This is absolutely lovely news.
Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
171–180 of 370 posts
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#172I'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.
It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really meaningful for much except wealth nowadays
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate? Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? They are…
> Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? You, too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10 for a trade.
Since I wasn't born into money, or won the lottery, I can't live off that 6% return for another two decades.
Either way, even if I can, the guy who makes my morning coffee can't, and never will be.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#174Earlier 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.
i partially agree. e.g. public sector labor unions in Los Angeles have succeeded at maintaining high wages and great benefits for themselves. 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…
"but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument."
I've not seen an example of this. And I do not consider being a member of the union to be clamping down.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#175I'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…
Usually I'd agree that on-the-job training is more beneficial than untethered training programs.
However, just today I listened to the most recent Freakonomics Radio episode, which was about how Germany managed to become the economic powerhouse it is today. Most economists that were asked agreed that an essential ingredient of Germany's economic success is its unique concept of vocational training, which combines on-the-job training with school education and general - as opposed to employer-specific - job training.
Perhaps a system that's essentially a combination of both on-the-job training and more formal training programs would be conducive in this case as well.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#176Earlier 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.
It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really meaningful for much except wealth nowadays
That may say as much about you as it does about the population at large, right now about a third of adults in the US have a bachelor's degree[1].
1: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326995-census-more-a...
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing? You, too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10 for a trade.
You're forgetting the part about having enough money to make meaningful investments.
If you'd invested $1000 in Boeing in the early 80's, it'd be worth $200,000 today. Sounds meaningful to me.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in depth understanding of how threads work? How different hardware components work together at scale? Most people with CS degrees never acquire the skillset to do such work, why should I believe that those who are trained via job training programs will be able to do so. I'd be more afraid of potential retraining of other highly skilled workers who want to switch care…
>Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in depth understanding of how threads work? I am constantly surprised that when other CS students in my classes have zero idea how anything beyond the particular language we're learning works. Even in higher skill-level classes that require a fair amount of proficiency with the language if you asked what the length of the pointer they just properly used was all you…
> "how anything beyond the particular language we're learning works. "
and
> "if you asked what the length of the pointer they just properly used was all you would get is blank stares"
So what is it?
It's a computer science program, not learn a dozen language's quirks and implementation detail that you use for a single class to understand some concept.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#179always 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.
"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.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#180always 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.
Neither are these companies getting lots of cheap labor and keeping the difference for themselves and their shareholders.
And, more importantly, why should I care if it's an "efficient allocation of resources" when the alternative is that I no longer get a decent wage?