[hiram112]

Doctors and lawyers have created their own barriers to entry via the AMA and Bar Association. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a decent software engineer that wouldn't have the intelligence to make it through either medical or law school, should they apply themself. OTOH, I've met numerous doctors and lawyers that would never be able to handle the typical high-level math and CS courses a decent undergrad requires.

I've said this before: there are a lot of 20-something developers on HN that continue to push back against organizing as they're making decent money and in high demand (for the moment), compared to their friends in other professions. The problem is that once a software engineer hits his/her thirties, those professional friends have caught up in salary. We'll still be working in open-office environments with free soda, while they'll have real offices, expense accounts, salaries based on profits, and most importantly, respect.

By late 30's, we've hit the glass ceiling, but doctors, law partners, finance and business pros are just getting started. There are exceptions (e.g. the lucky start-up guys, consultants that own their own shop, etc.), but for the most part, this is reality.

The lack of any sort of organization for our 'profession' is one of the main reasons I'm beginning to look for a new career path. The H1B is a disaster - I actually worked in India for one of the big abusers, and realize that without something, things will get worse, especially since we've probably maxed out this latest bubble.

[fecak]

It's not useful to try and debate that one field is more difficult than others. All three fields employ a mix of people with varying intellect. It's also not useful to make silly claims that every decent engineer you know had the intellect to complete medical/law school, or that numerous doctors/lawyers couldn't handle math/CS courses. Unless you're giving aptitude tests to your lawyers and doctors, which I assume you aren't. These claims are highly speculative and sound petty.

Your other comments are more worthy of further thought.

I don't understand why you feel software professionals aren't given respect. Nearly every "Best job" survey on the internet will list it #1 or 2, with several other technical jobs in the top 10. That doesn't necessarily equal respect, but the industry is certainly getting tons of attention and many are trying to enter through any means possible. I'm not sure how we can measure respect or disrespect, but I don't see it.

I know plenty of engineers that are making a good living with plenty of work/life balance that are well beyond 40. I'm sure there are some that aren't as well, but engineers that are mindful of marketability can have a long run in the industry.

[geebee]

I agree that it isn't useful to compare fields. Unfortunately, we have to. There is currently a huge amount of debate about whether there is a "shortage" of software developers. This implies some kind of market failure, that US citizens and permanent residents are not responding to the market signals that should be drawing more people into the field.

If we're going to have a meaningful discussion about this, then we more or less have to start to make these comparisons. Are people who have the freedom to chose their careers in the US behaving irrationally by choosing, law, medicine, finance, actuarial work, nursing, dental hygiene, and so forth over software development? A lot of people are surprised to hear that out in San Francisco (check BLS stats), the median salary for a software developer is roughly equivalent to a dental hygienist, notably less than for a registered nurse, and of course far less than the median for a doctor or lawyer. I don't object to higher salaries in these fields at all, but looking at the data, I'd say that any "shortage" is pretty easily explained as a rational response to pay, career security, working conditions, and the opportunity to do meaningful work that helps others.

I don't see how you can answer this question without comparing the fields.

As you can probably tell, I'm skeptical of almost all claims of a "shortage", regardless of industry. I don't dismiss it as a market impossibility the way some people do - I do believe that cultural and educational problems can lead to "shortages", but I do think we need to be very, very careful about analyzing it.

Software is a tough one to analyze, because anyone can call themselves a programmer (or even an engineer, most places) after reading a book on php (or not reading it and just saying they did). But yeah, I do think that someone with the analytical and logical reasoning ability to program, the reading comprehension to wade through dense technical material, and the persistence to keep at it until he or she can actually write, adapt, and maintain a code base… yes, I do think that person is almost certainly capable of handling the academic work at the median level in more or less every profession.

[fecak]

>looking at the data, I'd say that any "shortage" is pretty easily explained as a rational response to pay, career security, working conditions, and the opportunity to do meaningful work that helps others.

I've said this before, but I think that any "shortage" has much more to do with traditional career paths considered by high school and college students as learned from their families and upbringing.

Just look at the careers you chose - law, medicine, finance. How many times did children of my generation (Gen X - I'm 44) hear "be a doctor" or "be a lawyer", or banker/nurse/dentist? Countless times.

I never remember being told "be a computer programmer!" in my entire life, and I personally had much more exposure to computers than most in my generation probably did in the 70s/80s due to my proximity to a leading university with several professors living on my block.

I don't think decisions to join other fields over technology have anything to do with rational responses to pay/security or working conditions, but are just steeped in traditions. My grandparents didn't know "computer programming" was something people could do for a living. My parents probably never considered it as a career for me until I was already out of college.

My generation may be the first generation of parents to identify software dev as a legitimate and realistic career path.

[geebee]

I'm exactly the same age as you.

You may very well be right about how people make career decisions. What you've described sounds closer to how this actually happens. Very few people sit down with a spreadsheet, estimating salaries, working conditions, job security, likelihood of various outcomes, factor in their own risk tolerance, and take whatever comes out as the decision. Many people don't even engage in a similar but less mechanical version of this. So yes, in that sense, I agree.

