5 ms·

"the idea of pg lobbying to flood the market with cheap programming labor is not only demonstrably wrong" He wants the top programmers in the world to be able

"the idea of pg lobbying to flood the market with cheap programming labor is not only demonstrably wrong" He wants the top programmers in the world to be able to come to the USA. But my suspicion is he has very little concern for your above average, but not great, USA born programmer whose wages are threatened by corporations that exploit and abuse the H1B Visa program.

dang 12y ago
> But my suspicion is The principle of charity would ask you to suspend that suspicion in the absence of clear evidence for it (in which case it would be more than a suspicion).
- don_draper 12y ago
  Common sense tells me that if he cared about the average USA programmer he would promote a more specific policy that would help prevent companies from abusing the H1B Visa program.
- aceperry 12y ago
  Hey dang, maybe you should write a critique of pg's post, and how it fails in so many ways with the principle of charity. Just to give this discussion more balance since you've been criticizing other people's responses.
  - dang 12y ago
    That seems to miss my point, which is not about immigration, but about the quality of discussion on Hacker News.
    - aceperry 12y ago
      dang, what can I say, you seem to have missed my point. You're criticizing the way people have responded to pg's post. While that may be valid, you fail to criticize pg's 'quality' of writing, which can also be considered inflammatory. How about a little balance here?
      - yellow_and_gray 12y ago
        What are you really against? What do you want to see happen?
      - dang 12y ago
        I think that would be a mistake. There's a reason why the Principle of Charity doesn't add "except when you feel provoked". Human bias always sees the other person as having started it, being more inflammatory, etc.—so a principle which said "just do better than the other person" (or, to translate into the present terms, "just don't be as low-quality as you feel the article is") would never get applied at all. So no, the onus is on all of us to contribute substantively even in response to something we consider unsubstantive. When we can't do that, posting nothing is a fine option. The reason we're considering adding the Principle of Charity to the HN guidelines is that it gives practical guidance on how to comment substantively, which is what HN has always called for. I'm racking my brains trying to think of why anyone would object to having this rule, and so far haven't found a good reason.
        aceperry 12y ago
        dang, as many others have pointed out very well, pg's post contains "low quality," and in my view inflammatory comments. You refuse to call him out on it, not a peep at all. Instead, you call out others for responding in disagreement. Would you apply the "Principle of Charity" to the remarks of those that you think to be low quality? If not, can you justify why the "Principle of Charity" should not apply to pg but to everyone else who disagrees with him? You say, "the onus is on all of us to contribute substantively even in response to something we consider unsubstantive." How about the responsibility of the original poster? Is it acceptable to write that way? Can he be legitimately criticized for that? If you don't accept that, then you've created an unfair situation. (regarding your refusal to criticize pg) "I think that would be a mistake" The real mistake is the way you try to shut down dissent by painting it as "uncharitable" or misguided/mistaken. Can you point out the many examples of "much of this thread is of low quality" ? I don't think you can make that case, because it seems that you disagree with the opinions more than anything else. Some of the dissenting opinions are passionate. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just look at pg's original post, there is a lot of passion there. I would suggest that you be an adult and understand that there are controversial topics which will cause passionate discussion. It makes no sense to a accuse everyone of being wrong in their interpretation and to scold them as if they're children. Just read the comments and you'll see that a lot of people here have unique knowledge and understanding of the topic. Your point is incorrect, and adds nothing to this very important (and passionate) subject.
njloof 12y ago
Hiring H-1Bs can drive all salaries down, including US programmers working at the same desk. I'd also like to see data regarding programmer age -- do we seek young US and H-1B alike to get cheaper, younger talent?
- jonny_eh 12y ago
  As an H1-B I can say that I'm paid the local market salary for my skillset. And so is my wife.
  - amerliore 12y ago
    When supply goes up price goes down. Logic 101 says that H1-B immigrants lower "the local market salary".
    - LetBinding 12y ago
      Only for fungible types of workers. Programmers, software engineers, data scientists, product managers, designers, etc aren't like farm or construction laborers. These skills aren't commodities.
      - aceperry 12y ago
        That's not how management sees talent like programmers and engineers. Management sees them like another commodity labor resource.
        mgkimsal 12y ago
        Specifically, they all fall under "Human Resources". While I suspect some issues even for CEOs might fall under HR, I also suspect that large company CEOs may also have unique employment contracts not available to the myriad software engineers at the same company.
      - smm2000 12y ago
        That's exactly how Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and most other big companies view software engineers. Engineers go through standard interview process (3-5 technical interviews, 1 behaviour interview) and then companies assume that everyone above the hiring bar can be assigned to pretty much any project at the company. Companies use this process because it works - engineers are mostly fungible. The above is not true for exceptional talent (Linus Torvalds, John Carmack, etc). I will vote in heartbeat for visas for people with total comp >$300k. If you are truly that valuable, you should be paid more than average Sr. Software Engineer at Google.
canes123456 12y ago
As an above average, but not great, USA born programmer, I say bring as many programmers as possible to the USA. Great one create can help create the new Google, Uber, etc which than create more jobs. More above average makes software companies more effective over all. There are a ton of horrible "programmers" that are net negatives that bring down the average for a whole IT department.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  I don't know if you're making a tongue in cheek argument or not, but currently an enormous portion of the tech immigrants come to America to work as cogs in consulting companies or MegaCorporations. And there isn't any precise way to pick the people who are going to start the next Google- except for the people who already run successful businesses and therefore have the money and influence to emigrate if they wanted to anyway. So yes, it'd be cool to have all the Job Creators come to America so we could work in their companies, but I see no evidence that would happen.
  - canes123456 12y ago
    I am saying to let everyone in from the best to mediocre.
vehementi 12y ago
Who cares if overpaid (compared to other professions) programmers wages are threatened? Are you entitled to make six figures? No, you make six figures because market forces coincidentally put that price on the skill you were lucky enough to land in. Why are you not in the same breath talking about already-depressed McDonalds workers wages? Are you just a better person entitled to a better wage?
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  By 'market forces' you mean 'employers colluding illegally to keep wages low', perhaps? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-and-intel-to-pay-324m-in-wagefixing-lawsuit-9286946.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-a...
  - vehementi 12y ago
    No, I meant market forces. Yes, illegal things happen sometimes and perpetrators should be punished and made to make reparations. Or are you insinuating that all changes in salary are due to illegal collusion? Boy have I got news for you!

