[yellow_and_gray]

Because it's incorrect.

Maybe it is about wages for companies that don't understand there's huge variance in productivity of programmers. But it is about talent and not wages for companies that do.

You do have a valid argument that when you increase supply prices drop. But they drop in proportion to the supply. It would be nice if one could estimate the total number of those great programmers, and then calculate what % of the total programmers they are. If they are 50% that would be a problem. But if they are 0.5% (1/100th that), is it still a problem?

[cottonseed]

It can only be about wages. That's supply and demand. If more people are fighting over fewer programmers, that means they just have to pay more to get them. If pay is not an issue, then you'll get them.

If some companies don't appreciate the variance in programmers, either they have no excellent ones (because they wouldn't be willing to pay the price premium for a trait they can't see), or, more likely, they are lots of undervalued programmers out there you can hire if you can find them and you're willing to pay them more.

I don't see what you're getting at about the number of great programmers.

[yellow_and_gray]

It's not only about wages. It's also about total wealth generated, which is driven by growth. The issue is you hit a limit.

Any startup eventually hits the limits of the market it operates in. But the point is startups don't get the chance to hit those market limits. The limit they hit first is they can't get great programmers. Their growth is stiffled early on.

Here's an example. Assume a startup is working on only one project and doesn't have a great programmer. Result: they don't get to make some breakthrough that would have increased the wealth of the startup by 100x-1000x. Without generating that wealth, demand decreases. You are still looking for just one great programmer to work on the project and can't start other new projects before you finish the existing one.

But if you didn't limit that growth (if you had a great programmer) there would be increased demand, because then you'd have 100x-1000x more wealth and could start new projects hiring more great programmers. It comes down to growth.

So having great programmers increases demand, not decrease it. The more you have, the more you end up needing.

Until you hit a limit. Once all great programmers who are in the US are snatched up, at any price, then you reached a limit to the amount of wealth that can be generated in the US by great programmers.

[waterlesscloud]

We are nowhere near the limit of VC wealth preventing the hiring of great programmers.

In other words, the wealth generated by previous waves of great programmers working on projects is most definitely not the limiting factor here.

Why would more wealth then generate more projects?

[yellow_and_gray]

It's not more wealth that would generate more projects. It's finishing a previous project that would generate more projects. You don't even get to finish the project without a great programmer so you don't get to start new projects. New projects can depend on older projects.

Generating that wealth serves as proof the project completed, which justifies moving on. It's not merely being handed that wealth by a VC that completes the project because then you didn't generate anything. All you did was transfer wealth between two parties. Having wealth isn't enough to generate new wealth in tech. You also need skill.

What having more wealth would do is help pay for more great programmers but it's neither the driving nor the limiting force. The limiting force is having great programmers. They are the ones who generate new wealth.

So what you said possibly supports the argument that it's not about wages. If there were unlimited great programmers, we might indeed hit a limit on VC wealth. We could be nowhere that limit because there aren't enough great programmers.

My comment above was confusing in that it makes someone think a limit in VC wealth is what makes it prohibitive to hire great programmers. That's not what I meant to say. I meant to say that if you are limited in having great programmers, then the total amount of wealth you can generate is also limited. The US, and any country, would be better off having more great programmers.

The limit you hit is in having great programmers. Lack of great programmers limits growth. Lack of growth limits wealth.

I wish PG revised his essay to make this point.

[waterlesscloud]

And lack of pay limits the number of great programmers. So there we are.

[yellow_and_gray]

Once all great programmers get a job they like they don't switch, even if you have the money to pay them more. They like what they are working on.

If a great programmer is working on the next Google, and you pay them more to work on something boring, they won't switch.

The limit is the total number of great programmers.