I do think you may be underestimating the extent to which the traditions you describe may be a distillation of what I described above, though, almost a kind of heuristic. A kids sees that his uncle is a member of profession X, lives in a nice house, enjoys his work, realizes it's a good match with his own personality, and is drawn to it. Parents are aware that certain fields are a path to the middle (perhaps upper) middle classes and nudge their own kids toward them (or rule with an iron fist and practically force them to).

This is why, as I said above, I am open to the concept of a shortage, that I don't dismiss it outright the way some economists do (where a shortage simply indicates disconnect between supply and demand - as with all things, supply rises and demand diminishes at higher salary/price levels until the market reaches equilibrium).

I do see human choices, including career choices, as more personal and cultural - I wouldn't call them irrational, which implies a notable lack of reason, but they are not the result of cut and dried reasoning. I am open to the possibility that these cultural and personal decision can leave young people - especially in situations where new valid professions have arrived within the span of a half generation - unaware of or uninterested in things that are actually very, very good options.

But like I said, I'm only open to this, I'm not willing to conclude that this is what is happening without looking at the data for a particular field. People may be overlooking a field that would be a very rational and wise career choice - or, alternatively, they may be rationally and wisely avoiding a field because far better options for people with their skill and academic mindset exist elsewhere.

My conclusion is that while it isn't wildly irrational to go into software development, the overall pay, working conditions, and job security ultimately do fall short of the kind of options available to people who are capable of going into it. We are a field where 44 year olds like us often (but by no means always) work in open offices with back visibility, experience issues with age discrimination, work in (corrupted) "agile" or "scrum" teams that prevent long term thinking or meaningful autonomy, and at the median in SF (ground zero for the "shortage") earn only roughly the same salary as a dental hygienist, and considerably less than a registered nurse. Sometimes our work is important, but often we are just migrating data from peoplesoft to oracle and back again, (marching UP and DOWN the squaaaaare![1]), or making the thingy look like the other thingy and work with this other thingy (please estimate the time it will take for our schedule tracking software and update your progress!). This may seem like an unfair characterization, and I would certainly agree that there are far more interesting jobs in software development out there, but some of the loudest voices insisting that there is a shortage of developers clearly are just looking for ways to pay people less to march up and down the square.

Every time I say this, it is important to me to point out that I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to nurses earning good salaries, or earning more at the median than software developers in San Francisco. They do an important and hard job, and I absolutely believe they earn those salaries. What I won't do is act like there's some mysterious cultural factor in why young people are not going into software development in the numbers that silicon valley employers would like them to.

This isn't about making it cool, or simply helping people realize the opportunities that are out there. There's some pretty deep structural change that needs to happen before people with choice in the US will consider software development a better option than the other paths available to free and full citizens who have the right to pick their own educational and career path in a labor market.

[1] monty python reference

[fecak]

I think we agree on much of this.

Regarding your anecdote of the uncle with the nice house, I'm sure when nephews and nieces of 44 year olds like us (who might be teenagers now) see software developers with fancy cars and 6 figure incomes living in the same neighborhoods as doctors and lawyers, they might give more consideration to tech as a career option instead of committing to 7+ years of college for law or medical degrees. We may be a few years away from that though. When did decent money come to software? Late 90s? That's only one generation.

I'd also disagree that the pay, working conditions and security are encouraging many to stay away. I don't expect the general public has those same notions. We could make the same argument for doctors - the salary looks great, but look at the price of malpractice insurance and how government interference in the market could impact their earnings over time. All industries will have issues that may not be common knowledge to the public.

If you spend lots of time on HN, you'll see these things, but most people outside the industry probably aren't exposed to stories of long hours and open offices. I don't expect those are the issue, but I certainly could be wrong.

[home_boi]

Developers can retire by late 30's if the wages right now keep up with inflation. Using conservative Google compensation:

22 yrs: L3, $160k total comp

25 yrs: L4, $210k total comp

27 yrs: L5, $260k total comp

32 yrs: L6, $320k total comp

39 yrs: L6, $320k total comp

Averages:

22-25: $180k avg

25-27: $230k avg

27-32: $280k avg

32-39: $320k avg

3 * 180 + 2 * 230 + 5 * 280 + 7 * 320 = 4.64 mil

4.64 mil * 0.6 (taxes/FICA) = 2.784 mil

2.784 mil - ($30k living costs/yr) * 17 yrs = 2.274 mil

Enough to retire if you don't have a kid

[TrickedOut]

Wow, that is incredible short-sightedness. I saw comparisons like this back in 1999, before the industry fell apart. Before a generation of companies went under. Before stocks fall and render the total comp just cash comp. before you get pushed aside due to age discrimination. Also, one health-related event will wipe out a quarter of that nest-egg. You cant really retire...

[tamana]

Not having a kid is a pretty harsh requirement.

[aianus]

Not to mention, you can easily retire on a third of that if you're willing to move to Asia or Eastern Europe.