dang 12y ago

> But my suspicion is The principle of charity would ask you to suspend that suspicion in the absence of clear evidence for it (in which case it would be more than a suspicion).

don_draper 12y ago
Common sense tells me that if he cared about the average USA programmer he would promote a more specific policy that would help prevent companies from abusing the H1B Visa program.
aceperry 12y ago
Hey dang, maybe you should write a critique of pg's post, and how it fails in so many ways with the principle of charity. Just to give this discussion more balance since you've been criticizing other people's responses.
- dang 12y ago
  That seems to miss my point, which is not about immigration, but about the quality of discussion on Hacker News.
  - aceperry 12y ago
    dang, what can I say, you seem to have missed my point. You're criticizing the way people have responded to pg's post. While that may be valid, you fail to criticize pg's 'quality' of writing, which can also be considered inflammatory. How about a little balance here?
    - yellow_and_gray 12y ago
      What are you really against? What do you want to see happen?
    - dang 12y ago
      I think that would be a mistake. There's a reason why the Principle of Charity doesn't add "except when you feel provoked". Human bias always sees the other person as having started it, being more inflammatory, etc.—so a principle which said "just do better than the other person" (or, to translate into the present terms, "just don't be as low-quality as you feel the article is") would never get applied at all. So no, the onus is on all of us to contribute substantively even in response to something we consider unsubstantive. When we can't do that, posting nothing is a fine option. The reason we're considering adding the Principle of Charity to the HN guidelines is that it gives practical guidance on how to comment substantively, which is what HN has always called for. I'm racking my brains trying to think of why anyone would object to having this rule, and so far haven't found a good reason.
      - aceperry 12y ago
        dang, as many others have pointed out very well, pg's post contains "low quality," and in my view inflammatory comments. You refuse to call him out on it, not a peep at all. Instead, you call out others for responding in disagreement. Would you apply the "Principle of Charity" to the remarks of those that you think to be low quality? If not, can you justify why the "Principle of Charity" should not apply to pg but to everyone else who disagrees with him? You say, "the onus is on all of us to contribute substantively even in response to something we consider unsubstantive." How about the responsibility of the original poster? Is it acceptable to write that way? Can he be legitimately criticized for that? If you don't accept that, then you've created an unfair situation. (regarding your refusal to criticize pg) "I think that would be a mistake" The real mistake is the way you try to shut down dissent by painting it as "uncharitable" or misguided/mistaken. Can you point out the many examples of "much of this thread is of low quality" ? I don't think you can make that case, because it seems that you disagree with the opinions more than anything else. Some of the dissenting opinions are passionate. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just look at pg's original post, there is a lot of passion there. I would suggest that you be an adult and understand that there are controversial topics which will cause passionate discussion. It makes no sense to a accuse everyone of being wrong in their interpretation and to scold them as if they're children. Just read the comments and you'll see that a lot of people here have unique knowledge and understanding of the topic. Your point is incorrect, and adds nothing to this very important (and passionate) subject.

njloof 12y ago

Hiring H-1Bs can drive all salaries down, including US programmers working at the same desk. I'd also like to see data regarding programmer age -- do we seek young US and H-1B alike to get cheaper, younger talent?

jonny_eh 12y ago
As an H1-B I can say that I'm paid the local market salary for my skillset. And so is my wife.
- amerliore 12y ago
  When supply goes up price goes down. Logic 101 says that H1-B immigrants lower "the local market salary".
  - LetBinding 12y ago
    Only for fungible types of workers. Programmers, software engineers, data scientists, product managers, designers, etc aren't like farm or construction laborers. These skills aren't commodities.
    - aceperry 12y ago
      That's not how management sees talent like programmers and engineers. Management sees them like another commodity labor resource.
      - mgkimsal 12y ago
        Specifically, they all fall under "Human Resources". While I suspect some issues even for CEOs might fall under HR, I also suspect that large company CEOs may also have unique employment contracts not available to the myriad software engineers at the same company.
    - smm2000 12y ago
      That's exactly how Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and most other big companies view software engineers. Engineers go through standard interview process (3-5 technical interviews, 1 behaviour interview) and then companies assume that everyone above the hiring bar can be assigned to pretty much any project at the company. Companies use this process because it works - engineers are mostly fungible. The above is not true for exceptional talent (Linus Torvalds, John Carmack, etc). I will vote in heartbeat for visas for people with total comp >$300k. If you are truly that valuable, you should be paid more than average Sr. Software Engineer at Google.

canes123456 12y ago

As an above average, but not great, USA born programmer, I say bring as many programmers as possible to the USA. Great one create can help create the new Google, Uber, etc which than create more jobs. More above average makes software companies more effective over all. There are a ton of horrible "programmers" that are net negatives that bring down the average for a whole IT department.

droopyEyelids 12y ago
I don't know if you're making a tongue in cheek argument or not, but currently an enormous portion of the tech immigrants come to America to work as cogs in consulting companies or MegaCorporations. And there isn't any precise way to pick the people who are going to start the next Google- except for the people who already run successful businesses and therefore have the money and influence to emigrate if they wanted to anyway. So yes, it'd be cool to have all the Job Creators come to America so we could work in their companies, but I see no evidence that would happen.
- canes123456 12y ago
  I am saying to let everyone in from the best to mediocre.

vehementi 12y ago

Who cares if overpaid (compared to other professions) programmers wages are threatened? Are you entitled to make six figures? No, you make six figures because market forces coincidentally put that price on the skill you were lucky enough to land in. Why are you not in the same breath talking about already-depressed McDonalds workers wages? Are you just a better person entitled to a better wage?

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
By 'market forces' you mean 'employers colluding illegally to keep wages low', perhaps? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-and-intel-to-pay-324m-in-wagefixing-lawsuit-9286946.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/google-apple-abobe-a...
- vehementi 12y ago
  No, I meant market forces. Yes, illegal things happen sometimes and perpetrators should be punished and made to make reparations. Or are you insinuating that all changes in salary are due to illegal collusion? Boy have I got news for you!