There's an implicit "smart & passionate" qualifier on the title of the article. There's a shortage of smart and passionate geeks. It's not about cramming more people into the Computer Science pipeline. That will make absolutely no impact on the actual problem.
The principles of supply and demand apply just as much to the market for "smart and passionate labor" as "all labor". If demand exceeds supply, the price is too low.
Even if you assumed that the ability to program was purely the result of some genetic mutation, so that there were X programmers in the world and there could never ever be any more, there still wouldn't be a shortage if prices rose enough - because there would be less demand. If each programmer had to be paid twice as much, companies would hire fewer programmers, and there wouldn't be a shortage.
I was mainly responding to the, "Pay people to go to college for CS" statement.
My point: Disqus has been hiring for QUITE a while, very vigorously. I know for certain they are getting a ton of applications. I'm really quite sure they're offering market value for the kind of talent they're looking for. So, what's the problem?
I'd wager they're having trouble finding people talented enough and who make a good culture fit.
Then again, when I think programming I don't think cubicle-wage-slave cranking out Java or something. I guess you could quadruple the number of code monkeys in the world to fill all THOSE positions. I wouldn't want to work with the people who came out of that factory, though.
If you were a smart and talented computer programmer and you saw a headline on HN, "Disqus doubles salaries, and still looking to hire", you might be more inclined to check them out than if they were just offering market rates.
A weird thing about programmers is that they aren't used up when they are bought. They aren't consumed. There is just a minimum benefit that needs to be perceived before it becomes worthwhile to switch from that well-paying and comfortable job.
If you're having a shortage, double your salary/benefits. It should get you a lot more interest from talented people who might otherwise be off the market to you.
Paying above market salaries is also a slippery slope. If your salaries are too high, you can send the wrong message about the quality of the work environment.
I live in Dallas and over here the shops that pay a lot tend to overwork you, they have mostly uninteresting problems, and they use outdated technical environments. For them, the high salary just helps them slap on the golden handcuffs.
> The principles of supply and demand apply just as much to the market for "smart and passionate labor" as "all labor".
The supply and demand curves can be proven to have an intersection under the assumption that they're monotonic in different directions. But with regard to "smart and passionate labor", that assumption is flawed. Offering people more money for labor doesn't necessarily enable more of them to become passionate about it. So it's entirely possible for the market to fail to clear.
Demanding equitable compensation falls under the rubric of "smart." If you're willing to work for pay below market value, you're not smart, therefore don't meet the "smart and passionate" condition.
They still have to be okay with the significant probability that they end up having worked below market value. Many of the smart people I know working at startups are perfectly okay with this because they love what they're doing and the potential big dividends is just a really nice bonus.
It would be really hard for me, in the current stage of my career, to justify working for a startup unless I knew the expectation value of the returns aren't at least comparable to traditional jobs. The investment money wouldn't be there either.
I wouldn't really be a smart rational economic actor if I hadn't judged it to be profitable over my other options, though I admit there is more to it than just money.
