5 ms·

> Meanwhile, boring old stuff like manufacturing was starved for programmers, and eventually gave up trying to get them. If you wanted to be fully honest, you

> Meanwhile, boring old stuff like manufacturing was starved for programmers, and eventually gave up trying to get them. If you wanted to be fully honest, you would have said that they couldn't pony up for programmers, they were only “starved” by their own penny pinching ways.

steve_adams_86 3y ago
In many cases it could truly be that programmers aren't worth enough for them to pony up. It isn't that they're being cheap. It's that it doesn't make financial sense. There are plenty of contexts where programmers are useful but still only worth "normal" salaries.
- machomaster 3y ago
  And in such cases using words like "starving" is completely wrong. For starving people, food is not a mere "nice to have".
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  Or, perhaps many companies do not know how to leverage software to make money. I suspect there are many of those sorts out there, and if they do have developers on staff, it makes sense to let them go.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    Both are true, I think. Many business stand to gain very little from money. Others could gain a tremendous amount, but they don't know enough to see how. A great example is my friend who works for a provincial political party. It's clear that they would be able to compete with other parties on many levels if they were more technically capable, and someone on staff being paid a lot to facilitate that would be well worth it. They'd almost certainly secure more donations, learn to reach their demographics better by utilizing data properly, work far more efficiently, and so on. My friend is acutely aware of this and how technology is currently impeding them, but the rest of the organization is more like vaguely aware of this yet almost entirely uncertain of what to do about it. If they were to pay someone with significant software experience around $200,000 per year to untangle and revamp the technology they're depending on, they'd certainly see this paying dividends within a couple of years. Instead they will carry on encumbered. They currently spend around $38,000 per year on software that's serving them partially and otherwise weighing them down substantially. Part of the problem they face too is that they'd need to hire someone who truly gets the politics and people involved. You couldn't bring someone into that scenario who loves the IC role. There would be a lot of white boarding and explaining to stakeholders. A lot of very mundane untangling of existing services accomplished by digging through accounts and billing, talking to the people who use it, documenting how they use it, why, figuring out what they forgot to tell you, etc. Then the very dissatisfying step of determining solutions which can't be totally bespoke or custom, but would inevitably involve some degree of compromise. It wouldn't be a glamorous role. It could transform the capability and velocity of the organization, though. I often think this is exactly the type of role which software developers will tend to move into as AI takes on more low-level IC tasks. I don't expect that to be tomorrow, but very likely within the next decade. Software developers will need to be far more people-oriented than they tend to be today in order to allow their skills to shine in ways an AI's can't.
  - eli_gottlieb 3y ago
    I strongly doubt that manufacturing companies can, in principle, offer FAANG-level salaries without dramatically altering their output prices.
- aggcefbhtd 3y ago
  Of course, but that’s true of literally any investment you can make in a company, so it’s not super useful. “A new X is useful if I can pay significantly less than it actually costs”.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  Not only that, but how do explain to your shift supervisor or head of sales that a JavaScript wielding kid right out of college makes more than them?
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    Why tell them? Isn't it a basic principle that companies try to keep salaries secret?
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    Is "supply and demand" a reasonable answer?

steve_adams_86 3y ago

In many cases it could truly be that programmers aren't worth enough for them to pony up. It isn't that they're being cheap. It's that it doesn't make financial sense. There are plenty of contexts where programmers are useful but still only worth "normal" salaries.

machomaster 3y ago
And in such cases using words like "starving" is completely wrong. For starving people, food is not a mere "nice to have".
gorjusborg 3y ago
Or, perhaps many companies do not know how to leverage software to make money. I suspect there are many of those sorts out there, and if they do have developers on staff, it makes sense to let them go.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  Both are true, I think. Many business stand to gain very little from money. Others could gain a tremendous amount, but they don't know enough to see how. A great example is my friend who works for a provincial political party. It's clear that they would be able to compete with other parties on many levels if they were more technically capable, and someone on staff being paid a lot to facilitate that would be well worth it. They'd almost certainly secure more donations, learn to reach their demographics better by utilizing data properly, work far more efficiently, and so on. My friend is acutely aware of this and how technology is currently impeding them, but the rest of the organization is more like vaguely aware of this yet almost entirely uncertain of what to do about it. If they were to pay someone with significant software experience around $200,000 per year to untangle and revamp the technology they're depending on, they'd certainly see this paying dividends within a couple of years. Instead they will carry on encumbered. They currently spend around $38,000 per year on software that's serving them partially and otherwise weighing them down substantially. Part of the problem they face too is that they'd need to hire someone who truly gets the politics and people involved. You couldn't bring someone into that scenario who loves the IC role. There would be a lot of white boarding and explaining to stakeholders. A lot of very mundane untangling of existing services accomplished by digging through accounts and billing, talking to the people who use it, documenting how they use it, why, figuring out what they forgot to tell you, etc. Then the very dissatisfying step of determining solutions which can't be totally bespoke or custom, but would inevitably involve some degree of compromise. It wouldn't be a glamorous role. It could transform the capability and velocity of the organization, though. I often think this is exactly the type of role which software developers will tend to move into as AI takes on more low-level IC tasks. I don't expect that to be tomorrow, but very likely within the next decade. Software developers will need to be far more people-oriented than they tend to be today in order to allow their skills to shine in ways an AI's can't.
- eli_gottlieb 3y ago
  I strongly doubt that manufacturing companies can, in principle, offer FAANG-level salaries without dramatically altering their output prices.
aggcefbhtd 3y ago
Of course, but that’s true of literally any investment you can make in a company, so it’s not super useful. “A new X is useful if I can pay significantly less than it actually costs”.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
Not only that, but how do explain to your shift supervisor or head of sales that a JavaScript wielding kid right out of college makes more than them?
- SR2Z 3y ago
  Why tell them? Isn't it a basic principle that companies try to keep salaries secret?
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  Is "supply and demand" a reasonable answer?