[sandworm101]

>> ... feeding your family and ensuring you have a roof over your head are more important than breaking your own ethics with developing software.

That's why recognized professionals (ie lawyer/doctors etc) expect to be well-compensated. They are expected to quit, to walk away from unethical situations even where doing so means they loose out on work. This is why many professions do try to limit the number of members as flooding the market, lowering wages, will push some members to do things that damage the profession.

[arjie]

Well, it hardly works. If you want to find a doctor who'll give you Propofol so you can sleep, you can find one. There are enough doctors who'll also recommend you for a medical marijuana licence without actually diagnosing you with a condition that requires it. The rampant practice of advising you to get tests you don't need is also a sign that restricting supply does not mean doctors adhere to their ethical principles.

Don't think I have a vendetta here against doctors. My parents are both surgeons, so trust me when I say my general feelings about medical professionals are overwhelmingly positive. Your argument just strikes me as disingenuous.

[sandworm101]

Nobody claims that it eliminates the problem. But paying professionals does alleviate the argument that they must take unethical work to make ends meet. It also makes it easier to make demands on them to do uncompensated work (training) or maintain their own liability insurance. I spend a few dozen hours every year, unpaid, to keep my license and have walked away from couple clients. That's the minimum, but should anything go wrong (malpractice allegations) I am also expected to have done things like attend conferences and write articles. I wouldn't be able to do any of that on minimum or simply low wages.