mkdir plan
git add $1B
git commit -am "train US workers for high tech jobs"
git push
(please PR for a better git joke)
Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
261–270 of 370 posts
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear, many of the HN crowd seems like they'd be happiest if they were the only developer on the planet.
You should ask taxi drivers about how they feel about millions of people getting paid peanuts to drive for Lift and Uber. Or lawyers about how they feel about millions of people with law degrees unable to find work as lawyers. Or Physics PHDs about how they feel driving a cab^wUber. Or musicians, who live off selling t-shirts. Why do you think supply and demand does not apply to the IT labour market?
Because labor generates additional demand. There isn't fixed demand for software engineers that persists across all time. The demand for engineers has grown over the last fifty years.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes thereof is inaccurate.
Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone somewhere knew how to write. What do you think people did before the industrial revolution?
A lot.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is it about tech work that requires such a high intelligence, as you state? Because I'm a tech employee and would argue that your claim is completely unfounded. There's nothing special about learning how to code—it's a very trainable skill. Takes a lot of time and dedication, sure, but trainable nonetheless.
You can't even teach calculus to some people to the point where they can pass a class. Some people in programming classes can't even submit homework that compiles.
Calculus and programming are in two different leagues of complexity, and most programming doesn't require a knowledge of calculus.
Like any other skill, programming comes more easily to some than others, but with the right approach can be acquired by anyone.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
>doesn't require a lot of creative thinking It doesn't, but you still need "higher level" developers to cover security and concurrent/parallel/distributed problems and maybe architecture. It's not that someone can't also learn that stuff, but exposing a product publicly without some experience in those areas is asking for trouble. IMO, Software is resisting division of labor and work by collapsing roles into "Full st…
I agree there have to be different skill levels but I think that distinction has to occur within denominations like 'full stack' and 'DevOps'. These labels simply determine what you do not how skilled you're at it. In my opinion, full stack and DevOps is the normal, sane way of approaching software development. Artificially dividing up roles into labels such as 'front-end', 'back-end', 'database programmer', 'system…
[deleted]
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is basically how my mother was trained as a programmer. She got a job, was literally handed a stack of books and reference material and started figuring shit out. She changed careers before I can really remember her at that job, but I too am self-taught in this field (but I trained myself at home). The whole idea of companies not investing in their people is relatively new.
To be fair, employees are no longer particularly faithful to employers-- after all, it's considered completely normal to spend only 2-5 years at a job, then move to the next one. This definitely complicates the benefits of on-the-job training: why waste 3-12 months training somebody to basic competence when they might leave a few months after that? Some of this is obviously due to employees fighting back against stag…
I don't know about started, it's been back and forth forever, but in recent history a big epochal change was the hostile takeover movement of the 80s. Many companies, including those that had had a reputation for loyalty to their employees, were bought out by corporate raiders who often took actions that lead to huge number of layoffs.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#267I wonder how long it would take for Google to spend an extra $1 Billion by bringing janitorial, food service, and other non-technical jobs in-house instead of contracting it out to the lowest bidder. To put it in perspective, $1 Billion is 10,000 times $100,000. Or 1000 $100,000/year jobs for ten years before discounting for the time value of money. Instead, big chunks of the money will get siphoned off to administra…
I guess other than wanting a continuing supply of in-country tech's to hire (as others have touched on), it sort of comes back to the old "give a man a fish" vs "teach him to fish" shenanigans. They could hire a bunch of janitors, who are already employed anyway, and essentially just transfer that $1b directly into their pockets but at the end of the day they're still going to be janitors. By investing that some amou…
If they brought that support staff in-house, wouldn't it be easier to teach them how to fish?
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#268Google spends what, upwards of $10B a year on software engineer salary and benefits? So, seems like a good deal. If they can spend $1B and decrease salary’s and benefits by at least 10% over a few years, they get return on investment.
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#269I wonder how long it would take for Google to spend an extra $1 Billion by bringing janitorial, food service, and other non-technical jobs in-house instead of contracting it out to the lowest bidder. To put it in perspective, $1 Billion is 10,000 times $100,000. Or 1000 $100,000/year jobs for ten years before discounting for the time value of money. Instead, big chunks of the money will get siphoned off to administra…
I guess other than wanting a continuing supply of in-country tech's to hire (as others have touched on), it sort of comes back to the old "give a man a fish" vs "teach him to fish" shenanigans. They could hire a bunch of janitors, who are already employed anyway, and essentially just transfer that $1b directly into their pockets but at the end of the day they're still going to be janitors. By investing that some amou…
This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay. It might be true, but in my opinion an average janitor is more beneficial to society than an average programmer.
More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!
Re: Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech jobs
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What if I invested in Blockbuster instead of Boeing? How much would my $1000 be worth today?