There is a shortage, or this wouldn't be getting talked about. The reality is that despite how well engineers are compensated, most aren't in a position to go 6-12 months without a paycheck while they try a startup. A large number of a mortgage or kids and can't take on that level of risk. On top of that you have to have to be willing to put in a ton of hours...much more than a lucrative 9-5 would require. On top of that, you have to be willing to work on someone else's idea. I don't know about you but, for me, ideas have never been the hard part. The hard part is finding the time to explore those ideas. If I found that time, I'd want to spend it on one of my own ideas rather than someone else's mostly unexplored idea.

> I'd happily give that a shot if someone approached me with a halfway interesting idea.

That's really what's being talked about here. The reality is that many, if not most, non-technical founders have really crappy ideas. And then they complain about not being able to find a technical co-founder. What this article is saying is that they need to earn it. They need to validate their idea in some way that doesn't need technical skills beyond what they can learn themselves. Do the work or put in the money necessary to earn your technical co-founder's participation. Because that person has put in thousands of hours learning how to build what you need built. Just expecting to bring an idea to the table and have a technical person jump at working together is unrealistic. An non-technical founder needs to put in the effort to make their offer attractive.

I'm slightly curious as to your geographic location, as I suspect this is hugely influential in attitude.

Here is Orlando the mantra seems to be "I need to pay my bills, do that and I'll help you".

Chicago. It would be easier to live on peanuts here than in SV for sure.