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

271–280 of 370 posts

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

#271

Post by thaumasiotes »

vilmosi wrote: post #152
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.

IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job. I don't think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time these days.

> IQ just means potential not capability.

Ok, you can say that.

> Given enough[] time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job.

That's a statement about potential, not capability.

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

#272

Post by stale2002 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #138
marnett wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but how? Or would co-op consulting shops make more sense?

Why not try both? The point is that the status quo is untenable, corporate power is going to commodify devs just as they have done to workers in many other industries, and you might as well try fixing about it rather than getting disrupted like so many other dinosaur entities that tech has done to.

The status quo is untenable???

I am not sure what world you live in, but the world that I live in is one where software engineering salaries and jobs have continued to increase over the last 5, despite all these bootcamp grads and the large increase in CS majors.

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

#273

Post by samfisher83 »

fraserharris wrote: post #230
brudgers wrote: post #165

I 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…

They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.

They are getting tons of apps from top schools like harvard, stanford, etc. I don't think they will have any problem hiring people. Maybe this would help some small company a lot more that can't afford pay google salaries. Also If you believe the Pareto principle most of people at google probably aren't that important to their successes.

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

#274

Post by petra »

demygale wrote: post #99
thatonechad wrote: post #68

Universities 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.

Are we training giants now ?

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

#275

Post by thaumasiotes »

Joeri wrote: post #116
SamReidHughes wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's terrible.

Pretty much the same way we can consider the median personal income ($31,100 in 2016 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N ) "low". Because it's low.

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

#276

Post by aikinai »

blackguardx wrote: post #63
dyarosla wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the job training was pretty standard in the tech industry in the past. I worked with a guy at an HP (oldest high-tech co. in CA) spinoff that was the head embedded software architect and worked his way up from the machine shop in the '70s. He started out manning a drill press and learned to program when they started using NC (numeric control) machine tools. Do you think Google lets anyone to work their way up from…

Yes, actually Google does have programs to let people work their way up on the inside. Barista is a bit extreme and not really internal since they're vendors, but admins, help desk, etc. do have avenues to move into other roles.

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

#277

Post by evanlivingston »

fraserharris wrote: post #230
brudgers wrote: post #165

I 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…

They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.

Don't forget that if they increase the supply of technical jobs, they get to drive down the cost of those technical hires.

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

#278

Post by losteric »

samfisher83 wrote: post #273
fraserharris wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.

They are getting tons of apps from top schools like harvard, stanford, etc. I don't think they will have any problem hiring people. Maybe this would help some small company a lot more that can't afford pay google salaries. Also If you believe the Pareto principle most of people at google probably aren't that important to their successes.

Their goal is to increase the supply and diversity of good engineers, likely decreasing salaries in the long run. It's about damn time!

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

#279

Post by losteric »

baursak wrote: post #269
synicalx wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Direct vs indirect utility. Janitors are directly beneficial to a small number of people. The typical Google engineering is indirectly and marginally beneficial to millions.

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

#280

Post by [deleted] »

demygale wrote: post #99
thatonechad wrote: post #68

Universities 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN