4 ms·

Or given the startup context of this site, I'd phrase it as software development has no Barriers to Entry, which as startups (and yourself) have learned is grea

by josho 13y ago

Or given the startup context of this site, I'd phrase it as software development has no Barriers to Entry, which as startups (and yourself) have learned is great for getting into the market, but can be really bad once you establish a foothold and gain experience and realize that competition from new entries into the market severely undercut you on price. So, for those in the industry we need to find ways to add barriers to entry so that our salaries are protected.

tsax 13y ago
This is why, as bad as this scandal is, I'm thoroughly opposed to 'professionalization,' and unions in software. Keeping the barriers to entry low is our best bet across the industry. As someone mentioned, a few major SV companies is not the whole tech industry. There are software engineers in every sector of the economy, and if it's payscales we are talking about, the Big Banks can match it.
morgante 13y ago
> So, for those in the industry we need to find ways to add barriers to entry so that our salaries are protected. This argument for professionalization is fundamentally flawed because salaries are not suppressed by an excess of supply. Just look at all the companies who constantly have open headcount. If wage suppression in our industry were caused by an excess of supply, you'd expect there to be lots of unemployed software engineers—but there are barely any. You'd never see firms trying so hard to poach from competitors and agreements like this would be totally unnecessary (nobody bothers to recruit passive candidates if people are queueing up to get hired). So, this argument for professionalization is completely flawed. Professionalization imposes a price floor but we're dealing with a price ceiling (firms unwilling to pay the higher market rate). In such a scenario, a price floor is completely useless. Personally, the day somebody demands that I get a certification to be a software developer is the day I quit developing and go put my econ education to use on Wall St. At least in finance there's a pot of gold waiting after all the hoops.
- josho 13y ago
  I understand your point, and agree, to an extent. However, there is value in operating more as a collective. Employees are uniquely disadvantaged when negotiating for salary. Employers have experienced negotiators, they know their salary ranges as well as the industry. While the employee has only the knowledge of perhaps a few of his peers, if that. A professional organization could aid employees in their negotiations. That would be a nice way to start. I'm not entirely convinced that a 'bar exam' for developers is the right path. But, clearly as this article states we are being taken advantage of. In my experience the problem is larger than SV.
wildgift 13y ago
Rather than barriers - create talent tiers, and have professional associations control the tiers and education.

by josho 13y ago

tsax 13y ago

This is why, as bad as this scandal is, I'm thoroughly opposed to 'professionalization,' and unions in software. Keeping the barriers to entry low is our best bet across the industry. As someone mentioned, a few major SV companies is not the whole tech industry. There are software engineers in every sector of the economy, and if it's payscales we are talking about, the Big Banks can match it.

morgante 13y ago

> So, for those in the industry we need to find ways to add barriers to entry so that our salaries are protected. This argument for professionalization is fundamentally flawed because salaries are not suppressed by an excess of supply. Just look at all the companies who constantly have open headcount. If wage suppression in our industry were caused by an excess of supply, you'd expect there to be lots of unemployed software engineers—but there are barely any. You'd never see firms trying so hard to poach from competitors and agreements like this would be totally unnecessary (nobody bothers to recruit passive candidates if people are queueing up to get hired). So, this argument for professionalization is completely flawed. Professionalization imposes a price floor but we're dealing with a price ceiling (firms unwilling to pay the higher market rate). In such a scenario, a price floor is completely useless. Personally, the day somebody demands that I get a certification to be a software developer is the day I quit developing and go put my econ education to use on Wall St. At least in finance there's a pot of gold waiting after all the hoops.

josho 13y ago
I understand your point, and agree, to an extent. However, there is value in operating more as a collective. Employees are uniquely disadvantaged when negotiating for salary. Employers have experienced negotiators, they know their salary ranges as well as the industry. While the employee has only the knowledge of perhaps a few of his peers, if that. A professional organization could aid employees in their negotiations. That would be a nice way to start. I'm not entirely convinced that a 'bar exam' for developers is the right path. But, clearly as this article states we are being taken advantage of. In my experience the problem is larger than SV.

wildgift 13y ago

Rather than barriers - create talent tiers, and have professional associations control the tiers and education.