41–50 of 520 posts
Tech industry is imploding, there is no need whatsoever to push women (or men) into a career in tech that has very limited opportunities at the moment.
But is there an objective time series measure somewhere?
[stub for offtopicness]
Tech industry is imploding, there is no need whatsoever to push women (or men) into a career in tech that has very limited opportunities at the moment.
However, SW dev is still a tough career, requiring constantly learning the new things in your free time if you want to stay employable, that's not to be understated, especially considering the ageism in this racket, and how quickly things become obsolete compared to other credentialed professions where you're basically set for life once you get that piece of paper and not have to go through rounds of hazing interviews and take homes every time you want to switch jobs. It's not for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.
For the corporate donors, sure. Im sure the people running it were genuine though.
The people running it are getting paid to run it. It's a job. There are few people who do charity for charity but for most people I met working for non-profits, it was just a job for them. Doesn't mean they didn't love their work or did their best but at the end of the day they need a pay check like everybody else.
Just skimming the 2022 990, executive compensation was $285,170. Total expenses $1,904,475 on $2,005,994 in revenue.
Unfortunately this is normal, because running a non-profit is hard enough that suitable candidates command high salaries. I was on an NPO board with a similar ratio and we couldn't get it down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.
For the corporate donors, sure. Im sure the people running it were genuine though.
Non-profits closing means there is a financial reason; were there grants monies that ran out? Did another "women in STEM" non-profit get corporate sponsorship instead? The article doesn't say.
The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.
It's good when a profit-driven industry decides to stop trying to cut expenses.
Tech industry is imploding, there is no need whatsoever to push women (or men) into a career in tech that has very limited opportunities at the moment.
If you enjoy software engineering and are willing to take a job in some place that's not SV, NYC, Austin, Seattle, etc. you can still find jobs that will allow an above-average salary and comfortable living. It's just not going to be at FAANG or Evil Omnicorp LLC.