Might be. I am not an economist. However, I think the rest of my point still stands without that concession.
476 karma · joined January 23, 2013
It might be the case that salaries won't become truly bimodal. It seems like there might be "tiers" of compensation which are based on levels of competition between similar companies. SV startups tend to pay less than Google or FB, but their compensation packages are typically within the same ballpark of each other. Perhaps the bimodality is most notable for new grads, since they typically don't get hired at mid/small companies.
However, I do have to point out that it seems that Epic is trying to become more competitive with regard to that same subset of engineers that Google hires. Presumably, if they're trying to become more competitive, then they're not yet competitive. Either Epic will have to pay some engineers the same as what Google pays (including equity etc.) or they won't remain competitive for that small pool of devs.
Also, worth noting that I'm saying that as someone that was once rejected by Google on a first-round phone screen.
Point being, there are probably lots of factors that combine to make a candidate skilled enough to get hired at Facemazon. It's just that having that combination of skills is rare, so the salary gap persists.
You could also argue that maybe Facebook doesn't need devs to be able to independently produce Tarjan's algorithm while standing on their heads, blindfolded. But for some reason, these companies believe that it is essential. Maybe that's well-founded -- maybe not. But it remains the case.
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and whatever other big name you want to throw in the pot, are competing for developers. However, they are not competing for the same developers as Epic Systems, for example. FAANG (or whatever) are competing for a highly skilled subset of devs that can meet their demanding hiring criteria. Similarly, top law firms are only competing for a subset of all law grads -- those that meet their demanding hiring criteria.
The difference here is that, in law, that criteria is focused around a prestigious degree. Presumably, this is because it is hard to thoroughly test a lawyer's competency as a lawyer in an interview setting. However, in programming, many top companies, apparently, find that a series of intense whiteboard interviews are sufficient to determine whether or not a dev meets their high standard.
However, we also have a shortage of devs across the board, for all companies. If CS enrollment increased by 100%, then presumably the "lower" distribution of salaries would stabilize at a lower number -- probably close to what traditional engineers make nowadays. However, the salaries of the GooBooks of the world will only be affected if a sufficiently high proportion of those grads can meet a very difficult hiring criteria.
Similarly, law schools have seen a dramatic increase in enrollment over the past few decades. Lower salaries have stabilized, since the market is now saturated. However, the salaries for top law firms remain high, because a similarly low number of candidates meet their difficult hiring criteria: Harvard, Yale, and etc. are producing more or less the same number of law grads as before, with respect to demand.
This is why Google can open an office across the street from Epic and yet still pay devs twice as much. This is also why I don't think immigration is a huge factor. Sure, if companies were able to immigrate significantly more workers, then salaries at top companies might drop to a degree. But the real drop would be seen in the salaries of devs at typical companies.
EDIT: grammar
But I think it is a little disingenuous to call those artists "noise artists" insofar as their mainstream success is concerned.
At first, you take aim at the "victim" mindset -- a mis-characterization of the analogy of the OP. However, you then go on to even concede that the perpetuators of this mindset may even hold well-founded "complaints."
Of course people from all backgrounds try to become entrepreneurs, engineers, artists and whatever else. Nevertheless, it's clear that people from some backgrounds face more difficulties than others -- that's all. The fact that merely pointing out this fact gets you slapped with a "victim" label is hilarious. Of course people from all backgrounds should continue to work hard and pursue their goals -- but as a society, we should also strive to lower un-equal barriers where possible.
Your comment is just a mess of generalizations and grand-standing. You're losing faith in this country because you've seen a "victim" mindset emerge in the past two months on hacker news -- a pretty niche website in the American demographic -- even while recognizing that the grievances contributing to this mindset may be legitimate. Forgive me if I don't take your loss of faith seriously. Furthermore, I have to say, if anyone is victim-baiting here, it's clearly yourself.
We're still having problems with massive bubbles. Feel free to submit issues or PR's on the GitHub: https://github.com/dgarrick/headliner
It refreshes with new stories every few hours. You can check it out here: http://headlinr.herokuapp.com/
EDIT: click on the bubbles to see individual headlines. Also, here's the GitHub page: https://github.com/dgarrick/headliner
I would highly recommend the book "The Innovator's Dilemma." It provides case studies of disruptive innovations across many different industries -- from farm tech to disk drives.
It's very practical, however it approaches the language from a completely novice perspective. If you have years of programming experience, it may be a little redundant for you.
This is a little more advanced, obviously, so it's not a great activity for total beginners. However, once a kid learns that they can make exploding blocks just by writing about 5 lines of code, they're totally hooked.
It also gives them an initial idea as to what real software looks like. Once that is demystified, their confidence as coders increases substantially.