3 ms·

I think a big part of the problem is that employers are competing only for the pool of existing programmers. This makes sense - the bigger problem (expanding t

by geebee 15y ago

I think a big part of the problem is that employers are competing only for the pool of existing programmers. This makes sense - the bigger problem (expanding the size of the pool) is beyond the influence of almost all employers (maybe the giants facebook and google can influence this somewhat). As a result, only very incremental progress can be made. If the standard salary is 70k, employers will balk at offering more than 80k. If they have to offer 90k, they'll feel that a bad shortage exists, because they're offering way above the "market" salary - causing them to conclude that good devs can't be had "at any price". Here's what I think they don't get - to really solve this, they need to start attracting people from other professions. They need to get the top minds that are currently going into medicine, law, finance, and so forth (well, the percentage that could and would go into software development if they rewards were greater). Honestly, I don't see industry ever making this jump. I think they'll keep competing for the same smallish pool of talent and scratching their heads about why they can't attract more candidates for an incremental increase in pay/benefits.

cbsmith 15y ago
It works both ways though. A programmer position that makes business sense at 40K might not make any sense at 90K. It's not like all companies need programmers regardless of price. If the price is too high, they can just go another way.
- geebee 15y ago
  I agree - my criticism is directed only at those companies that claim that they desperately need programmers and can't find them at "any" price. I understand that there's an implicit "reasonable" condition on price, so my real disagreement is around what counts as reasonable. Most of these companies would view a 200k salary as unreasonable. I'm not so sure. Examples abound, but I remember a company talking about how great its salaries were, and one example was a guy with a PhD from University of Texas (Austin) and 5 years work experience. His salary was $125,000. I wouldn't expect it to endear me to many Americans to scoff at $125k a year, but when you think about how long PhD programs are, how high the attrition rates are, how much talent it takes, and the kind of salaries available to people with professional degrees that take a shorter time (with far lower attrition rates)... well, it's pretty clear that $125k actually isn't all that competitive. I'm sure that it would give employers sticker shock, but to get competitive with the other fields attracting the best and brightest, they might well have to go over 200k for someone like this. If it's not "worth it", then clearly there is no shortage, it would be a suboptimal use of talent.
  - keithnoizu 15y ago
    Including bonus and stock I make that working as a developer in test with only an associates degree in management. It's pretty underwhelming pay for a doctorate.

by geebee 15y ago

cbsmith 15y ago

It works both ways though. A programmer position that makes business sense at 40K might not make any sense at 90K. It's not like all companies need programmers regardless of price. If the price is too high, they can just go another way.

geebee 15y ago
I agree - my criticism is directed only at those companies that claim that they desperately need programmers and can't find them at "any" price. I understand that there's an implicit "reasonable" condition on price, so my real disagreement is around what counts as reasonable. Most of these companies would view a 200k salary as unreasonable. I'm not so sure. Examples abound, but I remember a company talking about how great its salaries were, and one example was a guy with a PhD from University of Texas (Austin) and 5 years work experience. His salary was $125,000. I wouldn't expect it to endear me to many Americans to scoff at $125k a year, but when you think about how long PhD programs are, how high the attrition rates are, how much talent it takes, and the kind of salaries available to people with professional degrees that take a shorter time (with far lower attrition rates)... well, it's pretty clear that $125k actually isn't all that competitive. I'm sure that it would give employers sticker shock, but to get competitive with the other fields attracting the best and brightest, they might well have to go over 200k for someone like this. If it's not "worth it", then clearly there is no shortage, it would be a suboptimal use of talent.
- keithnoizu 15y ago
  Including bonus and stock I make that working as a developer in test with only an associates degree in management. It's pretty underwhelming pay for a doctorate.