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

181–190 of 370 posts

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

#181

Post by briholt »

BjoernKW wrote: post #161
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.

That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking. Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and pro…

You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.

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

#182

Post by s73ver_ »

sounds wrote: post #66
baursak wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people who care about efficient allocation of resources for the society are socialists and academics. Certainly CEOs with multi-million dollar annual compensations don't think they're contributing to allocation inefficiencies by negotiating their compensations. Neither do doctors and AMA, who we all love and respect. Neither do military leaders or politicians, who demand half the country's budget for militar…

Or, more bluntly: Google should pay high salaries. The market will supply the skilled workers when the salaries are high enough to attract more workers. (Google does pay high salaries. If they want more skilled workers, raising their salaries is the most efficient way to get that outcome.)

Well, it's more than just pure salary. I'm sure if they changed things so that one did not have to work crazy hours while there, they could get away with paying less.

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

#183

Post by patorjk »

olavgg wrote: post #67
swendoog wrote: post #27

Everyone hates a cynic so bring on the downvotes: I'm going to warn everyone of what's coming. Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030. The HUGE push from government, and private business, to fill the PERCEIVED lack of engineers, will come to fruition around that time. Make no mistake about it - there is NOT a lack of skilled engineers right now. There is a disinterest among business…

I disagree, I see people fail learning programming over and over again. Even after three years completing a computer engineering degree, they struggle with how a for loop works, (No this is not a joke in Europe). Learning to program takes a lot of dedication and focus. Which a lot of people have no interest in, it is just too much work and too difficult. Every student that takes a engineering degree here, have to hav…

I've not only seen the same, I've seen people who actually work as developers who struggle with basic for-loops. I used to get worried when people rang alarm bells about jobs going overseas or there being an influx of developers into the market, but a large portion of the population seems to either just not be able to wrap their head around programming, or just not find it that interesting.

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

#184

Post by andrewwharton »

scythe wrote: post #168
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 is standardized to a population distribution. As such someone with an IQ of 120 is not 50% smarter than someone with an IQ of 80; rather, they simply have a 50% higher "score". But there is no standard zero-point on the IQ scale; the "IQ of a rock" could be anywhere from -5000 to +50 or so. That doesn't mean IQ is meaningless -- it correlates with a variety of positive outcomes -- but that low-IQ people are not "p…

Re. college level IQ, I think they were referring to the level of IQ required to be able to successfully complete a college degree, ie. keep up with courses (which requires quick acquisition of knowledge), rather than the level of IQ 'acquired' after completing a college degree.

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

#185

Post by Aunche »

swendoog wrote: post #27

Everyone hates a cynic so bring on the downvotes: I'm going to warn everyone of what's coming. Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030. The HUGE push from government, and private business, to fill the PERCEIVED lack of engineers, will come to fruition around that time. Make no mistake about it - there is NOT a lack of skilled engineers right now. There is a disinterest among business…

Software engineer jobs will never be blue collar because it's not a blue collar job. Sure, anyone can make a tic tac toe go, but that's different from software engineering. A good software engineer can effectively do the work of several mediocre ones by making decisions that would benefit the company in the long run.

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

#186

Post by ehsankia »

rifung wrote: post #120
bradleyjg wrote: post #28

I'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…

> I'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 I work for Google and I find there's already a very large amount of on the job training required due to all the powerful but complicated internal tools. My manager has told me that I should not feel pressured to contribute at all for my first 6 months and I should feel fr…

But Google and maybe a few other really big tech companies are exceptions since they are so big they have their own internal tooling for everything. In general though, it's probably more useful teaching people the generic solutions that are used in most medium sized companies, rather than Google's specialized tooling. And generally a lot of the workflows are transferable.

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

southphillyman wrote: post #147
jimmaswell wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thankful I found a company like that after graduating. Seemingly the only such specimen in America today. It's a giant international consultancy company that seemingly has a questionable reputation online but it was all I could get that paid anything remotely respectable and they even do paid training. It's seems to be one of a rapidly dwindling handful of paths for new grads who are graduating and finding out th…

Yup, companies like Accenture have been doing new hire "training" programs for well over a decade. It's a great way for young college grads who didn't go to one of the elite schools that the Googles of SV recruit from to get over the "Jr. Engineer with 3 years experience" hurdle.

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by s73ver_ »

Apocryphon wrote: post #30
wehere1 wrote: post #2

always 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

Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing? Sure they could stand to raise wages for existing workers across the board (and they should) but that doesn't solve the labor supply issue. Maybe some of these grants can go towards retraining existing engineers who need to acquire new skills.

Why do they need to continue growing? They're already what, 80% of online ads?

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

#189

Post by joshhart »

bradleyjg wrote: post #157
rifung wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'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 I work for Google and I find there's already a very large amount of on the job training required due to all the powerful but complicated internal tools. My manager has told me that I should not feel pressured to contribute at all for my first 6 months and I should feel fr…

At the dawn of the computer age ATT, IBM, and other companies taught people how to program from scratch. Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers. I don't see why Google couldn't do that today. I'm not saying they are morally obligated to do so. At the end of the day they…

My company, LinkedIn, has started an in-company program called Reach to do exactly that. https://careers.linkedin.com/reach

Rather than hire a traditional Stanford CS graduate, we find people who have self-taught to some basic extent and give them the chance to work under an apprenticeship. We started with a class of about 25 with decent results and will tune it more based on what we learn

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

#190

Post by s73ver_ »

Apocryphon wrote: post #53
baursak wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing? I never understood growth for the sake of growth mentality. Isn't that what's killing the planet, broadly speaking?

Certainly unrestrained resource extraction and financialization of the entire economy- generating wealth for a select few with complex financial instruments that has no real purpose for the general public- are bad. But surely much of tech does provide some benefit to society. What happened to software is eating the world?

But is Google doing that? And does it have to be Google?
Post reply on HN