[erlang-questions] Time for OTP to be Renamed?
Fri Feb 14 13:53:24 CET 2014
Hmmm… this seems like a good example for Non Sequitur.
Being cheaper than your competition does not imply a low pay-rate for programmers -- this would be just as myopic as asking a higher pay based on scarcity alone.
Did it cross your mind that one can be more competitive because of a higher productivity level?
I know that zero-sum-game view on Life, The Universe and Everything is a knee-jerk reaction with most people, but I expect more from Erlang programmers ;-)
On 14 Feb 2014, at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> So you are willing to cut costs through your developer salaries? Why, as an Erlang developer, would I like to work for you, then?
> Anthony Ramine
> Le 14 févr. 2014 à 13:22, Valentin Micic <> a écrit :
>> Am I the only one seeing how wrong this statement is?
>> Basic ECON-101 predicts that people buy more of the "stuff", when the "stuff" is cheaper, and, conversely, less of the "stuff" when the "stuff" is more expensive; thus, the obvious outcome cannot be a "GOOD for thing Erlang programmers", as they would eventually go extinct.
>> Or let me rephrase it -- it may be a "GOOD thing for Erlang programmers" until a cheaper alternative is found.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions