“Shortage” is an economic term of art, so I won’t use it here. But it’s likely true that there is lot of valuable, economic-growth-producing work that could be profitable if a software engineer costs $100k/year instead of $500k/year. Businesses that lie on the margin of profitability are likely to feel that it’s hard to find good talent. Of course, it’s bad for us existing software engineers if the supply increases and the price goes down. It’s likely good for society overall though, if it enables a bunch of other businesses to exist. This is true in the same way that more trucks, more warehouses, and more conveyor belts would increase economic output, even if they were already available for the right price.

You just said that there's lots of valuable work that could be done, but your example of work that could be done is work isn't valuable enough to do unless software engineers get paid (in the SF Bay Area) notably less than a dental hygienist.

I like having clean teeth. If someone can make more as a dental hygienist, why on earth would it be valuable to society if they instead worked as a software engineer for less money?

If people won't work for 100k/yr as a software engineer, that means people capable of doing this work have found higher value things to do elsewhere. The higher salary elsewhere reflects the higher value produced doing something else.

This is one of many reasons why I'm so bewildered when people talk about a "shortage" of software engineers without considering the options available in other fields (fields that, perhaps, pay better and don't require taking bizarro whiteboard exams every time you change jobs).

I'd say there is a shortage of software engineers as long as most stem grads can easily raise their salary significantly by doing a few months at a coding bootcamp. That is still true, so there is a shortage of software engineers. I multiplied my salary that way, although I learned it on my own instead of a bootcamp but it is the same idea.

I didn’t say anything about the SF Bay Area.

That makes no sense. A voluntary pay reduction is like a subsidy leading to market distortion (more supply than the market can bear) and windfall gains (employers might just keep the extra profits) - only that this subsidy is coming from your and my paycheck lol.

The idea is an employer-side argument to counter the labour-side demand for higher wages: Don't have the wages to high, otherwise we go bankrupt and can't employ you any longer.

But programmers are already well employed, and software companies aren't really suffering. Cheaper programmers won't make website less bloated, won't make us figure out what to do with GPT-3, won't find a useful application for blockchains, won't make Windows 10 less moronic, won't make ad-tech less harmful, won't make the tech recruiters and the non-technical folk around software projects more competent...it would simply kill one of the few fields of employments that still pay well!

Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit.

I didn’t say anything about a voluntary reduction in pay. Any reduction in pay would be a result of market forces in response to increased supply.

> Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit.

In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap. In terms of square footage of home per population, the US is doing great. Problems are with inequality, in terms of geography and wealth.

Market forces should have already brought in more people into software if they really are that high, bringing down the salaries. What other measure would you suggest? Importing supply from abroad? Whatever it is, it would lead to a reduction in pay, which you suprisingly support - that amounts to walking into your boss' office and asking for a pay reduction.

> In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap.

That's the point. The effect of cheap construction labor only affects the rent prices in some areas, in other areas owners pocket the extra profit - while making construction jobs largely untenable except for immigrants coming from poverty.

I suspect something similar could play out in the software field.

> Whatever it is, it would lead to a reduction in pay, which you suprisingly support - that amounts to walking into your boss' office and asking for a pay reduction.

I just think it’s useful to try to understand the effects of policies not just on me, but on society at large. For example, I might observe that a tax increase hurts me personally but helps others. Are you saying that instead I ought to come up with reasons why the policies that are bad for me are also bad for everyone else, to better lobby for myself, or perhaps so I feel less cognitive dissonance?

> That's the point. The effect of cheap construction labor only affects the rent prices in some areas, in other areas owners pocket the extra profit - while making construction jobs largely untenable except for immigrants coming from poverty. > I suspect something similar could play out in the software field.

So in a region where home supply is constrained by density restrictions, there’s surplus extracted via high rents, and some of that surplus could go to construction workers (and they ought to fight to get a good wage so the developers don’t get all the surplus). Great for the construction workers, but bad for renters. In the analogy, software engineers are the construction workers and everyone else is the renters. Given the high market value of my wages, I will negotiate hard to get my share. At the same time, I can acknowledge that there would be benefits to society if there were more people qualified to write software, even though it would lower my personal wealth.

Currently there seems to be no mechanism increasing construction workers' wages or lowering rent. The extra profits are kept, and society isn't better for it (if it were, I'd be all for it like you). The reasons for this are fundamental, partly explained in an economics class, partly the result of imperfect markets and practicalities (a rich landlord might not immediately go out and build new real estate that would lower rents overall, he'd just sit on his boat).

My final point therefore is, let's keep IT salaries high for now.

In areas absent density restrictions, the US is indeed great at building tons of housing, developers don’t make huge profit margins, and rents are low. Is your argument that society would be better off if there were less construction workers, so housing costs would go up, allowing each remaining worker to be paid more and less total homes to be built? My opinion is that the higher wages for construction workers are nice, but they don’t nearly make up for the undersupply housing (we see both of these phenomenon in the Bay Area - higher wages for construction workers, who still can’t afford a home themselves).

You argued that software isn’t good for the world, so society wouldn’t benefit from more of it. This is a perspective I don’t usually get (especially here on HN) and I’m interested in hearing more. My belief is that software is part of a centuries-long trend of technology/productivity advances that have brought billions of people out of poverty, the continuance of which is necessary (although not sufficient) for a post-scarcity utopian future. I don’t know if we will ever invent a replicator, but I think more software engineers increase the odds!

Currently in NY making 150k with 10yoe at a non-tech company. Would jump ship in a heartbeat to SF for 300k, or 250k, or even 200k.

This legendary meme that everyone in SF is making 300k and drives a Ferrari has taken on a life of its own, and now we even have people outside of the Bay Area believing and repeating it. This is an outlier compensation for senior people at outlier companies. Anyone would jump ship for it, but it's not like hundreds of companies are handing out these salaries at the airport when you land.

Is it? Not sure about 300k, but 200k seems within the realm of realism. I've interviewed at a few Bay Area companies (I'd say they are "mid tier", not FAANG or top tier) and expected comp ranged around 200-250k.

That said, I was actually surprised at the lack of expensive cars driven by SFBA techies. I interviewed at Netflix, which I know pays astoundingly well, and the parking lot had a distinct lack of luxury brand cars. The exception seemed to be Teslas - I did see a bunch of Model S's and X's (Model 3 had not come out yet at the time).

Compare that to many East Coast suburban office campuses of non-tech companies that pay pretty poorly - you still see tons of mid to high end BMWs, Benzes, etc.