If you claim talent is everywhere, the onus is on you to prove it. Disproving a sweeping generalization requires a single instance. For instance, I'm looking out of my window, and I don't see any talent - ergo, talent is not everywhere. Facetious, but not entirely.
I'm asking the OP to prove, or rather, even begin to attempt to argue, and I quote, "opportunity is everywhere," which is only part one of their baseless claims! That's why I asked them to support their argument with evidence. The article provides some evidence that opportunity is not everywhere.
"Opportunity is everywhere" is another way of saying that, starting from any situation, you can improve your lot by being creative and taking the initiative. It would be hard to prove either way, but in my experience there is some truth to it. Our limitations are largely self-imposed.
I don't understand your "moral sewer" comment. Opinions are just that, opinions. Morality only attaches to actions.
This is like pulling teeth; so much for the guidelines about generous interpretation, no cross examining, etc.. The article is about jobs and life, I'm didn't ask to get into a debate about "What is the true meaning of opportunity?"
I'd really like to see where these jobs are at the moment because I'd like one so I can stop busting my ass in embedded for 1.5x median income.
Every time I search it looks to me like all the jobs that take people that just barely know React have a big long list of other requirements that are unstated and/or nutjob hiring practices and other hoops to jump through. Maybe all you need on the job is React but it looks like passing the interview is a nightmare even compared to the interviews we give for people writing embedded and systems software. The prevalence of LeetCode is surprisingly massively more common for React developer interviews it seems than it is for people like me that actually need and use that kind of knowledge regularly.
So something doesn't add up for me here. My anecdotal impression was that the frontend has a much larger amount of people that are fighting over very limited spots and is thus hyper competitive (and maybe even downright corrupt in terms of hiring practices), even if the job itself is probably the easiest if we are judging based on "CS cred" or background knowledge requirements about computers or whatever. And that makes me think once your in it that I'm going to feel compelled to work 60+ hour weeks because the danger of losing the job and needing to win the hiring lottery again is so great.
React is the programmer equivalent of the phenomenon of the starving artist with a liberal arts degree. Maybe you have a chance to strike it rich, but most just wind up unemployed or in a chop shop on some horrible contract.
If you feel you are underpaid, you should leave regardless. Re React jobs, its probably harder now to get in due to the VC bubble bursting a bit after zero percent rates went aeay, but it used to be a very viable path to earn double median US wages after a year or less of experience.
You are down pretty hard on it, when the reality is more conplicated. I personally don’t know many developers who actually work 60 hour weeks, though a lot work intense 45 hour ones thay feel like 60. 60 hours a week is a lot man, if you are working that much you should take a breather.
Yeah, everyone on this site and places like Blind says they are making a lot of money. Reality seems a bit different. Any startup has something of a hard cap at just around $200k salary for a senior. That's in the Bay Area, and for specialty occupations (AI infra, Linux internals, and the like). That number is not 3x median. Pretty sure those rich React devs exist only in dreams.
If we confine our comparison to only California, I couldn't find median individual income, but median household income is only 14% higher than the nationwide median, so it seems likely that individual income in CA tracks similarly: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCAA646N
I don't think it's a weird comparison at all: households include dual-income-no-kids households too, and they would skew the average higher. To raise a family in the Bay Area one parent has to stay home, or a lot of money has to be paid for childcare (to the tune of 20-30k per year per kid).
I don't think this is quite the "gotcha, you are actually rich!" that you wanted this to be.
And hey, I googled the numbers too before posting ;)
idt we can simply blame the next rung up the ladder. we live in a culture that increasingly glorifies mediocrity and flattery. the hiring managers and engineers alike have been reared to believe the only difference from one person to the next is sensibilities, so any judgment on talent is a failure to support
The CEO/C-Suite/Board is responsible for the behavior of the company; they set the rules, and steer the "ship." They decide what money is allocated where.
I'm not sure who is glorifying mediocrity, that's an odd one.
Close, but actually large PE firms call the shots. A small number of them control most tech, that’s why all these companies look like cookie cutter copies of each other.
PE firms do exert massive influence, but they aren't really the day to day business drivers. Even including the board is tenuous. Board members are often out of touch with the business and just rubber stamps - look how well the OpenAI board performed. If you think Sam Altman should have been fired, they failed, and if you think he should not have been fired, they failed.
Mediocre employees are easier to control which leads to a more predictable business that doesn't do much but also doesn't seem like a big risk to shareholders.
Plus since mediocre employees are easier to replace you can use layoffs as smoke and mirrors to buy more time for coming up with your latest grift.
