Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 370 posts

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#51

Post by ggambetta »

Klockan wrote: post #38
walshemj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

two reasons time difference and communications

Those are not issues when you have thousands of employees at a location, then you can base entire products there. There is plenty of people in Europe who would love to work for Google but there are so few positions here that it is almost impossible to get one unless you want to move to the US, it wouldn't be hard for Google to get ten times as many engineers here as they currently have if they just wanted to.

There's plenty of people in Europe that work in Google's European offices. When I left in 2014, Zürich was something like 1500 people, with London and IIRC Paris having similar sizes, and many other smaller ones. That's hardly "so few positions", let alone "almost impossible to get one".

Also, time zone differences (and to a lesser extent communications) were inconvenient, although there were very viable ways to work around them.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#52

Post by jasonlotito »

bkeroack wrote: post #39
twoquestions wrote: post #6

Stated differently, "Google commits $1B to flood the market with newbie tech workers, and to grow future client businesses". The cynic in me can clearly see their interest in the effects of this grant, but thinking on it more that interest might serve us better in the long run. I just hope the community gains from that money before it makes it's way back to Google.

...which will depress the wages of everyone on HN reading these words. Especially entry level engineers or those without CS degrees. "Coding bootcamps" are the new DeVry IT program of the 2010s.

What people tend to forget is that Google and others were involved in anti-poaching deals that kept the wages of workers down. What people don't realize is that this affected you whether you worked for Google or some company competing with Google. After all, if they could match Google's artificially lower salary, or get near it, they were good. Those actions hurt everyone in the industry.

While it's great they are working to train workers, it's not hard to imagine them having a conversation about this regarding lowered salaries.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#53

Post by Apocryphon »

baursak wrote: post #44
Apocryphon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing? I never understood growth for the sake of growth mentality. Isn't that what's killing the planet, broadly speaking?

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?

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#56

Post by briholt »

bradleyjg wrote: post #28

I'd be more impressed if they committed to hiring employees that don't already have the skills they are looking for and doing on the job training. That would be far more effective both in terms of actual skills transfer and in terms of future career trajectory than Yet More Retraining Programs untethered from any actual employer or employment opportunities. We've been doing the latter since at least the Kennedy admin…

Another major glaring problem that no one wants to admit is that lots of tech work requires (at the very least) college-level-IQ, which excludes the majority of the population. And the lower-IQ jobs are quickly being automated away.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#57

Post by drharby »

dyarosla wrote: post #48
bradleyjg wrote: post #28

I'd be more impressed if they committed to hiring employees that don't already have the skills they are looking for and doing on the job training. That would be far more effective both in terms of actual skills transfer and in terms of future career trajectory than Yet More Retraining Programs untethered from any actual employer or employment opportunities. We've been doing the latter since at least the Kennedy admin…

What criteria determines who should get a position then? What salary should those positions command? Sounds pretty handwavy. Edit: responders to this comment seem to miss that the parent comment is suggesting Google hire new individuals and train them, not find talent in their workforce and do training there. Thats the unrealistic part- creating a secondary application process for individuals without the skills -- wh…

Who determines who should get a training slot? What kind of subsistence shouls that training command?

The commitment of capital to tanglible jobs that lead towards ojt is not handwavy at all. That said, i bet the tax breaks from the schooling is substantial

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#58

Post by 8note »

cm2187 wrote: post #20
wehere1 wrote: post #2

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

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.

Yes, that's why we have labour unions. The cost should be high because we demand it to be so, not because of a shortage.

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#59

Post by jasonlotito »

cm2187 wrote: post #20
wehere1 wrote: post #2

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

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.

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?

Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs

#60

Post by Klockan »

walshemj wrote: post #46
Klockan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not issues when you have thousands of employees at a location, then you can base entire products there. There is plenty of people in Europe who would love to work for Google but there are so few positions here that it is almost impossible to get one unless you want to move to the US, it wouldn't be hard for Google to get ten times as many engineers here as they currently have if they just wanted to.

And why would Goggle move a product away from its HQ - low level support maybe (but google doesn't do much support and they can just recruit in Ireland for that)

Several products are already stationed in Europe so it is just a question of how much. Ireland does mostly support, yes, but both London and Zurich owns products.
Post reply on HN