|
Caros posted:I have a friend who manages a local pizza joint. He has worked there for a decade starting as an evening cook. He makes a grand total of $16/hour Canadian. Why is his decade of pizza cooking not correlating into a great job? Socialist central planning is at fault. Do you know how many businesses there are out there right now thinking to themselves, 'Man, I would really love to hire on someone who knows the ins and outs of pizza making at $35/hr but I just can't afford it! Thanks Alternatively if he didn't need to be licensed to show that he isn't making food in unsafe and unsanitary conditions he could just go into business for himself and make a bazillion pizza dollars. But if he tries that then MEN WITH GUNS will THROW HIM INTO A CAGE because... What? Because having a restaurant grade pizza oven is a "fire hazard" and his house/apartment isn't "zoned" for business? Statism is keeping your friend down!!!!! But don't take my word for it, my favorite hip-hop artist Biggie Smalls agrees with me.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Which letter of STEM is "finance"? I'm guessing M.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
theshim posted:Obviously because the business's profit margins are so slim thanks to the overwhelming tyranny of the Canadian government that they haven't been able to pay him more. In a truly free market, the company would easily be able to compensate their employees better - and of course they would, or people would be poaching his pizza proficiency! Who What Now posted:Socialist central planning is at fault. Do you know how many businesses there are out there right now thinking to themselves, 'Man, I would really love to hire on someone who knows the ins and outs of pizza making at $35/hr but I just can't afford it! Thanks Hey, now, Canada is way above America in Heritage's free country list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Which letter of STEM is "finance"? I'm guessing M. The acronym is actually STEAM and finance is denoted by "Assholes." It got changed to STEM by the PC crowd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The acronym is actually STEAM and finance is denoted by "Assholes." It got changed to STEM by the PC crowd. That's also where Keynesian and Austrian Economics are too! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have a friend who manages a local pizza joint. He has worked there for a decade starting as an evening cook. He makes a grand total of $16/hour Canadian. Why is his decade of pizza cooking not correlating into a great job? What's your friend's ethnic background? If I remember Jrod's explanation, there's just something certain non-whites that's totally unrelated to race and means they all just deserve to make all that much money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
My internship in the summer of 2013 paid me $18/hr and I was doing data mining and analysis and I had to pass 3 technical interviews to get it. My affluent parents actually forbade me from getting a job prior to college because (I'm guessing in retrospect) they didn't want me to be influenced by people who, say, smoke weed behind the dumpster during their break. My only job experience before that internship was some library volunteer hours and a few week-long day camps. Basically, Joseph A. Rod over here has never been on the rear end-end of a buyer's market, and he thinks he raised himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:My internship in the summer of 2013 paid me $18/hr and I was doing data mining and analysis and I had to pass 3 technical interviews to get it. Probably also To Focus On Your Education
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The acronym is actually STEAM and finance is denoted by "Assholes." It got changed to STEM by the PC crowd. Yeah, I can see how the PC crowd would want to avoid confusion with those acronyms. It is a PC joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Yeah, you really need a 4 year degree in a STEM field combined with both luck and work experience in field-relevant work (intern/temp positions) to land a $30+/hour job these days. They exist, but everyone and their mother are competing for them. I want to hit on this, because this is in part what hosed me over (and continues to gently caress me over) in trying to get a job in the career field I went to college for. My degree is a STEM degree, I graduated in 2008, but I have zero experience, no internships, nothing. In part, this is because my parents first of all were too poor to pay for my college, and even much less to support me should I have taken an unpaid internship in an expensive city somewhere. And I couldn't get internships in the city where I lived, because all the companies/government contractors there were supporting either AFSOC or the testing range, which requires a Security clearance to even be considered - so the companies just didn't offer internships in that area. And I was a dumb kid who didn't think I needed to take an internship to get a job. So, every summer was "come home and get a 'summer job'" which I was thoroughly convinced at the time was the right thing to do. Lots of kids came home for "summer jobs" like working at a video rental store, working at Subway (fired; reason given: manager wanted to give her boyfriend more hours), washing cars for a rental agency. Turns out people don't give two shits that you "worked hard" every summer if none of those jobs relate to what you actually want to do. And having graduated