3 ms·

You presume there is an undercurrent of malevolence to this when there isn't. If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a

You presume there is an undercurrent of malevolence to this when there isn't. If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. Wage depression, especially in an environment where wages are already remarkably elevated, enables further economic activity (i.e., software businesses with cost structures that prevent paying $250K+ an engineer can now exist and create wealth). And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated.

rada 14y ago
The median numbers I am finding are nowhere near 4.5x. I am seeing roughly $50k median household income ($70k dual earner households) vs. $55k median programmer salary. Where do you get your numbers?
geebee 14y ago
4.5 the median would be somewhere around $225,000. That would be a very high salary for a developer, far above the median. I also don't think that comparing to the median US household makes much sense. It would make more sense to compare salaries with other highly skilled and educated workers in very high cost areas. It's sobering to enter the "elevated" salaries of software developers into a housing affordability calculator and search San Francisco or the peninsula for what you could buy at that price. Most households are dual income now, which does get you in the range of that 4.5x household income you mentioned earlier. At this point, you're into pleasant, middle class areas. At this point, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I think that when it's a stretch for two highly educated workers to afford a fairly ordinary house in a decent if unfashionable part of town, salaries aren't elevated to the point where I find claims of a crucial shortage credible. If that's what employers want to pay, that's fine, but I see no reason for special government programs designed to increase the size of this workforce - it would seem to me that it is responding rationally to market signals.
abhimishra 14y ago
> Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. The economy wouldn't necessarily grind to an ugly hault - there is a sweetspot in the middle, which you are ignoring here. It could also be that people/businesses adjust to a _moderate_ supply restriction in some way (travel less, purchase locally, etc), new technologies arrive, and things change for the better. > If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. I also don't buy into the 'good for general population' argument necessarily - it is fair for employees (in this case, programmers) to also want what is best for themselves. Corporations generally want what is best for their shareholders (or executives) and not their employees OR the general population, which is part of the reason they ask for higher caps. > And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated. Why do you think wages are elevated? Many programmers I work with are very smart folks, and I personally feel that they are underpaid relative to the value they are creating within the organizations they work for. Furthermore, why is 4.5x the median household income randomly the bar here? Should every profession be capped in your view (doctors, lawyers, etc)?

rada 14y ago

The median numbers I am finding are nowhere near 4.5x. I am seeing roughly $50k median household income ($70k dual earner households) vs. $55k median programmer salary. Where do you get your numbers?

geebee 14y ago

4.5 the median would be somewhere around $225,000. That would be a very high salary for a developer, far above the median. I also don't think that comparing to the median US household makes much sense. It would make more sense to compare salaries with other highly skilled and educated workers in very high cost areas. It's sobering to enter the "elevated" salaries of software developers into a housing affordability calculator and search San Francisco or the peninsula for what you could buy at that price. Most households are dual income now, which does get you in the range of that 4.5x household income you mentioned earlier. At this point, you're into pleasant, middle class areas. At this point, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I think that when it's a stretch for two highly educated workers to afford a fairly ordinary house in a decent if unfashionable part of town, salaries aren't elevated to the point where I find claims of a crucial shortage credible. If that's what employers want to pay, that's fine, but I see no reason for special government programs designed to increase the size of this workforce - it would seem to me that it is responding rationally to market signals.

abhimishra 14y ago

> Similarly, the restriction of the oil supply will drive up cost, drive down usage, and force the economy to grind to an ugly halt. The economy wouldn't necessarily grind to an ugly hault - there is a sweetspot in the middle, which you are ignoring here. It could also be that people/businesses adjust to a _moderate_ supply restriction in some way (travel less, purchase locally, etc), new technologies arrive, and things change for the better. > If we decreased the supply of programmers to 1 said programmer would be making a shitload of money - but that is not good for the general population, nor the economy. I also don't buy into the 'good for general population' argument necessarily - it is fair for employees (in this case, programmers) to also want what is best for themselves. Corporations generally want what is best for their shareholders (or executives) and not their employees OR the general population, which is part of the reason they ask for higher caps. > And let's be honest, as a single programmer making 4.5x the median household American income, our wages are plenty elevated. Why do you think wages are elevated? Many programmers I work with are very smart folks, and I personally feel that they are underpaid relative to the value they are creating within the organizations they work for. Furthermore, why is 4.5x the median household income randomly the bar here? Should every profession be capped in your view (doctors, lawyers, etc)?