Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
91–100 of 370 posts
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 -- you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.
I was under the impression among people with undergraduate degrees it was closer to 110-115.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, I see people fail learning programming over and over again. Even after three years completing a computer engineering degree, they struggle with how a for loop works, (No this is not a joke in Europe). Learning to program takes a lot of dedication and focus. Which a lot of people have no interest in, it is just too much work and too difficult. Every student that takes a engineering degree here, have to hav…
I just can't share that optimism. I taught myself to code using youtube videos and books. There are 14 year olds on YouTube coding iOS video games in a matter of weeks. Combine that with the fact that big companies (like Google) release SDKs that make application development trivial, and you've got a recipe for the skill cap lowering along with wages.
Maybe you are both right?
The new class of programmers that governments and Google want to train up from your average worker will not be as skilled or intelligent as the current generation of programmers. But, there are still opportunities for them in software development. They will take jobs that pay 40-60k a year, while the higher skilled and more intelligent programmers will be architects or leads who command much higher salaries.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 -- you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.
An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the mean score of the general population.
The average IQ of someone with a college degree is a good bit higher than that. From a quick Google search it looks like it's around 115, which is a standard deviation higher than the general population.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#95Everyone hates a cynic so bring on the downvotes: I'm going to warn everyone of what's coming. Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030. The HUGE push from government, and private business, to fill the PERCEIVED lack of engineers, will come to fruition around that time. Make no mistake about it - there is NOT a lack of skilled engineers right now. There is a disinterest among business…
Personally, I think you are wrong. If you are an average engineer, you should be very afraid. But if you are exceptional, you will see your comp shoot through the roof in the coming years.
Average developer here, and I am scared. I'm worried that programming is going to have a similar winner-take-everything compensation scheme not unlike music or art, where only the very best make any money at all.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#96I'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.
The vast, vast majority of tech work doesn't require any exceptional intelligence. It just requires a system of thinking, one which can be...trained.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Maybe - or maybe it just requires a specific way of thinking about things i.e. Problem Solving and Time/Task Management? As well as the ability to learn the task of course.
What's the difference between "problem solving" and "IQ" ? They seem like almost the same thing.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
$35k/year developer on H1B
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.
This stuff is funny to read. There are two cases:
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.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#99Universities need to start focusing on skills instead of general education. Imagine the amount of skills you could learn if you didn't have to take 60 hours of nonsense credits and focus on skills you require. Programming / Networking / Hardware need a new type of University that is similar to Trade colleges but focus primarily on the skills and nothing more. The first 1-2 years could focus on the foundations while t…
Name a giant in this industry, that person benefitted from a liberal arts education.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#100I'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…
>"What criteria determines who should get a position then?
A basic aptitude for the role or transferable skills maybe?
>"What salary should those positions command?"
Whatever the company wants to pay. Why does that matter at all? Employment is still an agreement between the two parties.
>"Sounds pretty handwavy."
Not at all, "on the job training" has a history stretching from Medieval Ages and the guild system, to the industrial revolution, powering the war-time workforce etc: