7 ms·

I'm never sure what the point of these articles are. It's supply and demand. If there's a crunch, there's more demand then supply. When that happens prices go u

I'm never sure what the point of these articles are. It's supply and demand. If there's a crunch, there's more demand then supply. When that happens prices go up. So really the tl;dr is, companies want more talent at the same price.

potatolicious 12y ago
> "So really the tl;dr is, companies want more talent at the same price." This is not unreasonable. I know around these parts we like to think that developers are the God-Kings of the universe, but there are real negative consequences to the seemingly infinite geometric growth of developer salaries (currently, in the NYC area anyways, clocking in at least 10% a year). And I say that as someone who is a huge, direct beneficiary of these insane salaries. We keep complaining around here about the influence of VCs on the industry, about how everything is oriented around landing the next round of funding. That we think about runways more than we think about creating useful things. We also complain about how founders are giving up increasingly large pieces of equity just for the capital to get off the ground, and that the dream of tech entrepreneurs changing the world is constantly compromised by all of the above. We also complain about the power large corporations have over small businesses and can muscle them around in the market. All of these come down to the price of developers. The more we get paid, the more capital founders will need to start companies, and the more power investors will have over entrepreneurs, their companies, and their employees. Huge paychecks for developers only plays into the hands of wealthy investors who now consume an ever-increasing influence, and who wind up owning more and more of the fruits of innovation. The more we get paid, the more it benefits large, established corporations, who have the mature, optimized business models to afford huge salaries, and the more we handicap small, starting businesses who do not yet have the revenue/employee to sustain high burn rates. The more we get paid the fewer true bootstrapped companies we will see, since there is now an increasingly insurmountable cliff between "founders in a garage" and "first hire". The more we get paid the more types of businesses will be categorically excluded from existing because they're not profitable enough to pay huge salaries. Just recently I turned down an offer from a company doing tremendous social good - the salary they offered would have been highly competitive a mere two years ago, but the market continues to inflate. I fear businesses that are highly positive to society, but not hugely profitable, will simply no longer exist in the future. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being paid a shitload of money to do what I love, but understand that there is a point where increased developer compensation is a net negative for us all, and that we may already be past that point. The world is bigger than our bank accounts (sad, I know).
- dropit_sphere 12y ago
  >The world is bigger than our bank accounts (sad, I know). Wait a minute, wait a minute. Why? I mean, seriously, why? Public companies exist to fatten shareholders' bank accounts. Privately owned companies exist to fatten their owners' bank accounts. I submit that the world is no bigger than our bank accounts. Also regarding founders giving up large amounts of equity to VC's so they can afford developers: there is a very simple solution. Give employees more equity. Take out the middle man.
  - hkarthik 12y ago
    > Also regarding founders giving up large amounts of equity to VC's so they can afford developers: there is a very simple solution. Give employees more equity. Take out the middle man. That's been tried a lot and is often referred to as "sweat equity". Most people won't go for it when there's 5 jobs across the street that will offer cold hard cash which they have obtained by getting a premium on equity with a VC.
    - dropit_sphere 12y ago
      If, as a founder, you don't have the capital to execute your vision, it falls on you to convince people that it will be profitable for them to trade real resources for as-yet-valueless equity. Developers will take equity if they think it's worth something. I don't understand why the natural response to "can't afford good developers" is "pay them less." Maybe the company just deserves to die. Founders' fundraising problems are...not my problem.
    - sheepmullet 12y ago
      "That's been tried a lot and is often referred to as "sweat equity". Most people won't go for it when there's 5 jobs across the street that will offer cold hard cash which they have obtained by getting a premium on equity with a VC." How many startups offer the first few employees a reasonable amount of equity (>5%)? Most startups will offer 1% if you are lucky.
  - potatolicious 12y ago

potatolicious 12y ago

> "So really the tl;dr is, companies want more talent at the same price." This is not unreasonable. I know around these parts we like to think that developers are the God-Kings of the universe, but there are real negative consequences to the seemingly infinite geometric growth of developer salaries (currently, in the NYC area anyways, clocking in at least 10% a year). And I say that as someone who is a huge, direct beneficiary of these insane salaries. We keep complaining around here about the influence of VCs on the industry, about how everything is oriented around landing the next round of funding. That we think about runways more than we think about creating useful things. We also complain about how founders are giving up increasingly large pieces of equity just for the capital to get off the ground, and that the dream of tech entrepreneurs changing the world is constantly compromised by all of the above. We also complain about the power large corporations have over small businesses and can muscle them around in the market. All of these come down to the price of developers. The more we get paid, the more capital founders will need to start companies, and the more power investors will have over entrepreneurs, their companies, and their employees. Huge paychecks for developers only plays into the hands of wealthy investors who now consume an ever-increasing influence, and who wind up owning more and more of the fruits of innovation. The more we get paid, the more it benefits large, established corporations, who have the mature, optimized business models to afford huge salaries, and the more we handicap small, starting businesses who do not yet have the revenue/employee to sustain high burn rates. The more we get paid the fewer true bootstrapped companies we will see, since there is now an increasingly insurmountable cliff between "founders in a garage" and "first hire". The more we get paid the more types of businesses will be categorically excluded from existing because they're not profitable enough to pay huge salaries. Just recently I turned down an offer from a company doing tremendous social good - the salary they offered would have been highly competitive a mere two years ago, but the market continues to inflate. I fear businesses that are highly positive to society, but not hugely profitable, will simply no longer exist in the future. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being paid a shitload of money to do what I love, but understand that there is a point where increased developer compensation is a net negative for us all, and that we may already be past that point. The world is bigger than our bank accounts (sad, I know).

dropit_sphere 12y ago
>The world is bigger than our bank accounts (sad, I know). Wait a minute, wait a minute. Why? I mean, seriously, why? Public companies exist to fatten shareholders' bank accounts. Privately owned companies exist to fatten their owners' bank accounts. I submit that the world is no bigger than our bank accounts. Also regarding founders giving up large amounts of equity to VC's so they can afford developers: there is a very simple solution. Give employees more equity. Take out the middle man.
- hkarthik 12y ago
  > Also regarding founders giving up large amounts of equity to VC's so they can afford developers: there is a very simple solution. Give employees more equity. Take out the middle man. That's been tried a lot and is often referred to as "sweat equity". Most people won't go for it when there's 5 jobs across the street that will offer cold hard cash which they have obtained by getting a premium on equity with a VC.
  - dropit_sphere 12y ago
    If, as a founder, you don't have the capital to execute your vision, it falls on you to convince people that it will be profitable for them to trade real resources for as-yet-valueless equity. Developers will take equity if they think it's worth something. I don't understand why the natural response to "can't afford good developers" is "pay them less." Maybe the company just deserves to die. Founders' fundraising problems are...not my problem.
  - sheepmullet 12y ago
    "That's been tried a lot and is often referred to as "sweat equity". Most people won't go for it when there's 5 jobs across the street that will offer cold hard cash which they have obtained by getting a premium on equity with a VC." How many startups offer the first few employees a reasonable amount of equity (>5%)? Most startups will offer 1% if you are lucky.
- potatolicious 12y ago