5 ms·

This whole set of lies really makes me angry. Ever notice how it's only the most powerful of powerful who complain about "talent shortage"? Those who have the

by gsibble 12y ago

This whole set of lies really makes me angry. Ever notice how it's only the most powerful of powerful who complain about "talent shortage"? Those who have the most to gain from reducing technology salaries? Sure, you might hear about it being a competitive market with high salaries and all, but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up! If anything, they aren't going up enough. Programer's salaries as a whole have stayed nearly even since 1992 [1]. Furthermore, profit margins in the technology sector are remarkably high with very little spent on HR compared to another highly profitable sector: banking. Highly skilled STEM graduates frequently choose to go into finance because they can make more over a longer career without a cap on their income. The ratio of revenue to HR costs at tech companies and finance companies is way out of whack. If tech wants the best workers, there are plenty of willing and capable Americans ready to pick up the work. Just fucking pay for it. Stop lying through your teeth that this is about talent. It isn't. It's about your stockholders. That's why you only hear the most powerful bitching about it since they are the only ones who would benefit. [1] http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2013/07/18/IT_average_salaries-unemployment_chart_business_desk.jpg http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2013/07/18/...

mgkimsal 12y ago
" but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up!" And this is the other half of the labor/capital equation, doing its damnedest to keep expenses low and profits high. It's supposed to work like this. :/
blazespin 12y ago
Agreed, it is brutal how awful the zucks and pgs of the world argue about this. What I find bizarre is aren't they aware of how dishonest / douchey they come off when they fail to mention the impact on wages? There is a way to solve the immigration problem. Create a system where the companies can hire people if they poney up 50k. That way there will be minimal impact on salaries and companies can get all the super stars they can afford.
curiousDog 12y ago
Would be nice if someone extrapolated how the wages would look like today if the H1-B program wasn't put into place. Would programmers be making WallStreet salaries? How would that have impacted the start-up ecosystem? Also, numerous H1-Bs are the core of companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. How would things have looked without any of them?
- amerliore 12y ago
  And where would wages be if the biggest tech employers had not been blatantly colluding to depress wages, using illegal anti-competitive tactics? Paul Graham advocates for free trade when it will increase the value of his portfolio and the wealth of his friends. He doesn't say a word about how free trade has been undermined by the illegal collusion of Facebook, Google, and Apple.
  - arunabha 12y ago
    Agreed, there does seem to be a pretty asymmetric view of the effects of free trade by the VC crowd and the media. Case in point, there has been an almost complete radio silence in the tech and mainstream media about the wage suppression related class action lawsuit that is ongoing. There was a brief flurry of reports at the beginning, but ever since Aug, when the judge rejected the proposed settlement, there has been no mention of the lawsuit at all. The only people who keep the issue alive are the rank and file tech folks as witnessed by the comments section of any article related to tech wages and immigration.
  - FranzVonSuppe 12y ago
    I would just like to point out Facebook was not among the companies indicted for collusion. Think what you will about Facebook, but it is on the high horse in this occasion.
    - amerliore 12y ago
      You're right. I would edit it but the comment is now too old to edit. My sincere apologies to Facebook. Here is a partial list of guilty companies: Apple Google Microsoft IBM Adobe Oracle Sun Intel Earthlink Virgin Genentech eBay / Paypal Pixar Intuit Lucasfilm Dreamworks Dell Comcast Clear Channel WPP AOL AskJeeves Lycos Oglivy Illumita DoubleClick
schuman 12y ago
