501–510 of 535 posts
Wow, this elitist attitude is the problem. Assuming the worst about juniors and being totally unwilling to give people a chance, God forbid any training or mentorship. f--- software engineering. What. s--- career full of elitist pricks. Yes many of these people may not be very good, just like a lot of mediocre mids and seniors that believe they're gods gift to the world even if they've stubbornly refused to learn ver…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increased capital investment (e.g. software) could explain productivity not attributable to the employee. On its face, productivity vs pay isn't a faor metric. I agree that problem exists, but we shouldn't use it to benchmark
> I own your tools therefore I own everything you do with them Like I said, madness. It's like slavery was technically outlawed but a lot of America strongly disagreed. And they're posting on HN.
My point is increases in productivity can be caused by capital investment, not totally attributable to the worker. That money has to come from somewhere.
Ideally there's a fair balance. This isn't it but you can't look at the number you referenced blindly.
What they show is that hiring managers think they can use gen AI to get away with skipping juniors. The resulting collapse in software quality will either bite them in the ass causing a market correction, or massively enrich the big five and leave the rest of us to live with the consequences. Which outcome comes to pass is still yet to be seen (and partially under our control, as seniors)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>For population to remain stable, everyone has to have (on average) 2.1 kids. I never said I want the population to remain stable. >Any lower than this, population starts shrinking. Yes, and? >Children grow up seeing all their role models have less than 2 (even none at all), internalize that as normal, and then they won't end up having more (at least on average), and so it becomes a death spiral. I'm gonna need a big…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I own your tools therefore I own everything you do with them Like I said, madness. It's like slavery was technically outlawed but a lot of America strongly disagreed. And they're posting on HN.
If I lease tools that triple your productivity for the same cost as your wage, how much more do I pay you? My point is increases in productivity can be caused by capital investment, not totally attributable to the worker. That money has to come from somewhere. Ideally there's a fair balance. This isn't it but you can't look at the number you referenced blindly.
Correct systems-level answer to your question "how much do I pay you" is "as much as it takes to stabilize the US curve". Happiness correlates with financial security, which we won't get if the rich get richer from those capital investments then buy up all the housing.
Fun fact: Fit 2 lines on that data and you can extrapolate by ~2030 China will be a better place to live. That's really not that far off. Set a reminder on your phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said I supported such. Merely that if I were in control, I'd probably do the same. The US has rules to play by, the corporations are playing by them. Recently some of the rules seem to involve specific donations but it is the current set of rules. In this case, the corporations have global reach, so they may decide that other countries people can be more productive per $. Whether importing or offshoring. Are…
> I never said I supported such. Merely that if I were in control, I'd probably do the same. So, given the chances, you would be a criminal too. I don't know why I waste my time arguing on the internet lol. Good day.
I don't support the current rules. But we have to play by them or be tossed aside.
IE Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialism is when the state (ie: the government) _owns_ industries. A social contract is an implicit agreement that everyone more or less accepts without anything being necessarily legally binding. For example, the courtesy of two weeks notice in the US is a social contract: there’s nothing legally requiring it, but there are _social_ consequences (ie: your reference might be less positive) if you don’t follow it. Ev…
There has never been an understanding that rising profits = no layoffs. Zero idea where that came from. Companies will reduce workforce when they dont think those workers are providing value, that has always been the case.
For decades, engineers at IBM, HP, Xerox, etc assumed that they had a job for life; because they did.
The management culture you describe may predate Jack Welch, but certainly came into vogue with him. It has all the well-known downsides: management often lays off critical staff because they can’t really measure productivity, it destroys morale, many of the remaining high-performers leave, and is often followed by hiring replacements in the next year or two because the people cut were actually necessary.
So it is odd to see it happen for highly profitable companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well I'm still waiting. Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. Which perfectly encapsulates the issue with hiring. Too afraid to try new things, so instead add beuracracy to leases accountability. I think you haven't spend much time thinking about the issue. Changing hiring practices does not mean they are improve. It only means they changed. You are still faced with the task of hiring adequate talent…
>Changing hiring practices does not mean they are improve. No, but I'd like to at least see conversation on how to improve the process. We aren't even at that point. We're just barely past acknowledging that it's even an issue. >but if you change processes them now you don't have baselines and past experiences to guide you. I argue we're already at this point. The reason we got past the above point of "acknowledging…
The current hiring practices are a result of acknowledging what they did before didn't work. The current ones work well enough that people don't wanna change it, the only ones who wanna change it are engineers not the companies.
The problem is "Seniors" started becoming worse a decade ago. Not only wouldn't they mentor, but they wouldn't lead by example. Problem-solving on their own, collaborating with peers, sharing information/communication, doing proper due diligence, organizing and improving themselves and their team/product/business. This was around the same time bootcamps started flooding the industry with amateurs with no experience.…
The biggest question that isn't being asked, "why is a university incapable of training a competent programmer in four years?" I'm quite sure I could take my cousin who has never heard the word HTML and get her to be a better programmer than the average CS graduate within 4 years of tutelage. Why is this the case? Four years is a very long time, and the universities are wasting that time. I'm certain any driven indiv…