Usually it’s much easier to be liberal when doing so doesn’t cost you meaningfully. I’d encourage you to evaluate for yourself if your stances are truly fair and if you’re truly liberal considering how painful it is for an H1B to lose their job vs you. It’s also easy to say “but H1Bs get exploited!” Considering how many H1Bs come here, maybe they’d rather face this exploitation vs staying in their own country?

In a free market, there's no such thing as a shortage. This isn't a 1980's soviet grocery store. The market for programmers is not centrally planned. Its one of the least-regulated markets extant today.

So anybody complaining about a "shortage of programmers" is just a cheapskate.

In a free market, what signals to us that more of something should be produced? Buehler? Buehler?

I spent much of 2020 trying to find things like bread in US supermarkets. It's funny how people harken back to Russia 40 years ago as if I was not walking through empty supermarkets four years ago.

There was only a shortage because it wasn't a free market, i.e. nobody wanted to make the dick move of raising the price of bread or toilet paper, because it would cause hardship.

If the prices had been allowed to rise, supply would have equaled demand very quickly, and the shelves would have been stocked as ever. Of course, some people wouldn't have been able to afford them, so we needed some external, non-market mechanism (rationing) to keep prices lower.

I did not know you can magically start bread making factories at a whim

The shelves wouldn't be stocked because stores and factories magically appeared; they would be stocked because the price was so high that nobody could afford to hoard bread or toilet paper.

You can if the price is right.

There is no such thing in the US as a truly free market.

While rising prices for the toilet paper would have quickly solved the shortage situation it would have elicited the wrath of local and national authorities. And those authorities can make life hell for anyone trying to charge whatever the market will bear.

> There is no such thing in the US as a truly free market.

Just like there are no circles in the US which are exactly 1.234 meters in diameter. Yes, the concept of a "free market" is an ideal, like the concept of a circle is. That doesn't mean that there aren't instantiations of either one which are closer to the ideal than others.

The market for programmers is one of the freest there is. We don't have guilds limiting how many people can be programmers (like, e.g. the American Medical Association does for doctors.) And we don't have unions forcing arbitrary seniority rules, or uniform pay scales.

And government regulation varies from state to state, but most states are "at will" states--you can either quit or be fired at any time for any reason. You don't have to provide any minimum amount of vacation.

The market in programmers is way more free than, say, the market in automobiles or airplanes, where there are all kinds of regulations about safety, etc. But if you can't afford a Ferrari, or a private jet, that doesn't mean there is a Ferrari shortage, or a private jet shortage.

And if you can't afford to pay market wages for programmers, that doesn't mean there is a shortage of programmers either.

Toilet paper ran out because inventories are kept to a bare minimum. Big box stores maintain a one day supply to keep inventory turnover tight. It had nothing to do with manufacturing capacity (Russian example).

I didn't claim that the cause of the problem was with manufacturing capacity.

But if the US didn't have implicit price controls ("just try raising prices 3x at this time of national need, you will regret it" from politicians), the deficits would have resolved in a week. My 2c.

Sure, if there were not price controls, the shelves would have been full of toilet paper.....but a large segment of the population wouldn't have been able to afford to buy it.

I don't know if you've ever been so poor that you couldn't buy toilet paper. But I sure have, and let me tell you, sneaking napkins from starbucks, and getting ink all over your hands from using newspapers goes from being inconvenient to being massively depressing real quick.

What kills me are these "sunshine capitalists" who just loooove the free market when they are making money, but who are the fist to cry "shortages!!!" and complain about the market value of engineering talent when it comes to spending money.

Heh, I have grown up not having the toilet paper -- workers paradise, stores carrying mostly the necessities, and luxuries like the toilet paper are only for the few big cities. Using scraps of paper does not kill you. And dental work without Novocaine does not kill you either (although I sure prefer it done with Novocaine now).

But living in this workers paradise I have seen real people suffer from the lack of medication that was available to anyone in the West. The party leadership did not find it necessary (or easy) to produce it locally, so it was only available to those with the right connections. And so on.

