[amcintyre]

"John only started programming in college. He has 3 years of “experience” – much of it spent working on school assignments, not projects – and Norman has 10. John’s not as experienced or capable, but he may well be just as talented as Norman. Norman will get snapped up by a top company and snowball into a “rockstar” developer, whereas John will start (and maybe spend) his programming career in relative obscurity."

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from this John/Norman comparison. If John has the same amount of natural talent as Norman, after a few years of full-time professional development work he's likely to be just as valuable as Norman. There's plenty of time to become really competent and valuable even if you start very late (like in your 30's or 40's, which I assume classifies as "freaking ancient" in many companies' eyes). I don't see how one person having some imagined head start figures into whether there's a shortage or not; but then, I don't live in the valley, so perhaps this is a cultural thing there.

I do agree, though, that there's a lot of companies out there that seem to want the top 1% (all the while offering bottom 25% rates).

[Timothee]

"I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from this John/Norman comparison"

In my opinion, one thing that can happen is the following:

Norman gets easily a job at a great company where he'll continue to improve his skills amongst other 1% programmers; while John takes a job that isn't exactly what he wants, in a so-so unknown company, where he isn't challenged as much and isn't learning as fast.

After a few years, Norman changes job easily because he has worked for Google/Facebook/whatever and that acts as vesting to move him along quickly in the interview process at the new hot companies of the time. John has yet again a harder time because having worked for that unknown company doesn't give any special credit. He might have had to take some jobs that were not exactly what he wanted (e.g. support, QA) and that is questioned when he has interviews. Even with his additional experience, he still has to go the extra mile to pass the ex-Google, Facebook, etc.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Of course, I'm forcing the trait, but I think this scenario happens fairly frequently. Also, it's certainly possible for John to break the cycle by working on his own things and putting himself "out there", or by just "waiting" a few years until things even out a bit; however it feels that the extra efforts required are not reflecting the initial difference between Norman and John.

[codeonfire]

Building software is not like installing carpet. You don't just do it for a couple years and become a skilled worker. Its obvious that many misinformed people think that software development is a blue collar job that people go to vo-tech school to learn to do while rebuilding car alternators. This way of thinking comes about because most people's experience with development is usually within a very, very small microcosm. There are people out there that did some VB work fifteen years ago who think that once a developer has ramped up on basic VB programming, they now meet the industry bar for software design and engineering.

Is a physicist just as valuable after a few years of doing research as a full tenured professor with 30 years of research? After a few years of full-time professional development work John will be talented at working with a very, very limited set of tools that his company uses and developed the ability to solve a very small set of problems. This means he is perhaps as valuable as Norman to one single company and almost not valuable at all to most other companies.

[debacle]

> Building software is not like installing carpet. You don't just do it for a couple years and become a skilled worker.

I think you're wrong, there. Building software is, 99% of the time, like installing carpet.

> Is a physicist just as valuable after a few years of doing research as a full tenured professor with 30 years of research?

Terrible analogy. There are grad students who are more valuable than professors on the edge of the retirement. Comparing software development to academia is a specious argument.