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

111–120 of 370 posts

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

#111

Post by nova22033 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #24
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.

For a long time the anti-H1B segment has been critical of Big Tech for trying to undercut American tech workers instead in investing in citizens. So now they're investing in the wrong citizens?

There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about their own jobs. They see any move like this as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects.

Training kids to code? Yup..threat to their own job.

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

#112

Post by perpetualcrayon »

I think not only do we need to be thinking about getting people "prepared" with new skills, but also about smooth lateral movement across industries.

In a lot of cases these are probably viewed as the same thing but, for example, I would ask: When was the last time a Senior Java Developer was a candidate for a Senior FrontEnd Web Developer position?

I think the future is going to be a lot less about being hired for "jobs" with "companies". Instead it's going to be substantially more about "projects" being done by "groups / organizations". The groups / organizations being assembled / disassembled with high frequency.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

Top19 wrote: post #36

As much as something like this is appreciated, the history of job retraining programs are filled with over promises, under-commitments, and disaster, stretching back to the 1970’s. There is no need to train more CS people. There is a need for recovering the “grand bargain” between employers and employees that began in the 1940’s and was slowly unwound beginning in the mid 1970’s. The reason that business schools exis…

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by aswanson »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #110
aswanson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "grand bargain" is over, and never returning. The economy is global, cutthroat and changes on a dime. Every man/woman is in a mercenary situation today, whether they're aware of this fact or not.

If this was the case, then why wouldn't Google just tap this global labor reserve instead of training people? Why is the federal reserve expecting inflation to rise as unemployment continues to be low?

"If the sky is so clear and the sun is shining, how could there possibly be a hurricane approaching...?"

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

#115

Post by humanrebar »

Apocryphon wrote: post #40
swendoog wrote: post #27

Everyone 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…

The solution to lower wages created by more workers isn't to clamp down on the supply. The solution is to unionize and to ensure that labor has leverage through collective bargaining. Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers seems as wrongheaded as arguing against building more homes in a housing crisis.

> Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers...

Except many unions do exactly this through closed shops and other tactics.

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

#116

Post by Joeri »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #81
briholt wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

Isn't half the population below 100? How can you consider that low?

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

#117

Post by Apocryphon »

humanrebar wrote: post #115
Apocryphon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to lower wages created by more workers isn't to clamp down on the supply. The solution is to unionize and to ensure that labor has leverage through collective bargaining. Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers seems as wrongheaded as arguing against building more homes in a housing crisis.

> Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers... Except many unions do exactly this through closed shops and other tactics.

Sure. 19th century unions in the U.S. were often racist and or nativist, seeing non-WASPs workers as a threat. But surely a unions formed by 21st century tech workers with over a century of historical wisdom and the modern day spirit of innovation should be able to do better, no?

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

#118

Post by whack »

Top19 wrote: post #36

As much as something like this is appreciated, the history of job retraining programs are filled with over promises, under-commitments, and disaster, stretching back to the 1970’s. There is no need to train more CS people. There is a need for recovering the “grand bargain” between employers and employees that began in the 1940’s and was slowly unwound beginning in the mid 1970’s. The reason that business schools exis…

Is the following what you're referring to? If so, he's specifically referring to training programs for existing googlers. Not educational training for full-time students, and someone looking to make a career switch. The latter clearly has a much bigger impact than the former.

Regarding your larger point, I agree that we need more support for the lower middle class, but that's no reason to abandon training programs that provide better job opportunities to those who need it. On the margin, training a thousand janitors into productive web developers, would be a net positive for the economy and society as a whole.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-have-just-finished-reading-...

"Did you know that within 1 hour of training an employee, they have forgotten 50% of what they were taught. Within 24 hours they have forgotten 70%, and within a week they have forgotten 90%.

There is mostly because people truly learn from constant repetitive actions, yet companies cannot afford to have people learning 5 days a week instead of working 5 days a week - which makes 90% of training and development programmes a waste of money. Money which Google invest in recruiting instead.

Laszlo Bock says that because we learn on the job, the very best people not only have learnt more than you can teach them already, but they seek learning themselves in everything they do and naturally grow without you needing to spend a fortune on training."

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

#119

Post by heroprotagonist »

jimmaswell wrote: post #105
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…

I'm thankful I found a company like that after graduating. Seemingly the only such specimen in America today. It's a giant international consultancy company that seemingly has a questionable reputation online but it was all I could get that paid anything remotely respectable and they even do paid training. It's seems to be one of a rapidly dwindling handful of paths for new grads who are graduating and finding out th…

> continually put my resume through those resume threads on reddit

From curiosity, and certainly not to offend.. you _did_ place your resume elsewhere as well, right?

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

#120

Post by rifung »

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…

> 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

I work for Google and I find there's already a very large amount of on the job training required due to all the powerful but complicated internal tools. My manager has told me that I should not feel pressured to contribute at all for my first 6 months and I should feel free to just focus on learning as much as I can.

I've been here for almost a year now and feel like I still know nothing so the training is still certainly not done.

I didn't mean to jump to the defense of my employer as I'm obviously biased but do think we are far from perfect (although I am very happy here :). I just wonder what the right balance is. It seems like if people can't program at all then it's not really on the job training because they wouldn't be working right?

At least my own experience has been that I came in with some college experience but no college degree and not really knowing anything besides the bare minimum to contribute (being able to program, having some grasp of CS fundamentals) and have learned a ton on the job and still have much much more to learn. I think there is an expectation (and pressure!) for all SWEs to hit the senior level, L5, so in a way everyone who is hired under that level is doing on the job training no?

Sorry for the long post!

Post reply on HN