111–120 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so that prices for labor will go down wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.
Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.
At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis): - Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration. - Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) - Affirma…
> Affirmative action makes minorities feel like they don't deserve to be there Does it? I see a lot of affirmative action victims saying that it _ought_ to make them feel that way, but I never hear that from affirmative action recipients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like easy tech careers that pay big from the get-go after a bootcamp are imploding. Those workers with a lot of experience and those with the skills, passion and patience, willing to push through the rough tides will be rewarded in the end. 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, especial…
I've been developing software for a living for 40 years now (even longer if you include when I wasn't developing software for a living) and I feel that the pace of change has dramatically slowed down in the past 10 years: - We've stabilized web front ends - Mobile application development has stabilized - Architecture patterns are well-known and there are plenty of (now legacy) products with which to implement them -…
It's also inversely proportional more difficult to get hired nowadays in those fields though.
Back then when (for example) mobile dev was just getting started you could get hired with absolutely zero experience since nobody had any experience, but now there's a laundry list of requirement even for junior positions which are few compared to senior positions and the strict requires there in terms of experience.
Good for those who already had 10 past years of experience and learned the necessary background knowledge, bad for those entering now when the bar has been raised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody was talking about whether or not it was sustainable, we're just comparing salary potential now to a generation ago. To the managerial class, tech people used to be literal wizards conjuring the impossible and now we're regular commoditized office labor like any other.
Not sure if comparing salary potentials coming from two different socio-economic periods is useful or likely to mislead. Tech and people versed in it were not common (to people outside tech) and so the high salaries would reflect that. Now is not the case. It was always going to be temporary. As people become acquainted with tech people, the magic vanishes, you see the code behind the pixels. At the same time, tech p…
Todays SWEs tend to know far less about how computers operate and how protocols work than in the old days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That comp $ is very reasonable in the abstract, what's not reasonable is comp:revenue. You can't be paying 15% of your revenue to a single individual, because almost by definition they aren't performing well enough to justify that salary.
Even when that person is the founder? Who created the thing and keeps it going through personal force of will? Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. You want high quality people to be able to focus full time on stuff like this.
[stub for offtopicness]
At my company (tech) I've noticed that for the past 2-3 years grads are almost 50% women.
Now, I have absolutely nothing against this outcome. But I do wonder - instead of optimizing for a specific distribution of employee features shouldn't we be optimizing for hiring the best?
And you could say "they are the best, 50% of the best are women".
That's a possible explanation! However.... 5+ years ago when grad were roughly 100% men, weren't we hiring the best then? Surely back then they also thought they were hiring the best. Surely 5 years ago if you'd told the hiring manager "hey from those 20 people you hired, 10 aren't the best, 10 the best are these other people and they happen to be women", the hiring manager would've said "no way, we don't look at gender when hiring, we just hire the best".
My point is that we didn't understand why back then we were ending up with 100% men despite the fact that 50% of the population are women. We just mandated that 50% should be women. This is like you believe you have a bug and so you tweak something at random. Now it's different and you think it's fixed.
Anyway, they don't pay me enough, so I don't care :-)
At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis): - Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration. - Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) - Affirma…
The imbalance is even more acute than that, because the profession has been trending towards a women-dominated workforce for several decades. There aren't as many veterinarians as there are software developers, but it's a well-paying job.
Does this situation strike you as one which needs correcting? I'm fine with it, personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if comparing salary potentials coming from two different socio-economic periods is useful or likely to mislead. Tech and people versed in it were not common (to people outside tech) and so the high salaries would reflect that. Now is not the case. It was always going to be temporary. As people become acquainted with tech people, the magic vanishes, you see the code behind the pixels. At the same time, tech p…
People with wizard-like skills are out there but typically can't command the salaries they used to. Todays SWEs tend to know far less about how computers operate and how protocols work than in the old days.
The same kind of "I just love to code" tech wizard that builds an amazing service/library/product, overworks itself while letting big companies extract max value out of it and contribute nothing or extremely little to the open source world.
Every day I think of the Homebrew creator who got rejected by the company that uses his software daily. This should be in the mind of every dev imo.
Tech wizards wrote their fate on code, compiled it and served it to the market. This is the result
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation. If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite - sex imbalance is not something to accept, but rather to fix. Many authoritarian regimes are expanding their economic base by enabling women to pursue professional careers. In some developed countries there’s no such pressure, so they are simply stuck in the past. They are not doing better…
> It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation. Agreed 100% > If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite This is where you lose me. Your statement here suggests the following: 1. That you know, for a conclusive fact, what those reasons are 2. That the reasons suggest something ominous Furthermore, you haven't explained what you consider to be the reasons, let alone offered expl…