in 2008, me and every Tom, Dick, and Harry that graduated with me were all coming to the same stark realization that we hosed up by not taking internships, so now we're competing with actual college students and people who were smarter than us and took internships also trying to maybe bide their time at an internship, because applying for an entry level position requires 2 years of experience and we're all competing against senior level employees who got laid off with 20 years of experience willing to take the pay cut to get an entry-level position. So what happened? All those companies amended their internships to where you had to show that you were currently enrolled in a college. The entry level positions? Still require 2 years of experience. My friends? Those with jobs either graduated before I did or used their connections (or veteran points for being former Navy) to land their jobs. My connections? All old people who didn't have a clue how the modern market works and just kept telling me "you need to apply online, no I won't put in a good word for you even though the hiring manager sits in the cubicle next to me." The rest of my friends? One is now a manager at a famous upscale clothing store, another spent five years at Dunkin' Donuts and is now working up the ladder at a mattress store, one stayed in school to learn to be a mechanic, and so on and so forth. Me? I got a job based on being white and speaking English after spending 5, almost 6, years bouncing between retail, temp, and call center jobs. I still haven't figured out which one is the most soul sucking/destroying of them all. jrode sounds more like my cousins. My Aunt and Uncle are very well-to-do with lots of connections and live in a large metropolitan area. Both of my cousins got their first jobs working for a restaurant that a friend of my Aunt owned. Every job after that has been through a friend of their parents. My one cousin is going to med school and is doing an internship with their family doctor. The other is a gently caress up who got kicked out of college in his first year, but will still never face any real consequences based on the connections and wealth of his parents. They have no clue how the real world works. The gently caress-up actually looks down on my brother for being a mechanic. We're related by blood, but our experiences are totally different, and will always be different, because of the privilege they enjoy thanks to the wealth of my Aunt and Uncle. A privilege that jrode enjoys, but is too blind to see. And before anyone asks, no, I've never received anything more than $20 on my birthday (usually more like $5 or $10) from my "rich Uncle". Though one year my Uncle spent that money to buy me a cheap wallet from Sears when I graduated from High School. Like "you're a man now, here's a wallet." Haven't seen anything so much as a card on my birthday or Christmas since.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:And before anyone asks, no, I've never received anything more than $20 on my birthday (usually more like $5 or $10) from my "rich Uncle". Though one year my Uncle spent that money to buy me a cheap wallet from Sears when I graduated from High School. Like "you're a man now, here's a wallet." Haven't seen anything so much as a card on my birthday or Christmas since. Like you, a poor person, would know what to do with $20.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Like you, a poor person, would know what to do with $20. Seriously, you elitist pig! Obviously I would buy a bigger rock to smash bigger windows so I can steal more bread. Or bribe a democrat into giving me more welfare checks. I love me some welfare checks. Got a whole collection of them under my mattress at home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:And before anyone asks, no, I've never received anything more than $20 on my birthday (usually more like $5 or $10) from my "rich Uncle". Though one year my Uncle spent that money to buy me a cheap wallet from Sears when I graduated from High School. Like "you're a man now, here's a wallet." Haven't seen anything so much as a card on my birthday or Christmas since. The empty wallet should have been more than motivation to work hard enough to fill it, you lazy degenerate. Clearly, the problem here is you failed to understand how your successful relatives deserve every last cent and you do not because- *literally explodes from pent-up flatulence, spraying room with entrails and feces*
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I want to hit on this, because this is in part what hosed me over (and continues to gently caress me over) in trying to get a job in the career field I went to college for. My degree is a STEM degree, I graduated in 2008, but I have zero experience, no internships, nothing. In part, this is because my parents first of all were too poor to pay for my college, and even much less to support me should I have taken an unpaid internship in an expensive city somewhere. And I couldn't get internships in the city where I lived, because all the companies/government contractors there were supporting either AFSOC or the testing range, which requires a Security clearance to even be considered - so the companies just didn't offer internships in that area. And I was a dumb kid who didn't think I needed to take an internship to get a job. Yeah, I was in a very similar situation as you. It took me 6 years after graduating in 2009 to finally land a good job. The only reason I have what I have is that temp work finally paid out and they made a position for me due to some fortunate circumstances that happened to line up. Everyone else I know that's my age and is working is employed because they were lucky enough to be in the right spot when someone else was promoted or retired. It loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Oh yeah, one last "gently caress you" to jrod, a few years back I was looking for work and an "entry level" help desk job wanted three years of experience. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Oh yeah, one last "gently caress you" to jrod, a few years back I was looking for work and an "entry level" help desk job wanted three years of experience. Go gently caress yourself. Yeah that's been happening a ton in jobs in general lately, from what I've seen. Mostly it's a buyer's market; good luck getting experience without a college education and even that won't help you sometimes. Youth unemployment is absurdly high. That argument of "well teenagers should just get jobs to get experience" is loving meaningless if nobody is willing to hire them at all. There was a time where you could start out pushing a broom then work hard and impress your boss, who would then move you to something that probably paid better. That time is gone. Actually in the STEM world I keep seeing "entry-level" positions that want a master's degree or better, multiple years of professional experience doing exactly what they wanted you to do in that position, and experience in multiple fields. That is not entry level. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
In general the ideal employee for anything other than "master of the universe" or, possibly, "some specific openings for very high level computer programmers," seems to be someone who already did that job for ten years but is interested in taking a pay cut for the purposes of personal asceticism. Also, ideally, not a woman who wants to have children. All this "make everyone learn how to code" stuff for the children is probably meant to break position #2 down to "cube drone," too, in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:All this "make everyone learn how to code" stuff for the children is probably meant to break position #2 down to "cube drone," too, in a few years. You make it sound like this is a deliberate decision with a deliberate outcome, which is a conspiracy theorist level of stupid and weird. In reality I think it's just because coding skills are useful in a crazy number of jobs, even if you're not a code monkey in a cubicle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
I'm finally chasing down some really promising, good-looking interview leads after years of struggle and working hard to get a qualification. The fact that I've had two interviews this week isn't a reflection of my bootstraps abilities. It's sheer dumb luck, and the fact that I had a family member looking out for me and bugging everyone they talked to that might be in a position to help. Certainly, having a qualification is helpful, but it's not been getting me any interviews when I've just been applying on my own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You make it sound like this is a deliberate decision with a deliberate outcome, which is a conspiracy theorist level of stupid and weird. In reality I think it's just because coding skills are useful in a crazy number of jobs, even if you're not a code monkey in a cubicle. Like, basic emotional literacy is also really important but there's nobody running emotional literacy bootcamps or saying "We will make every child able to do an HourOfEmotionalLiteracy." e: Or if they are it's not on the TV 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think it's some grand paranoid conspiracy but I would really be shocked if part of the calculation for "let's push computer programming skills to be widely available" is not "this will make it cheaper and easier to get people with those skills in the future." "I don't think it's a paranoid conspiracy, I think it's *describes a paranoid conspiracy*" I mean sure, most modern nations push for more STEM majors for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure there are many employers who would be happy to have access to cheaper computer engineers. But the idea that computer science courses in K-12 are just the result of a bunch of people at the top trying to drive down the cost of hiring more code monkeys (or cube drones) is just absurd. STEM professionals have been suggesting for years that computer science should be offered in public schools. It's important to many fields and also provides access to basic logic exercise, so it's a rare case of coursework conveying useful skills in both the practical and the personal senses. People are celebrating the widespread introduction of coding into the curricula as a move in the right direction, a necessary evolutionary step in order to maintain some minimum level of relevancy in education. Your interpretation of these events just seems kind of ignorant, and maybe even a little tone deaf. There have also been huge leaps in robotics education at K-12 schools recently. Is that due to some guys getting together and deciding that they want to make it cheaper and easier to hire people with basic robotics skills in the future? When Driver's Ed became commonly offered at high schools, was that some guys coming together and deciding that they wanted to be able to hire cheaper delivery drivers? quote:Like, basic emotional literacy is also really important but there's nobody running emotional literacy bootcamps or saying "We will make every child able to do an HourOfEmotionalLiteracy." e: Or if they are it's not on the TV And what if there were? Would that be evidence of someone saying "we want to make it cheaper and easier to hire people with emotional literacy in the future"? That seems to be your argument. Also, why are you using a loaded term like "bootcamp" to describe what is basically just another K-12 course? If a student takes something like British Literature in high school then is that "Brit Lit Boot Camp"? