Because software isn't a zero sum game. Having "too many developers" in a community doesn't mean a glut of developers fighting for scraps, it means Silicon Valley. It means you get bigger companies doing bigger things with bigger success which means bigger quantities of cash whirling around up for grabs.

Being the only plumber in town means you can charge whatever you want. Being the only developer in town means you're telecommuting and competing with Satyam.

> Having "too many developers" in a community doesn't mean a glut of developers fighting for scraps, it means Silicon Valley.

I think we might be talking about two different Silicon Valleys. The one here in the real world has a glut of developers fighting for scraps. Companies that have the luxury of being extremely picky and only hiring the best. Lots of interviewing and so-called "open positions" but not a lot of hiring.

I disagree; the nationwide median salary was $100,080; the bottom 10% earned less than $58,300. [1]

The unemployment rate for Computer and Mathematical Occupations was about 2.0%. [2]

Anecdotally, since a large part of someone's world view is by bad things that have happened to them, none of my friends from college are working outside of software. Some earn at the 10% spot in low cost-of-living areas, but they all are employed with enough money to get by.

1. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

2. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea30.htm

Edit: this only holds true for the U.S.; unemployment for coders is probably far different in other countries.

>since a large part of someone's world view is by bad things that have happened to them

I've never thought of it this way, but it seems so obvious in retrospect.

If you’re a basic dev (uneconomical to hire and train), the market works against you. If you’re halfway decent and hungry, companies are scrambling to get you on your team. I’ve been recruited just from random conversations at bars or on Muni. The “real world” is not a winner take all place, there is enough room for everyone and everyone can up their game/differentiate. Nothing is stopping people from going up or down the ladder but themselves.

Software isn't precisely zero-sum, but it's zero-sum assuming a static supply of companies to work for. Which ends up being the case in Canada, since

1. there isn't much of a culture of entrepreneurship;

2. there are few VCs, and they're pretty much all hyper-conservative, to the point that they may as well be banks.

Influx of immigrants, with zero shackling of immigrants == good chances of successful entrepreneurship.

In a few months/years, students from India and China going to US for grad studies will slow down, and most of them chosing Canada over US.

In a few years, if US continues its systematic and unfair ways of keeping citizens of India and China from immigrating to US, and Canada continues its policy of courting immigrants, you'll see a culture of entrepreneurship growing in Canada too.

To be clear, it's not that there aren't startup founders who are Canadian citizens. But, in my experience, they tend to move to the US as well—not for the tech talent pool, but rather for access to "proper" VCs. Canada has been creating startup founders for a while now... it just hasn't translated into Canadian startups.

Meanwhile, these startup founders often come back to Canada after getting their startup off the ground in the US... to create a Canadian "engineering branch office"—i.e., to hire tech talent at the cheaper Canadian going rate. But, of course, this only happens for startups that manage to get to a stage where they need whole offices of additional tech talent—which is not most startups.

Given this dynamic, I wouldn't expect increasing the number of available developers would do much at all. Now, if you could come up with some way to keep entrepreneurs from moving to the US, that might help...

> if US continues its systematic and unfair ways of keeping citizens of India and China from immigrating to US

Canadian policy was always much easier than US for immigration. I wonder then why Indian/Chinese did not go in much larger numbers to Canada as compared to US.

>I wonder then why Indian/Chinese did not go in much larger numbers to Canada as compared to US.

They did, and they still do:

Canada's percentage of foreign born population: 20.6% [0]

US's percentage of foreign born population: 13% [1]

[0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/10/03/what...

Obviously the principle of supply vs. demand still applies.

Because that is a terrible thing to do. What gives us the right to stop other people from becoming software engineers?

Anyone should be able to become an engineer. Don't the fact that they have an effect on our huge salaries? Well thats the market. Tough shit. Get better and compete with them. Don't stop other people, who are better than you, from competing by using the law against them.

