Your thought experiment is framed as if it delivers a relevant insight. It doesn't—the conclusion is neither insightful (it's pretty facile and obvious—no need to walk through anything), nor is it dispositive for the actual subject at hand.
What is claimed, and what is in contention, is the inability to find developers.*
I could show you some people who don't like to (or can't) eat peanut butter. That's a completely different matter from demonstrating that nobody will eat peanut butter. Your ∃ is not an ∀.
Second: That an employer who wants to hire will have to either pay more (than what they are currently trying to get away with) or lower its standards is a pretty straightforward restatement of what I was already saying. That observation is, again, not some sort of insightful riposte—it's just, you know, arguing for my position...
* which is a claim that the person I first responded to has already walked back
Presumably they would have to offer so much more than competitors to make the job attractive that it's infeasible and reworking the application into something modern -- something even current employees are likely to be happy about anyway -- is preferable.
What is claimed, and what is in contention, is the inability to find developers.*
I could show you some people who don't like to (or can't) eat peanut butter. That's a completely different matter from demonstrating that nobody will eat peanut butter. Your ∃ is not an ∀.
Second: That an employer who wants to hire will have to either pay more (than what they are currently trying to get away with) or lower its standards is a pretty straightforward restatement of what I was already saying. That observation is, again, not some sort of insightful riposte—it's just, you know, arguing for my position...
* which is a claim that the person I first responded to has already walked back