7 ms·

The article itself is of low quality. Entire sections are based on flimsy assumptions or are just plain false. I'll list a few here: "The US has less than 5% o

by nhjk 12y ago

The article itself is of low quality. Entire sections are based on flimsy assumptions or are just plain false. I'll list a few here: "The US has less than 5% of the world's population. Which means if the qualities that make someone a great programmer are evenly distributed, 95% of great programmers are born outside the US." A huge portion of the world can't even feed itself let alone educate itself to the high standard of an "exceptional programmer" [1]. If we're in the business of making flimsy assumptions then here's mine: I suspect that the US produces the same amount of "exceptional programmers" as the rest of the world combined. "But if you talk to startups, you find practically every one over a certain size has gone through legal contortions to get programmers into the the US, where they then paid them the same as they'd have paid an American." and "I asked the CEO of a startup with about 70 programmers how many more he'd hire if he could get all the great programmers he wanted. He said "We'd hire 30 tomorrow morning." And this is one of the hot startups that always win recruiting battles. It's the same all over Silicon Valley. Startups are that constrained for talent." If you can't hire someone at your expected price then maybe you should raise it. Maybe the market price has gone higher than what you perceive it to be. That CEO could find his 30 "10x" engineers in a heartbeat if he offered 300-500k. Its not your god given right to be able to hire x number of employees for the price you hired your previous employees at. [1] http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats In addition if you're going to claim an entire thread is of poor quality, back it up. And while you're looking for examples of poor quality, be sure to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

dang 12y ago
There are many opportunities to apply the Principle of Charity here. For example, that statement about populations can easily be interpreted to mean simply that great programmers can be born anywhere. That's pretty unobjectionable. (Imagine the kerfuffle if he had claimed anything but that.) And does the literal number "95%" substantively change the argument that there are many great programmers outside the U.S. and that U.S. is ill served by startups not being able to hire them? No it does not. Therefore, by the Principle of Charity, that is not the point we should focus on. My interest in this thread is not about immigration. It's about how far too many Hacker News comments are uncharitable (in this specialized sense) and how that seems to go along with ill-spiritedness. It's time we all stepped up our game.
- blackbagboys 12y ago
  The interpretations you've suggested go far beyond interpreting PG's argument in the strongest possible terms, running instead to interpreting it as a completely different argument. (Although I suppose that's not very charitable of me). Obviously anything is unobjectionable if you agree beforehand to disregard any interpretation you could possibly find objectionable.
  - dang 12y ago
    The interpretations I've suggested are simply the ones that occurred to me as I read the essay.
- ghiculescu 12y ago
  > And does the literal number "95%" substantively change the argument... Given PG used that number in the article's title, and even in its URL, it does seem like it's worth debating. If the number was actually 50% as the parent suggests, then suddenly you have a very different argument.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
chrismcb 12y ago
The assusption isn't false (at least not the one you point out) the main assumption to the article is "great programmers are born" this comes from the statement that you can you can reach component programmes but not exceptional ones. The thesis is not about "programmers" it is about "exceptional programmers. It is a fact that less than 5% of the population lives in the US. You have to assume the qualities that make a great programmer are fairly evenly distributed (even if that person never utilises his skill) this is not a thin out false assumption. If you want to attack an assumption, attack the one that says you can't teach great programmers
jonny_eh 12y ago
> If you can't hire someone at your expected price then maybe you should raise it. Maybe the market price has gone higher than what you perceive it to be. That CEO could find his 30 "10x" engineers in a heartbeat if he offered 300-500k. Its not your god given right to be able to hire x number of employees for the price you hired your previous employees at. It's a zero-sum game. If company X hires all 30 of the best engineers currently looking for a job, company Y cannot. Company Y can offer more in an attempt to lure them, but then Company X will be SOL. We're talking about macro issues here. We want as many companies as possible to succeed.
- igonvalue 12y ago
  It's not a zero-sum game. Increased wages for engineers would encourage more people to become engineers.
  - jeremyjh 12y ago
    Or to remain engineers, or to get BACK into engineering without taking a pay-cut. It would increase the supply of good engineers immediately. But I don't disagree with pg; I think we should hire all the greatest engineers in the world, except for the fact that we cannot identify them.
  - brianchu 12y ago
    In the long run. IIRC labor supply is a lagging indicator, so in the short run (e.g. 1-2 years) it would be a bit closer to a zero-sum game.
    - jonny_eh 12y ago
      It feels like it's been zero-sum for a very long time.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    This. Wall Street is full of near-geniuses who would be doing something more productive if finance companies weren't the ones offering the biggest salaries.
DonnyV 12y ago
You are 110% spot on. I really don't like PG using his status to push these pie in the sky numbers to back up his buddies in the valley. We all know that the biggest cost tech companies have are there developers and they would love to put the squeeze on them.