I don't think that the market would care about professionally-certified coders. Accountants need to adhere to local and federal laws for GAAP accounting. Lawyers need to be familiar with local laws where they practice, and courts are gatekeepers to the practice of law. Doctors' specialization is protected by law for safety and liability purposes.

Paralegals and specialized software is a market response to the bottleneck of lawyers. Physician's assistants, BSN Nurses, and Nurse Practitioners are another market response to doctor bottlenecks.

I think that the majority of stakeholders in software would be opposed to licensing legislation for coding.

>I don't think that the market would care about professionally-certified coders

They would care because laws would be put into place making such certificates required for doing work. Just like accountants need to follow GAAP etc.

> I think that the majority of stakeholders in software would be opposed to licensing legislation for coding.

For sure they would. But that doesn't necessary mean it could be stopped from happening.

> Doctors' specialization is protected by law for safety and liability purposes.

Yet programmers writing embedded software for medical devices are not regulated for safety and reliability purposes, as far as I know. Why is that?

The onus is up to the professional using the software to vet it before employing it in their practice, afaik.

There are some guidelines for writing software in regulated industries, eg: FDA Part 11 and Annex 11 in the EU for food and drug manufacturing.

However it's more of a speed limit situation. If you're willing to risk your client getting audited while you're speeding you could get yourself and your client in trouble with the industry watch dog.

That being said I think our industry does need professional recognition and liability. That's not a bad thing... it just means you can't be reckless and you have to have someone with a PE on your team. I know SV likes to move fast without their permission but that's insane when it comes to protecting the public interest. Just look at the vulnerabilities and shady practices in automobile automation, testing, verification, etc, etc.

We could do a lot better and build more reliable things if there were some guiding hands leading the way.

Because they are not real-time practitioners, so onerous testing processes can substitute. It's the same reason why drug researchers are not licensed.

Historical reasons, most computer engineers and electrical engineers never bother to get their PE. Medical devices also have their own robust set of liability laws. Quality control is exhaustive, for the most part. (Security vulnerabilities excepted)

Yeah with the points system as it is, a big percentage of immigrants are tech workers so Canadian salaries were already lowered. Sadly it seems that the only way to become wealthy now in Canada is through real estate.

> Guess what happens when supply increases?

So we should reduce the supply by forcing licensing?

That would lower employment in the field since it would require accreditation i.e we would get an increase in unemployment which is what reducing the supply means. And Canadian companies can't afford developers as is, and you suggest increasing the cost of said developers which would force Canadian companies to either change field or close their doors. How could this possibly help anyone but Americans and American companies?

> And Canadian companies can't afford developers as is, and you suggest increasing the cost of said developers which would force Canadian companies to either change field or close their doors.

If Canadian companies can't afford to pay developers what the market bears out, they will close because those developers will get paid what they're worth somewhere else. That's capitalism.

You're suggesting Canadian developers should take lower market salaries to help those mediocre companies survive...?

Canadian developers should compete in the market and should not make up new BS laws to keep out competition. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

We are specifically arguing that the market should determine salaries. Don't put up barriers to entry. Let the market work it out.

I'm not arguing we should put up barriers like certification.

I'm merely stating that if I were a Canadian developer competing against other developers for a job, and the supply of competitive developers increased, I would be unhappy because that would drive down salaries. This is uncontroversial.

Barriers to competition like certification are one way to keep salaries high. I'm surprised that for how analytical developers are, this barrier has yet to be erected.

Wait, wtf? You're advocating for occupational licensing in tech?

Many have have advocate for such and it is not entirely crazy. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly wtf-worthy.

I think it is actually a kind of wtf that there are no certifications for software devs that make life and death things, life auto-pilot or pacemaker software.

There likely are in many cases. I don't know about software specifically but in other engineering professions, professional engineer licenses are often required when you sign off on drawings, etc. for regulatory boards. If you are responsible for a ship design, you absolutely need a PE.