always remember: the industry's involvement in CS education has less to do with philanthropy and goodwill than it does with lowering the cost of labor over the long term
You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply while making integer multiples of the median US household income building up an industry premised on automating away everyone else's jobs.
Stop worrying about your wages! Your job will eventually be automated away. A basic income is sure to protect you.
There are already places that require tons of experience to even get an IT job. Complete automation and centralization of IT jobs isn't required to strongly impact American lives.
An unplanned, unsustainable, and uncommitted allowance provided to you by a group of people that seek power and do not share your interests will meet all of your future needs.
"You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply while making integer multiples of the median US household income building up an industry premised on automating away everyone else's jobs."
So what is the exact dollar amount one has to make before they no longer are allowed to worry about whether or not they'll have a job?
"A basic income is sure to protect you."
Given the current political climate in the US, I can only say bullshit.
High labor cost just because of skill shortage may be gratifying and lucrative for the happy few but is not an efficient allocation of resources for the wider society. Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do.
Replace "developer" with any other profession to convince yourself.
Nah, because I'm going to put my self-interest first. Just like Google is. So I should naturally oppose this as a developer. I benefit from a low supply of people with my skill set. Do you think google cares about "efficient allocation of resources for the wide society?" Tech companies embody the complete opposite of that mindset. The tech firms most in this forum work at bring in billions, but only require a few thousand workers. And most of the cash ends up overseas, doing nothing. It's not an efficient allocation of capital at all.
The only people who care about efficient allocation of resources for the society are socialists and academics. Certainly CEOs with multi-million dollar annual compensations don't think they're contributing to allocation inefficiencies by negotiating their compensations. Neither do doctors and AMA, who we all love and respect. Neither do military leaders or politicians, who demand half the country's budget for military expenditures. Etc, etc.
Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do if you're Google stakeholder, or broadly speaking, a capitalist. It's much more questionable if you're in the labor force.
Well, it's more than just pure salary. I'm sure if they changed things so that one did not have to work crazy hours while there, they could get away with paying less.
You don't have to work crazy hours at Google. At least at the teams I was on; there were occasional reports of lousy conditions in some groups (e.g. Nest), but they were very much the exception.
You'd think that, but then you'd remember that if the population isn't making money capitalism doesn't work. People need money to buy things. The big picture is that labor is being defeated everywhere and money is accruing at the top. The whole system will break down if something isn't done.
I remember talking with a friend of mine in the 90's about this and he thought we would have a revolution in this country if things didn't change vis a vis inequality. What's happening so far is the rats at the bottom of the ship are blaming the slightly different rats in the same situation for making the problem worse.
If Google hadn't been involved with a scheme that helped keep the salaries of employees artificially lower (and by extension, affecting the rest of the industry), you might have a point. But as it stands, Google's own actions means it's imperative we question their motives. After all, if Google and others hadn't done what they did with the anti-poaching scheme, would the resulting salaries be higher for all involved?
It's not as if the skill shortage reflects some barriers to entry (like the Doctor's union deciding how many people get to go to medical school). The skill shortage reflects the difficulty of acquiring the skills, the high salaries are critical to ensuring that skilled people develop their technical skills.
I don't know how much a piano teacher costs, but I know it's the right amount because that's the equilibrium.
A more efficient allocation of resources would look like getting rid of 'too big to fail' banks and decreasing the rent that the finance industry extracts.
My intuition is that the Pareto optional solution is one where nearly everyone is proficient in engineering. I see engineering as the new reading/writing. I think an engineering literate society would be more valuable and stable than our current society is.
Programming is sufficiently hard enough, wages will always be higher than most other professions. If I could make this money just about any other way, I'd likely give it a go. But either be a PA, a doctor, or one of the lucky few who graduate law school and make good money (and I think PA's make less than most programmers I know).
Most developers aren't on H1B. There's what, tens of thousands on H1B, and hundreds of thousands of tech workers. While it's true some developers are underpaid, they are few in number and presumably of little significance on the prevailing developer wage.
1. H1Bs in "tech" do not affect salaries of those not on H1B so it is irrelevant that there are those who come to the US on H1B and make $35-50k/year in tech because it does not affect the market for $80k-250k/year jobs i.e. Old Navy, Gap and Banana Republic are totally different markets, Old Navy's $10 t-shirts and $25 jeans does not move upmarket and cannibalize GAP's $30 T-shirt and $80 jeans which in turn does not cannibalize BR's $120 T-shirts and $200 jeans - ask whoever shops for clothes in your family.
