero sum game would be real and would hit us hard.
      - Godel_unicode 5y ago
        People have been making these exact arguments for almost as long as professional programmer has been a thing you could be. In an effort to overcome our subconscious loss aversion with data, we should back test these hypotheses. If you do that, you will see that every time someone has suggested a specific thing was going to result in fewer programmer jobs they have been quite wrong. Now we need to weigh the very real negative of screwing over other people who would like to also earn a decent income against the total lack of evidence that this will be bad for existing programmers. Do what your conscience tells you, I'm going to try and get other people to program.
        theknock23 5y ago
        curtisblaine 5y ago
        How can I possibly have data regarding an hypothetical scenario? I was just affirming that many people could be skeptical of this "all aboard" imperative considering that bubbles might burst and the first ones to get hurt would probably be those who were convinced to get to code because "there's a lot of money to be made". Who knows, maybe it's even exactly this kind of "gold rush" mentality the mechanism that creates bubbles in the first place. That said, why is it unethical not actively trying to persuade other people to program? There's a considerable spectrum between "hostile gatekeeping" and "evangelism". What about not discouraging nor encouraging anyone? How many doctors do you find "trying to get other people to medical profession"?
        5y ago

Great, keep on doing it until supply matches demand and you will be back at an average salary of 70k.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

This is not a zero sum game, no need to pull the ladder up behind you.

theknock23 5y ago
You should learn basic economics before submitting such an asinine comment.
- dang 5y ago
  You can't do this here. We've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
curtisblaine 5y ago
Why is it not?
- invalidname 5y ago
  Because the more programmers you have the more software you need to write. As a tool vendor, our market is exploding. This was a market that was "problematic" just 10 years ago. Methodologies and scale are growing which means more developers. Markets are expanding where "everything" is becoming software driven. Generally, give me more programmers and I'll give you more things that need programming. Our world has barely begun automation.
  - curtisblaine 5y ago
    Not necessarily: maybe the faster you go, the sooner AIs will replace developers or low-code tools will get rid of juniors. Or maybe the market will physiologically contract because we though it would expand more than it will in reality. In all these three cases, and probably more that I can't imagine at the moment, the zero sum game would be real and would hit us hard.
    - Godel_unicode 5y ago
      People have been making these exact arguments for almost as long as professional programmer has been a thing you could be. In an effort to overcome our subconscious loss aversion with data, we should back test these hypotheses. If you do that, you will see that every time someone has suggested a specific thing was going to result in fewer programmer jobs they have been quite wrong. Now we need to weigh the very real negative of screwing over other people who would like to also earn a decent income against the total lack of evidence that this will be bad for existing programmers. Do what your conscience tells you, I'm going to try and get other people to program.
      - theknock23 5y ago
      - curtisblaine 5y ago
        How can I possibly have data regarding an hypothetical scenario? I was just affirming that many people could be skeptical of this "all aboard" imperative considering that bubbles might burst and the first ones to get hurt would probably be those who were convinced to get to code because "there's a lot of money to be made". Who knows, maybe it's even exactly this kind of "gold rush" mentality the mechanism that creates bubbles in the first place. That said, why is it unethical not actively trying to persuade other people to program? There's a considerable spectrum between "hostile gatekeeping" and "evangelism". What about not discouraging nor encouraging anyone? How many doctors do you find "trying to get other people to medical profession"?
        5y ago