It's not a pack of lies. You're conflating two issues. One issue is that engineers are underpaid because they tend to oppose the sorts of organization and regulation that could provide real bargaining power. Libertarian ideology runs rampant, and this hugely benefits buyers of engineering talent. A separate issue is that even if you paid more money, there wouldn't magically be more engineers who can actually do the work that startups need done. We don't ned 10% more great engineers or 20%. We need double. or Triple.
barrkel 12y ago
For a variety of economic and historical reasons, many software companies are only likely to succeed in the US. Without an influx of new people at a faster rate than education, increased salaries from demand will just shuffle existing engineers around. Instead of working at company A, they'll work at company B, earning a few percent extra; and company A, not being able to afford engineers, will either find something else to do, or close up shop. Higher salaries aren't enough to increase the supply of labour very quickly. Which one of company A vs company B is more likely to be a startup? What you are actually arguing for, is for software engineers to seek rent on the creation of new companies. You want to slow down growth in the economy and decrease the rate at which software gets applied to new problems, in order to make more salary (for Americans, in particular, as opposed to people less geographically well off). It's self-interested, and thus understandable. I don't really fault you for arguing your corner. But you should be aware that it's not necessarily in the interest of your fellow Americans, never mind VCs. Other Americans also benefit from the application of software to all sorts of problems. Increased salaries for engineers mean that software is more expensive (however it's paid for), and there's less of it. PS: the parasites feeding on nexus of finance are a separate issue. It doesn't make your argument more convincing, because they are a special case, recently in particular. Those parasites need dealing with, but the regulatory system has largely been captured, especially in the US. My problem with working in finance is ethics, rather than salary. Much of those earnings have been against latent risks that the taxpayer is underpinning.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  "Higher salaries aren't enough to increase the supply of labour very quickly." They're enough to increase the supply of labor over the course of 5-10 years, which is plenty of time to keep the US competitive. So really it's the companies refusing to pay higher wages in order to increase the talent pool who are holding America back.
- Jormundir 12y ago
  You have some good points, but a lot of your argument is hinged on the idea that higher salaries would not bring more talent into the field. It's a statement that isn't backed up, and one I feel very skeptically about. I think both sides have fine points. I don't support immigration barriers, but I also don't think we should tear the wall down in one fell swoop. If we significantly lower the boundary to immigration all at once, it will probably create a painful cycle in which all workers are significantly under paid until the businesses find the right balance in salary in order to get enough quality. Ultimately lowering the immigration barriers will probably be good for everyone, tech workers included as the talent market globalizes and opens up more opportunities all around the world. Right now the need for good software globally seems to far outweigh the supply. I've heard a lot of companies reason for locating in the Bay Area is for access to high quality engineers, way more than it is for financing. It's way easier to take money outside the Bay Area than it is to convince good engineers to move to X.
malisper 12y ago
> If tech wants the best workers, there are plenty of willing and capable Americans ready to pick up the work. Are the people currently available really the best?
skybrian 12y ago
I can't get behind this because it's not workers versus management, or at least not only that. It's also workers versus other workers. Don't you have any friends who have had immigration issues? Screwing with them (or rather, supporting the politicians who do it) to get an even higher salary when we're already paid very well is pretty callous. The reputation of tech employees is bad enough without this infighting over getting an even better seat at the table.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by gsibble 12y ago

mgkimsal 12y ago

" but that's what it's supposed to be! Engineering talent is in high demand and salaries are supposed to go up!" And this is the other half of the labor/capital equation, doing its damnedest to keep expenses low and profits high. It's supposed to work like this. :/

blazespin 12y ago

Agreed, it is brutal how awful the zucks and pgs of the world argue about this. What I find bizarre is aren't they aware of how dishonest / douchey they come off when they fail to mention the impact on wages? There is a way to solve the immigration problem. Create a system where the companies can hire people if they poney up 50k. That way there will be minimal impact on salaries and companies can get all the super stars they can afford.

curiousDog 12y ago

Would be nice if someone extrapolated how the wages would look like today if the H1-B program wasn't put into place. Would programmers be making WallStreet salaries? How would that have impacted the start-up ecosystem? Also, numerous H1-Bs are the core of companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. How would things have looked without any of them?

amerliore 12y ago
And where would wages be if the biggest tech employers had not been blatantly colluding to depress wages, using illegal anti-competitive tactics? Paul Graham advocates for free trade when it will increase the value of his portfolio and the wealth of his friends. He doesn't say a word about how free trade has been undermined by the illegal collusion of Facebook, Google, and Apple.
- arunabha 12y ago
  Agreed, there does seem to be a pretty asymmetric view of the effects of free trade by the VC crowd and the media. Case in point, there has been an almost complete radio silence in the tech and mainstream media about the wage suppression related class action lawsuit that is ongoing. There was a brief flurry of reports at the beginning, but ever since Aug, when the judge rejected the proposed settlement, there has been no mention of the lawsuit at all. The only people who keep the issue alive are the rank and file tech folks as witnessed by the comments section of any article related to tech wages and immigration.
- FranzVonSuppe 12y ago
  I would just like to point out Facebook was not among the companies indicted for collusion. Think what you will about Facebook, but it is on the high horse in this occasion.
  - amerliore 12y ago
    You're right. I would edit it but the comment is now too old to edit. My sincere apologies to Facebook. Here is a partial list of guilty companies: Apple Google Microsoft IBM Adobe Oracle Sun Intel Earthlink Virgin Genentech eBay / Paypal Pixar Intuit Lucasfilm Dreamworks Dell Comcast Clear Channel WPP AOL AskJeeves Lycos Oglivy Illumita DoubleClick

schuman 12y ago

It's not a pack of lies. You're conflating two issues. One issue is that engineers are underpaid because they tend to oppose the sorts of organization and regulation that could provide real bargaining power. Libertarian ideology runs rampant, and this hugely benefits buyers of engineering talent. A separate issue is that even if you paid more money, there wouldn't magically be more engineers who can actually do the work that startups need done. We don't ned 10% more great engineers or 20%. We need double. or Triple.

barrkel 12y ago

For a variety of economic and historical reasons, many software companies are only likely to succeed in the US. Without an influx of new people at a faster rate than education, increased salaries from demand will just shuffle existing engineers around. Instead of working at company A, they'll work at company B, earning a few percent extra; and company A, not being able to afford engineers, will either find something else to do, or close up shop. Higher salaries aren't enough to increase the supply of labour very quickly. Which one of company A vs company B is more likely to be a startup? What you are actually arguing for, is for software engineers to seek rent on the creation of new companies. You want to slow down growth in the economy and decrease the rate at which software gets applied to new problems, in order to make more salary (for Americans, in particular, as opposed to people less geographically well off). It's self-interested, and thus understandable. I don't really fault you for arguing your corner. But you should be aware that it's not necessarily in the interest of your fellow Americans, never mind VCs. Other Americans also benefit from the application of software to all sorts of problems. Increased salaries for engineers mean that software is more expensive (however it's paid for), and there's less of it. PS: the parasites feeding on nexus of finance are a separate issue. It doesn't make your argument more convincing, because they are a special case, recently in particular. Those parasites need dealing with, but the regulatory system has largely been captured, especially in the US. My problem with working in finance is ethics, rather than salary. Much of those earnings have been against latent risks that the taxpayer is underpinning.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
"Higher salaries aren't enough to increase the supply of labour very quickly." They're enough to increase the supply of labor over the course of 5-10 years, which is plenty of time to keep the US competitive. So really it's the companies refusing to pay higher wages in order to increase the talent pool who are holding America back.
Jormundir 12y ago
You have some good points, but a lot of your argument is hinged on the idea that higher salaries would not bring more talent into the field. It's a statement that isn't backed up, and one I feel very skeptically about. I think both sides have fine points. I don't support immigration barriers, but I also don't think we should tear the wall down in one fell swoop. If we significantly lower the boundary to immigration all at once, it will probably create a painful cycle in which all workers are significantly under paid until the businesses find the right balance in salary in order to get enough quality. Ultimately lowering the immigration barriers will probably be good for everyone, tech workers included as the talent market globalizes and opens up more opportunities all around the world. Right now the need for good software globally seems to far outweigh the supply. I've heard a lot of companies reason for locating in the Bay Area is for access to high quality engineers, way more than it is for financing. It's way easier to take money outside the Bay Area than it is to convince good engineers to move to X.

malisper 12y ago

> If tech wants the best workers, there are plenty of willing and capable Americans ready to pick up the work. Are the people currently available really the best?

skybrian 12y ago

I can't get behind this because it's not workers versus management, or at least not only that. It's also workers versus other workers. Don't you have any friends who have had immigration issues? Screwing with them (or rather, supporting the politicians who do it) to get an even higher salary when we're already paid very well is pretty callous. The reputation of tech employees is bad enough without this infighting over getting an even better seat at the table.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]