3 ms·

Imagine two jobs that in all aspects equal except the technology used. Would you rather use one that would serve you in many other jobs and is well-regarded?

Imagine two jobs that in all aspects equal except the technology used. Would you rather use one that would serve you in many other jobs and is well-regarded? Or one that's poorly regarded, limited to a few employers, or outright custom? You'd be a fool to choose the latter. So any employer that wants to make their employees do a custom blend of MUMPS, PHP, COBOL, and an in-house programming language is going to have to pay a lot more, offer really compelling benefits, or something else to compete, or it will have to lower its standards to mop up people who couldn't get more desirable jobs.

cxr 4y ago
Your thought experiment is framed as if it delivers a relevant insight. It doesn't—the conclusion is neither insightful (it's pretty facile and obvious—no need to walk through anything), nor is it dispositive for the actual subject at hand. What is claimed, and what is in contention, is the inability to find developers.* I could show you some people who don't like to (or can't) eat peanut butter. That's a completely different matter from demonstrating that nobody will eat peanut butter. Your ∃ is not an ∀. Second: That an employer who wants to hire will have to either pay more (than what they are currently trying to get away with) or lower its standards is a pretty straightforward restatement of what I was already saying. That observation is, again, not some sort of insightful riposte—it's just, you know, arguing for my position... * which is a claim that the person I first responded to has already walked back
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Presumably they would have to offer so much more than competitors to make the job attractive that it's infeasible and reworking the application into something modern -- something even current employees are likely to be happy about anyway -- is preferable.

cxr 4y ago

Your thought experiment is framed as if it delivers a relevant insight. It doesn't—the conclusion is neither insightful (it's pretty facile and obvious—no need to walk through anything), nor is it dispositive for the actual subject at hand. What is claimed, and what is in contention, is the inability to find developers.* I could show you some people who don't like to (or can't) eat peanut butter. That's a completely different matter from demonstrating that nobody will eat peanut butter. Your ∃ is not an ∀. Second: That an employer who wants to hire will have to either pay more (than what they are currently trying to get away with) or lower its standards is a pretty straightforward restatement of what I was already saying. That observation is, again, not some sort of insightful riposte—it's just, you know, arguing for my position... * which is a claim that the person I first responded to has already walked back

emodendroket 4y ago
Presumably they would have to offer so much more than competitors to make the job attractive that it's infeasible and reworking the application into something modern -- something even current employees are likely to be happy about anyway -- is preferable.