[fartsucker69]

He would be wrong with those claims, too. Even those """"overpaid"""" developers make only a small part of whatever the overall company makes. Perhaps this is counterintuitive but I would not be surprised at all if that percentage is smaller than with regular companies and lower paid workers.

It's simply that tech was and still is an exploding sector and a ton of resources are poured into it. People who are experienced programmers now are just lucky enough to ride the wave. It won't last forever. But it's certainly real for now.

[xenadu02]

> He would be wrong with those claims, too.

No he isn't. His point is that some potential business models need $X amount of software engineering work to have a viable product, has a potential customer base of $Y, and the market will bear a price of $P for the software. Gross income is $Y * $P.

All else being equal as SWEs get more expensive the amount of $X you can get drops. If that puts you below the threshold for a viable product and your business doesn't have the power to raise $P then you don't have a viable business.

This is obviously a simplistic example but the principle still holds.

[devonbleak]

Wrong that some business models are impossible/shouldn't exist with cost of talent at X? Then you're arguing that every business model is possible/valid/should exist regardless of cost of talent?

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.