If that's the case, we should applaud Google generating more $35-50k/year tech workers and we all should be baffled by those complaining about H1B tech imports (the number of them is rather low compared to the number of 35k-50k workers training programs would generate so if we need those workers before we train ours we should lift the caps on H1Bs)
2. H1Bs in "tech" does affect salaries of those not on H1B because it eats into the market market for $80k-250k/year jobs. In which case having a flood of $35k-50k/year workers is a problem regardless if they are coming in on H1B or from ITT Tech/GoogleJobsTrainingSchool.
I would suggest we should really pick one and be consistent.
Or maybe, Google just wants to train people to work on their platforms rather than moving to a competitors. I doubt google has the intention of hiring the people that graduate from these programs, they just want people to learn google apis so that they use their products over competitors.
This can be seen through how companies sponsor hackathons, the courses they create on websites like udacity and so on.
Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing? Sure they could stand to raise wages for existing workers across the board (and they should) but that doesn't solve the labor supply issue.
Maybe some of these grants can go towards retraining existing engineers who need to acquire new skills.
Certainly unrestrained resource extraction and financialization of the entire economy- generating wealth for a select few with complex financial instruments that has no real purpose for the general public- are bad. But surely much of tech does provide some benefit to society. What happened to software is eating the world?
I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. I'm not praising Google in this story- I think they're doing this strictly for business reasons- but I still think it's a positive action even if it's motivated by the bottom line. But it's inevitable that them, just like most other giant companies in the black, are going to expand sooner or later, and they will need more workers. So there's not much you can do about that. If it's not Google or Apple hiring, it's going to be Tesla or SpaceX or Kiva or these guys (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/technology/a-start-up-sug...)
My main point is trying to stem the demand for more workers, whether H1Bs or American citizens, is futile. And even if somehow American firms stopped demanding more tech workers, firms abroad will be as well. So why not try to train more people to become workers?
Google will just continue to move into more markets and moonshot projects until either the shareholders revolt or the government applies antitrust. But if not them, some other organization will need tech workers, and are you going to ask them to stop growing? See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15461924
Well put. In my eyes this is simple math,they're investing now and are eliminating fees and adjustments for inflation in the future. The pool of workers will be bigger and all of the workers will be of somewhat same skill level which will eliminate the need for higher salaries + larger equity shares in order to get a high skilled worker. Their shares in the future will certainly be more valuable then 1B now, and this incentive will allow them to dictate the market.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
The reason I don't care about the wall is simple: Yes, our immigration laws are complicated and need reform, but people shouldn't be crossing the border illegally, full-stop. That's why we have laws. A country that selectively enforces its laws is a country where the government can imprison you on a whim (because you've broken a rarely enforced law that they can use against you at will), and historically such countries haven't been nice places to live. So as a basis, you want and need a government that consistently enforces laws, and if the laws are bad, you change them -- which is less likely to happen if lax enforcement eases the pain of the bad laws. So how do I move from "we need to enforce our laws, and change them if they're bad" to "I don't care about the wall"? Simple: whether or not we have the wall, immigration laws need to be enforced as they are written (love 'em or hate 'em), which means that until the law is changed anyone caught crossing will be deported anyway. At the point that the law is changed, people who want to cross will be allowed through as specified in the law. With this philosophy as a background, the wall is relatively meaningless in a practical sense, although I do admit that it does have some symbolic weight. I have always had far more concern for pragmatic thought than symbolism and idealism (which probably led me to engineering), and I'm assuming that building a wall would reduced long-term border patrolling costs to compensate for the cost to build it, and so this leaves me in a place where it's a wash and I don't really care whether or not they build it. And yes, I have been called an emotionless robot before ... I took it as a complement :).
One more note: I'm not saying that I expect the government to achieve perfect monitoring -- just like it would be impossible to catch all speeders, it would be impossible to catch all illegal border crossings -- but I am saying that when the government does know that a law has been broken, it should apply a consistent response that is compliant with the laws that have been passed by a congress and signed by a president.
Huh? We already have a wall. It covers about 1/4th of the US-Mexico border.
Trump would just be expanding it. Likely to around a half of the total border (Much of the border is close to impassable, due to mountains, desert, ect).
I think it might be relevant, this seems to indicate that google is hardcoding their API keys in the shipped chrome binaries. These exceeded, and broke functionality in the app. This seems like a bad security practice and it is very relevant to call it out here.
this comment is so tone deaf... just because you don't care doesn't mean that the non-inclusive communities surrounding Rust / programming in general is a significant barrier to entry for many people
That's a pretty harsh way to respond to someone expressing another diverse perspective. Different cultures have different concepts of propriety and politeness. One person's "tone deaf" is another's "respectfully forward". We can't ask for diversity while demanding people adopt our particular cultural norms.
that's not what they mean - they're talking about how ember/meteor etc prescribe how to do everything in the application, like routing, etc - with react you have your pick of routing libraries or can roll your own
