That is stronger language than I would use, but yes you declined an opportunity to increase the demand for glaziers.

I imagine your are trying to allude to the glazier's fallacy [1]. However that is only a fallacy from the perspective of the entire economy. An extra dollar spent on a glazier is going to benefit the glazier. The problem for the economy at large is that the dollar might have otherwise been spent on the tailor, baker, etc.

To take this back to software development, the glazier fallacy is why I am not against open source software. The overall economy is made more efficient from it. However that doesn't change the fact that the increase in efficiency comes from not having to pay more money to software developers. That isn't great if you view the situation purely from the perspective of a (selfish) software developer.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

It's not like humans have a finite amount of wants and needs; if that were the case we would have stopped progressing thousands of years ago after agriculture was developed.

Creating open source solutions to common problems doesn't eliminate work, it frees people up to work on new problems.

> However that doesn't change the fact that the increase in efficiency comes from not having to pay more money to software developers

I propose to you a law that will increase the wages of all software developers: demand that no code can be written in a computer fabricated after 2010. *

* Hint: Bastiat.

I think you are all missing my intent if you are trying to point out the absurdity of my argument. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of OP's argument by comparing it to something equally absurd that would be more familiar to the average HN reader.

Ooh, I like that for other reasons: all those electron apps and bloated web pages would start being painful for developers. Maybe 16 GB of RAM would start feeling spacious again.

Or maybe it just means the software developers are paid to do things other than reinvent the wheel.