121–130 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oh, and remember the mess Gradle was in 2015/2016? How much money could it possibly cost to better document some of the major tools?
Earlier 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.
The skillset of building a personal website, or even a website for your small business should be something anyone can do, and will in no way impact the overall salary of software engineers in the future.
Major companies will always need people who understand the computational sciences, as scale and complexity follow some of the same rules as entropy, in that they are always increasing.
Additionally, the reason for high salaries is not a lack of engineers, it is that top companies have decided that it is in their best interest to outbid each other for top talent. In parts of the midwest, where there is less competition, engineers are already paid 50k a year.
To the critics in this thread- maybe it's time to consider unionizing tech workers after all?
Great, it's about time that these companies stepped up to bring more people into their workforce. It's ridiculous to complain to legislatures about skills shortages without stepping up to bring your own resources to bear on the issue. Still, as nice as giving money to other organizations is, it would even better to see them actually training people from a diverse variety of backgrounds. They're not exactly taking any…
>It's ridiculous to complain to legislatures about skills shortages without stepping up to bring your own resources to bear on the issue. Do you hold people who want to fight climate to the same standard? Is it ridiculous for an individual to support a carbon tax without voluntarily buying carbon credits on their own?
Maybe Yellowstone will erupt in 80 years and it won't matter, but on balance, it's a no-brainer.
I don't understand why they don't open more remote offices instead. Around 90% of their employees are currently within the US, wouldn't it be a lot easier to find tech talent if they had a major position in other areas of the world as well?
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
This can be seen through how companies sponsor hackathons, the courses they create on websites like udacity and so on.
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 amount of programmers needed is rising across the globe. Every country is going to try to retain its IT talent. In a cut-throat globally competitive world you can't afford to be the country that lets its best minds leave to greener pastures.
Also, programming isn't the sort of job where you can fake your way through. If new people are trained up to enter the field they'll need to skills to match. As a relative share to population size the number of people studying computer science has been falling, not rising. These bootcamps and training programs are trying to bridge the skills gap, and so far have not succeeded. If anything there's going to be a skills glut, with a corresponding rise in pay.
Sure, employers always try to minimize pay. IT is not special, this is the case for all industries. Labor price is set through supply and demand, and programmer's wages are no different. Can you give a single example of an industry that used to have high wages but now has low wages? It would be exceedingly unlikely for IT to behave unlike every other industry.
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.
but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument.
clamping down on the supply is exactly what a public sector union does. union work rules and other union-favorable city regulations exclude or limit non-union workers who might otherwise be hired to carry out various city functions.
working for the city or the department of water and power can be a very good deal for the worker, but city residents pay more in taxes and see less service as a result. merely unionizing the labor force helps some people but hurts others.
indeed, a case can be made that, because police officers are so highly paid and benefitted, they are scarce. and because they are scarce, there's more property crime, and murder, than there would be otherwise. it seems quite plausible that some city residents pay a very high price because of this public sector unionization.
in politics, this leads to a strategy wherein city residents who live in "electorally unimportant" areas (i.e. poor areas with lower voter turnout) receive lower levels of government service than city residents in areas that vote a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 militar…
Or, more bluntly: Google should pay high salaries. The market will supply the skilled workers when the salaries are high enough to attract more workers. (Google does pay high salaries. If they want more skilled workers, raising their salaries is the most efficient way to get that outcome.)