Comment by yellow_and_gray | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yellow_and_gray | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

yellow_and_gray

It's not only about wages. It's also about total wealth generated, which is driven by growth. The issue is you hit a limit.

Any startup eventually hits the limits of the market it operates in. But the point is startups don't get the chance to hit those market limits. The limit they hit first is they can't get great programmers. Their growth is stiffled early on.

Here's an example. Assume a startup is working on only one project and doesn't have a great programmer. Result: they don't get to make some breakthrough that would have increased the wealth of the startup by 100x-1000x. Without generating that wealth, demand decreases. You are still looking for just one great programmer to work on the project and can't start other new projects before you finish the existing one.

But if you didn't limit that growth (if you had a great programmer) there would be increased demand, because then you'd have 100x-1000x more wealth and could start new projects hiring more great programmers. It comes down to growth.

So having great programmers increases demand, not decrease it. The more you have, the more you end up needing.

Until you hit a limit. Once all great programmers who are in the US are snatched up, at any price, then you reached a limit to the amount of wealth that can be generated in the US by great programmers.

We are nowhere near the limit of VC wealth preventing the hiring of great programmers.

In other words, the wealth generated by previous waves of great programmers working on projects is most definitely not the limiting factor here.

Why would more wealth then generate more projects?

It's not more wealth that would generate more projects. It's finishing a previous project that would generate more projects. You don't even get to finish the project without a great programmer so you don't get to start new projects. New projects can depend on older projects.

Generating that wealth serves as proof the project completed, which justifies moving on. It's not merely being handed that wealth by a VC that completes the project because then you didn't generate anything. All you did was transfer wealth between two parties. Having wealth isn't enough to generate new wealth in tech. You also need skill.

What having more wealth would do is help pay for more great programmers but it's neither the driving nor the limiting force. The limiting force is having great programmers. They are the ones who generate new wealth.

So what you said possibly supports the argument that it's not about wages. If there were unlimited great programmers, we might indeed hit a limit on VC wealth. We could be nowhere that limit because there aren't enough great programmers.

My comment above was confusing in that it makes someone think a limit in VC wealth is what makes it prohibitive to hire great programmers. That's not what I meant to say. I meant to say that if you are limited in having great programmers, then the total amount of wealth you can generate is also limited. The US, and any country, would be better off having more great programmers.

The limit you hit is in having great programmers. Lack of great programmers limits growth. Lack of growth limits wealth.

I wish PG revised his essay to make this point.

And lack of pay limits the number of great programmers. So there we are.

Once all great programmers get a job they like they don't switch, even if you have the money to pay them more. They like what they are working on.

If a great programmer is working on the next Google, and you pay them more to work on something boring, they won't switch.

The limit is the total number of great programmers.

Yes, there's a limit. And we're nowhere near it.

And we won't be until the rewards for being a great programmer exceed the rewards for other options.

If it's as crucial as is claimed, increase the rewards. Really simple.

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies.

Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and possibly a first mover or other advantages) by not rewarding programmers?

It's not an unreasonable point to make, by the way, which is also an undervalued opportunity. Markets correct themselves. Maybe the only way to be rewarded for the value you generate as a great programmer in the future will require starting a company. I don't know enough to say.

- A related issue: you can't make someone be a great programmer just by rewarding them. Great programers tend to be intrinsically motivated. Which could be an additional opposing force that keeps them from starting companies.

- Another: pg claimed data that say there aren't enough great programmers; you claim there are: can you talk more about your data?

I'm trying to understand the problem better.

pg provided no data, he provided a sketchy anecdote and made an unsupported claim.

The idea of offering more rewards is that people who otherwise go into other fields (which are more rewarding, socially and financially), would then be attracted programming. A percentage of those people will be great programmers.

Grouping great programmers together gives them a tiny, tiny, tiny chance at large rewards. It's a gigantic risk. People aren't stupid. Most go to paths with less risk. The market has corrected itself. It attracts people in a manner appropriate to its risk/reward equation.

The way to reduce that risk is to provide more guaranteed rewards. Which means more compensation. Which means transferring more of that unused capital sitting around in VC accounts to the great programmers. Which means the limiting factor is the capital put into the system.

Absent some big payday from a startup, which is a roll of the dice not in their favor, programmer compensation is low relative to other, much less risky career paths. If the field truly wants to attract the best and brightest, it's got to offer a lot more rewards.

How much of a reward are "great programmers" 71-100 that company needed in pg's example going to get, anyway? How huge a success does the company have to be for someone that far down the line to come out way ahead? You have to offer those taking such a position a lot of up front compensation, or you won't get them.

As far as "great programmers" being intrinsically motivated, that's only true of people who are currently in the field, as the extrinsic motivation isn't really there, is it? So how do we know extrinsic doesn't work? We're not trying it.

It's ludicrous to think we have all the great programmers we could have. There are any number of people who are capable. Any number of highly intelligent, incredibly driven people who could fit the bill. They just go into other fields with better odds of superior rewards.

Want more great programmers, offer better rewards. They will come.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I also see holes in some arguments.

1) I agree there's gigantic risk.

If I understood you correctly, you are saying great programmers should have less of the downside of risk with more of its upside.

2) Are you saying great programmers apply to this hot startup in pg's example, pass the interviews, and then refuse the job offer because the compensation offered is too low? If that's what going on, then pg provided something worse than a sketchy anecdote: he lied. He omitted the startup is low-balling candidates it wants to hire. Is this what you are saying?

Or are you saying there are people with the potential of being great programmers who went into other fields because the average compensation of competent (but not great) programmers is low (which may very well be true), and this is the main reason we don't find them?

Also a small correction in "There are any number of people who are capable." It's great programmers we are looking for, not merely capable.

Another in "highly intelligent, incredibly driven people". It's not enough to be highly intelligent and incredibly driven to become a great programmer. You may have aptitude for, but not interest in programming.

3) Is it possible for a great programmer to go into another field? Because if it isn't, maybe the opposite is also true. That you can't take someone from another field and turn them into a great programmer. It's probably as hard for a great programmer to become a great sales person as it is for a great sales person to become a great programmer for example.

4) On the effectiveness of extrinsic motivation of great programmers, we already know extrinsic motivation doesn't work in general. It shouldn't be hard to find research on this. A quick search points to the following. Please correct me if this impression of mine isn't true. I want to find the truth:

http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~hugur/study_hard/Intrinsic%20and%20...

You are suggesting extrinsic motivation of great programmers specifically is an exception.

I'm going to simplify this down.

1. I believe the type of person who is capable of being a great programmer has a very large number of career options open to them, most of which don't involve becoming a great programmer.

2. Thus, I believe there is a set of people who could be great programmers who are not actually are great programmers. I believe this set to be fairly large compared to the existing set of great programmers.

3. I believe that a good sized percentage of that set of people could be motivated to become great programmers if the rewards were increased substantially. I believe they have chosen other paths which they believe will be more rewarding. If you want to change the number of great programmers, you need to change that calculation.

My position is fairly straight forward. You can agree or disagree as you wish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com