by nhjk 12y ago

dang 12y ago

There are many opportunities to apply the Principle of Charity here. For example, that statement about populations can easily be interpreted to mean simply that great programmers can be born anywhere. That's pretty unobjectionable. (Imagine the kerfuffle if he had claimed anything but that.) And does the literal number "95%" substantively change the argument that there are many great programmers outside the U.S. and that U.S. is ill served by startups not being able to hire them? No it does not. Therefore, by the Principle of Charity, that is not the point we should focus on. My interest in this thread is not about immigration. It's about how far too many Hacker News comments are uncharitable (in this specialized sense) and how that seems to go along with ill-spiritedness. It's time we all stepped up our game.

blackbagboys 12y ago
The interpretations you've suggested go far beyond interpreting PG's argument in the strongest possible terms, running instead to interpreting it as a completely different argument. (Although I suppose that's not very charitable of me). Obviously anything is unobjectionable if you agree beforehand to disregard any interpretation you could possibly find objectionable.
- dang 12y ago
  The interpretations I've suggested are simply the ones that occurred to me as I read the essay.
ghiculescu 12y ago
> And does the literal number "95%" substantively change the argument... Given PG used that number in the article's title, and even in its URL, it does seem like it's worth debating. If the number was actually 50% as the parent suggests, then suddenly you have a very different argument.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

chrismcb 12y ago

The assusption isn't false (at least not the one you point out) the main assumption to the article is "great programmers are born" this comes from the statement that you can you can reach component programmes but not exceptional ones. The thesis is not about "programmers" it is about "exceptional programmers. It is a fact that less than 5% of the population lives in the US. You have to assume the qualities that make a great programmer are fairly evenly distributed (even if that person never utilises his skill) this is not a thin out false assumption. If you want to attack an assumption, attack the one that says you can't teach great programmers

jonny_eh 12y ago

> If you can't hire someone at your expected price then maybe you should raise it. Maybe the market price has gone higher than what you perceive it to be. That CEO could find his 30 "10x" engineers in a heartbeat if he offered 300-500k. Its not your god given right to be able to hire x number of employees for the price you hired your previous employees at. It's a zero-sum game. If company X hires all 30 of the best engineers currently looking for a job, company Y cannot. Company Y can offer more in an attempt to lure them, but then Company X will be SOL. We're talking about macro issues here. We want as many companies as possible to succeed.

igonvalue 12y ago
It's not a zero-sum game. Increased wages for engineers would encourage more people to become engineers.
- jeremyjh 12y ago
  Or to remain engineers, or to get BACK into engineering without taking a pay-cut. It would increase the supply of good engineers immediately. But I don't disagree with pg; I think we should hire all the greatest engineers in the world, except for the fact that we cannot identify them.
- brianchu 12y ago
  In the long run. IIRC labor supply is a lagging indicator, so in the short run (e.g. 1-2 years) it would be a bit closer to a zero-sum game.
  - jonny_eh 12y ago
    It feels like it's been zero-sum for a very long time.
- tsotha 12y ago
  This. Wall Street is full of near-geniuses who would be doing something more productive if finance companies weren't the ones offering the biggest salaries.

DonnyV 12y ago

You are 110% spot on. I really don't like PG using his status to push these pie in the sky numbers to back up his buddies in the valley. We all know that the biggest cost tech companies have are there developers and they would love to put the squeeze on them.