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

251–260 of 370 posts

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

#251

Post by synicalx »

You know, I'm actually really impressed with Google for speaking with their money on this. There's a lot of "why don't these hicks just get a real job", but no one really seems interested in furthering that sentiment.

There's popular opposition to Trump's promise to give people jobs by resurrecting industries that a lot of people (probably Google as well) would rather see stay dead. But there's no denying people need jobs, and formal education ain't cheap.

Now we've got a tech giant backing that up with cold hard cash. It would be great to see other companies getting on board and putting some dough in the ring or at least offering some kind of internship/work experience programs for people coming out of an education funded by these grants.

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

#252

Post by jas_far »

briholt wrote: post #56
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…

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.

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.

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

#253

Post by s73ver_ »

cromwellian wrote: post #241
s73ver_ wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?" Does your employer have a natural, God given right to cheap labor?

Do I have a right not to have competition from other people in my industry underbidding me? My employer's rights are not the issue, it's whether I have a right to restrain others from entering the market through means like trying to oppose training and educational opportunities.

Your employer's rights are very much the issue.

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

#254

Post by synicalx »

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…

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 amount of money into education though, they're enabling them to go off and achieve something more meaningful that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to do.

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

#255

Post by SamReidHughes »

jas_far wrote: post #252
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.

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.

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

#256

Post by FLGMwt »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #233

Google is often criticized for not hiring developers who "still need more work", and instead hires experienced people. Hiring less capable people and training them internally would make some sense to me.

I'm not Google, but my guess is they'd rather invest in the market to let it float the "experienced" people rather than take a gamble on a known "inexperienced" person and attempt to train them.

Maybe this is shitty, maybe it isn't, but it's probably more economical.

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

#257

Post by FLGMwt »

hobofan wrote: post #212
jorblumesea wrote: post #158

How does flooding the market with developers that will never be able to pass their interviews help them? I guess it will increase the amount of people in the 1% by expanding the size of that pool? Just seems like Google out of all companies has a need for the best, not just blue collar code slingers. Many people with 4 years CS degrees from good schools do not get hired.

Maybe the want to free up "good" developers that work jobs requiring a lower skill level, by providing a better fitting low skill person for the job? (Not to be taken too seriously)

I'll take you seriously.

$1bn is a lot of money when put towards education and Google can make 5+ year investments when it comes to tech talent.

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

#258

Post by cromwellian »

s73ver_ wrote: post #253
cromwellian wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I have a right not to have competition from other people in my industry underbidding me? My employer's rights are not the issue, it's whether I have a right to restrain others from entering the market through means like trying to oppose training and educational opportunities.

Your employer's rights are very much the issue.

Are we're talking about a minimum wage for SWEs now? I mean what, specifically, are you suggesting? Employers can't hire people who bid lower?

Salary in the tech industry is a function of demand. Right now, for example, people with expertise in Machine Learning are in high demand. You can graduate with an MS or Phd in machine learning, form a startup with no product whatsoever, and get acqui-hired just because of the insane bidding war going on right now.

When I moved to SV in the 90s, at the height of the dot-com boom, kids fresh out of college were getting insane signing bonuses worth $10k or more. I knew people who would switch jobs every few months, just to collect freebies.

Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but here, tech workers are very highly privileged. Seeing people complain about a desk job that pays $100k+, weeks vacation, great healthcare and benefits, flexible working hours, compared to the utter suffering that's happening in the working class across this country just looks tone deaf to me.

Before we worry about the poor suffering tech workers, in their gentrified neighborhoods, in swanky cafes, facing stagnating nominal wages, how bout we consider the masses of people who missed out on the tech-utopia for the upper 10%, people who would like to move up the value chain, and have a right to compete for your job.

My mother worked as a cashier at Safeway before she died. Comparing my hourly wage as a SWE to hers is kind of obscene, and for the people I grew up with, seeing tech-bros complain about their current threatened position has got to look like people completely ignorant of how much privilege they have.

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

#259

Post by cromwellian »

rtuulik wrote: post #218
cromwellian wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PERCEIVED lack"? Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Because demand for SWEs is outstripping supply. This to me looks like the same kind of privileged outlook that other professional guilds like the AMA desire. Do you want cheaper healthcare, or doctor compensation to keep going up? Hey, letting nurse practitioners t…

While it may appear that salaries are rising quickly, in reality, for the average tech employee, they have been standing still for quite a while. In 2003, the average salary in tech was $69,400. By 2017, the average salary had risen to $92,081.[1] While that might seem like a pretty large payrise, after adjusting it for inflation, you come to a clear conclusion that over the last 12 years, salaries have stood basical…

Storage and Networking != SWE, and these surveys cover a much wider ground than particular tech hub job markets, and do not adjust for purchasing power parity/cost of living.

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

#260

Post by natoliniak »

Apocryphon wrote: post #55

To the critics in this thread- maybe it's time to consider unionizing tech workers after all?

software dev is too outsourcable for unionization to make sense. Also, real engineering professions are protected by licensure requirements and furthermore, their labor by nature of the discipline cannot be shipped out. Software is too global and portable to protect like that. So, lets enjoy the good times while they last.
Post reply on HN