I am now a well-off, spoiled American (and the above reads like an O'Henry? story about two rich gentlemen arguing in a restaurant on who had it harder during their youth), but first impressions linger and I will take capitalism over socialism any day. Yes, capitalism has many failings, but replacing the guidance of money with the wise rule of the elite will always lead to a Venezuela-type mismanagement. My 2c.

Household toilet paper ran out (commercial did not, but its made for very different dispensers) because the supply chains are hyperspecialized and cannot adapt on any reasonable timetable. It absolutely did have to do with manufacturing capacity (otherwise it would have resolved much more quickly), and a rapid demand realignment of where people were using restrooms. The absence of price gouging laws would not have dealt with the fundamental problem, or even with the hoarding response once the supply problems became visible, it would just have shifted which hoarders cleaned out the stocks to the richest rather than merely the fastest, and would have put a lot more money in the hands of sellers.

Is this pedantic or pragmatic? A commodity, needed/wanted by all people, used to be available at a price point X, is now unaffordable for a large percentage of its erstwhile consumers is a shortage.

If that commodity satisfies a basic need, its unavilability is just even more fucked up.

Surely, there are many different senses for the word "shortage", so, even if you are pragmatic, its a good idea to be pedantic as to which one you are using.

When I claim a free market has no shortages, I'm using "shortage" in the sense that demand does not exceed supply. "Demand" and "Supply" are also very carefully defined by economists. It's a theorem that under these definitions, in the condition of a free market, there are no shortages.

The market for programmers is certainly not a completely free market, but its close enough that if somebody says they can't find any programmers, it means they are not willing or able to pay market wages for programmers.

>it’s much easier to be liberal when doing so doesn’t cost you meaningfully

I’d go so far as to say that is almost part and parcel what a “liberal” is almost always

That applies across the board, and I suspect is a personality trait independent of political alignment. I've witnessed people on the right who were against handouts or abortion until they were personally impacted.

When there is a real personal cost, a good chunk of people become surprisingly flexible about their politics, or spectacularly fail to resolve the cognitive dissonance and resort to "My circumstances are different."

I have seen people on the left preach about banning guns until they got into an argument with their neighbor and ran over to my house to borrow a shotgun. I still don't know why I let them have it. I never got it back.

We all hold beliefs that were never really tested. You never know how strong your principles are until they are treated by circumstances.

I was a contractor for a large financial institution -- one you've heard of. They fired a number of their employees during a layoff a year before my contract ended.

They did it, not because I was cheaper (my contract certainly wasn't) but because they could get rid of the bottom 15%. And company rules limited my contractual ability to remain on.

I was kinda shocked at this. "Why wouldn't you keep the people you hired on over the contractors? Don't you hire the best?"

It turns out they hired to fill seats, not to hire the best.

Perhaps what causes this is managers who want to level up usually do so by commanding ever larger groups of people. And when they hire for that scenario they don't really care what kind of people they hire.

Those are "castle builders". But I've also seen people hire bad people to be tossed to the curb for an upcoming 5% across the board layoff.

Since when “migrants are stealing our jobs“ is a liberal take?

When people preface a statement with "Im pretty X, but ..." the statment usually isnt X

> I remember being a naive college student and hearing about a "software engineer shortage."

This is real and it still is real, these positions don't pay over 200k for a 4 year degree because there is an abundance.

>I was to play a part in the devaluation of engineering labor by helping supply exceed demand, thereby allowing company owners to commodify software labor to ultimately pay wages proportional to hours worked rather than offering a share in company ownership, which allows for compensation proportional to company success.

Wow slippery slope fallacy. The medical field has no commodity workers and they aren't given ownership.

Anyway, seems like an axe to grind rather than the reality of things.

> If H1B's were legitimately about labor shortages, it would be required that all companies fire/layoff their H1B's first.

Not necessarily. If I knew the chances of me being able to stay in the US we're that much lower because of that law, I'd be far less likely to apply in the first place, hence worsening the labor shortage.