Software engineers have a habit of assuming problems are more intuitive than they actually are.

Even with H1B, there are literally not enough engineers in the Valley to saturate the demand from companies. BLS estimates that the number of employed software engineers will go up 24% next year, that’s insane.

Also, I’m not seeing this supposed depression in salaries. The median salary for a software engineer is 103k a year: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/.... That number has been growing expontially in the last decade and a half.

So there’s data that shows that engineers are getting hired more and paid more than ever before. I can’t find any to prove that H1Bs are dragging down salaries.

>> Even with H1B, there are literally not enough engineers in the Valley to saturate the demand from companies.

By "not enough engineers" I'm assuming you mean not enough engineers willing to work for so little they are forced to bunk with 3 roommates?

I know plenty of engineers. Most dont want to work as SWEs because the median salary barely affords a studio apartment, especially after California taxes.

Also, what about the 40+yr olds who are oddly purged from the workforce regularly. If there were a shortage, elderly workers would be retained, not purged in favor of cheaper, younger workers.

Tons of engineers go into consulting, real estate, finance, etc because engineers simply dont make enough, especially given the SF/SV center-of-gravity of jobs. There isnt some magical shortage of workers. There is a shortage of workers willing to work for near subsistence wages [in SF/SV prices]

>Even with H1B, there are literally not enough engineers in the Valley to saturate the demand from companies.

Why is this? This sounds like a huge U.S. talent development problem. How does this visa change help to fix this issue?

>I can’t find any to prove that H1Bs are dragging down salaries.

The very fact that the number of employed software engineers is expected to go up by 24% in a single year is the evidence you're looking for that there is a massive supply distortion in the labor market.

> Why is this? This sounds like a huge U.S. talent development problem. How does this visa change help to fix this issue?

It doesn’t, I’m against it.

> The very fact that the number of employed software engineers is expected to go up by 24% in a single year is the evidence you're looking for that there is a massive supply distortion in the labor market.

Yes... because the demand for software engineers is increasing every year and can’t keep up with supply.

>and can’t keep up with supply.

yes...the very definition of a labor distortion that drives down wages.

I feel like we can’t be reading the same thing. You’re saying that a market where there is more demand than supply is one where prices are lower? Again, I’m going to need a citation for that.

where did I say that prices are lower? I’m expressioning skepticism that a whopping 24% increase in hiring is due only to demand increases, which you heavily implied is the case. How much more would wages rise here if we weren’t artificially increasing the supply like this? We could certainly find out, if we wanted. But that would require some policy changes that are not popular to employers who are, incidentally, not interested in letting wages rise.

It makes for a good story but it's actually bullshit. There's no labor shortage in the sciences. There's just a shortage of companies willing to pay living wages.

https://archives.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php

Qualified supply is nowhere close to matching demand. Ask anyone that has to do recruiting for their teams.

Source: personal experience

>> Qualified supply is nowhere close to matching demand.

This is wrong on so many levels.

1. "Qualified" supply means experience. That means you arent hiring 22yos working at subsistence salaries shacking up with three buddies in a double-bunk apartment. It means you have to pay a "qualified person salary." I'm a qualified person, I have 18yrs experience at top firms. But guess what...175k/yr in SF/SV doesnt cut it, it gets you a 1br apt. You cant raise 2 kids in a 1br apartment. Where would the kids sleep? in the bathroom? on the dining table? Also, option compensation doesnt count, as I cant pay rent with options.

2. If you want "qualified talent" perhaps SF/SV would not age discriminate. But they do. They want young people willing to earn so little they are forced into having 3 roommates.

3. There are tons of qualified workers. Most of us dont want to move to SF/SV because the prevailing wage is too low. Pay the right wage (i.e., perhaps something that one can raise a family on) and your "shortage will magically disappear.

>> Qualified supply is nowhere close to matching demand.

I think what this typically means is: we're looking for talented developers willing to earn so littler they are forced to bunk with multiple roommates and/or live in roach infested apartments, something only desperate overseas workers are willing to do.

Talking about demand exceeding supply is somewhat nonsensical without reference to a price.

What you're saying is "at the price my company is willing to pay, we're unable to find qualified candidates." That means you can either pay more to attract qualified candidates, or do without.

Alternatively, we can raise the supply curve, which has the affect of lowering wages, and might allow your company to attract talent without paying more.

I don't know which market you are hiring in, but for jobs which pay well into 300K+ (many multiples of median household income across the country), where engineers are pampered with free meals and massages, there are shortages in qualified supply.

Ok, fair enough, my comment was perhaps flippant.

My company pays at least market rate and can afford to go higher if the candidate negotiates, so I don't think that's the issue. At least, we never had a candidate refuse a position due to money concerns. The skills we look for are not that specialized either, it's not like I'm looking for ML PhD's with a background in medicine.

Anecdotally, it just feels like almost everyone who is already good, is already happily employed. So either we need to head-hunt candidates, hope to coincidentally catch them while they're between jobs, or hire very junior candidates and train them up.

Of course, the issue might also be just that we need better recruiters to populate the candidate pool :)

That's nonsense. As an industry we have an enormous age and gender bias. I know plenty of older folks that are great software engineers and can't find work because nobody will give them a chance to interview.

here for some actual facts: https://archives.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php

> I know plenty of older folks that are great software engineers and can't find work because nobody will give them a chance to interview.

maybe tell them about triplebyte

Yeah, it's true about the hiring biases in general.

Where are they looking? Have you shown them "Who's hiring" HN threads?

This is only true for experienced professionals, and is something that will change in the next ten years given current metrics. Hiring new graduates whose qualification is that they have a computer science degree isn't difficult given that 60,000 graduate with a BS and 15,000 graduate with an MS every year.

100k this year.