5 ms·

I agree. On a related topic, I think it's important that we have some low cost software developer labor to make sure that we have the ability to develop things

I agree. On a related topic, I think it's important that we have some low cost software developer labor to make sure that we have the ability to develop things cheaply and compete with other countries. I propose that we start by reducing your salary by 40% so that we've got some lower cost labor. It's miniscule on the world scale, so you shouldn't complain I suppose? I don't get the doom and gloom.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Is not that the thing? Working in software I am already competing with the world. My job could get out-sourced tomorrow, but apparently that does not happen. See the difference? Value vs. cost. Very different.
mattnewton 5y ago
Honestly and unironically yes, this sounds great. I don't want to build a career on protectionism. I would start a company tomorrow if quality software development labor was 40% cheaper, it would make so many use cases economical.
- worik 5y ago
  > it would make so many use cases economical. If exploiting desperate people is the measure an economical use case, no wonder business has a bad reputation
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    I am confused, how would a 40% reduction of current software salaries in the US for top talent due to competition mean exploiting people? Are you against training more doctors too because they would make less money and therefore be more exploited? What about the people who buy their services? Or do I misunderstand? There certainly are exploitive labor practices but I don't think being for decreasing the costs of a profession due to free competition has to be equated to being for exploiting people of that profession. I think that many industries and use cases could benefit from software automation, but it is expensive to hire those people. If they are good there is endless demand for their skills in ad tech alone, where they can afford to pay them a salary and benefits valued over 20-30% of the gross profit that entire company brings in a year.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Gwypaas 5y ago

Is not that the thing? Working in software I am already competing with the world. My job could get out-sourced tomorrow, but apparently that does not happen. See the difference? Value vs. cost. Very different.

mattnewton 5y ago

Honestly and unironically yes, this sounds great. I don't want to build a career on protectionism. I would start a company tomorrow if quality software development labor was 40% cheaper, it would make so many use cases economical.

worik 5y ago
> it would make so many use cases economical. If exploiting desperate people is the measure an economical use case, no wonder business has a bad reputation
- mattnewton 5y ago
  I am confused, how would a 40% reduction of current software salaries in the US for top talent due to competition mean exploiting people? Are you against training more doctors too because they would make less money and therefore be more exploited? What about the people who buy their services? Or do I misunderstand? There certainly are exploitive labor practices but I don't think being for decreasing the costs of a profession due to free competition has to be equated to being for exploiting people of that profession. I think that many industries and use cases could benefit from software automation, but it is expensive to hire those people. If they are good there is endless demand for their skills in ad tech alone, where they can afford to pay them a salary and benefits valued over 20-30% of the gross profit that entire company brings in a year.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]