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Mostly, my objections are when it's either portrayed as the one important thing to teach in school, or is valorized at the severe expense of other important elements of teaching small children. Programming is not somehow bad, but ideally it should not be at the expense of other subjects, or should be integrated with them (robotics could be a great way to do multi-disciplinary teaching, for instance). You say "relevancy," too, which is its own set of value judgments. However, the argument of "why, exactly, do we have schools, and what are they supposed to be doing" is probably not one for the Jrode mock thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Personally I realized at the tender age of 14 that as long as you're passably competent at something the number one factor in landing a job in that field is connections, followed closely by sheer dumb luck. And that passably competent part isn't always required either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Mostly, my objections are when it's either portrayed as the one important thing to teach in school, or is valorized at the severe expense of other important elements of teaching small children. Programming is not somehow bad, but ideally it should not be at the expense of other subjects, or should be integrated with them (robotics could be a great way to do multi-disciplinary teaching, for instance). What is school for? Honest question; what do you believe school is for? One of the reasons that STEM courses, programming, and even just basic computer literacy are being pushed so hard from so many directions is that computers are just loving everywhere. There just aren't enough programmers to go around and, for better or for worse, anybody that can afford a computer and some basic electronic components can make neat things that will make their lives easier. With a bit of technical know-how you can do things like make an app that turns your coffee maker at home on at the press of a button. I read about a guy that suffered from crippling migraines about once a month that wrote himself an app that e-mailed his boss and his friends "hey I'm going to be bedridden for 24 hours...nothing personal if I don't say anything" at the press of a button. Even outside of the job market technical skills are just so profoundly, absurdly useful. If "preparing children for the world they are entering" is what you believe that school is for then yes we absolutely should be teaching children to write code and understand how to do more with a computer that write e-mails. More importantly if you do it the way lolbertarians want and only people who can afford it get access to that education then you've deliberately hosed over an entire class of people. Teaching computer science in primary and secondary school is practically an ethical thing at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I mean sure, most modern nations push for more STEM majors for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure there are many employers who would be happy to have access to cheaper computer engineers. But the idea that computer science courses in K-12 are just the result of a bunch of people at the top trying to drive down the cost of hiring more code monkeys (or cube drones) is just absurd. Saying that this is all it boils down to is too simplistic but it's really not implausible that this is a part of it. Employers in all fields will collaborate to drive down the cost of labor. This is a fact that doesn't require believing in "conspiracy theories." Conspiracies are possible, but this kind of action can be completely out in the open, it can be bound up in other sincere motives, it just can be emergent from facts of hiring. The tech sector is absolutely not immune to this. A few years ago several tech companies were hit with an anti-trust suit because they agreed not to try to poach each other's workers. The possibility of tech workers leaving one company for another is part of what keeps their salaries high, so the motive for it was pretty obvious. When they explained their actions, the managers/execs in charge of the decision plainly explained it in terms of the security this would provide them to innovate cost-effective solutions for customers. As for shortages in qualified STEM workers, much may have changed in three years, but this indicates that this may be more myth than reality: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth If that is the case, then there is nothing implausible to me about saying that some of the business motives for promoting the training of more STEM workers relate to employee compensation. The thing is that it's not nuanced enough to act like there's a bullshit rationale for a real sinister motive. The openly expressed reasoning may be completely sincere, and the reality of how this affects bargaining in employment may be both communicated and understood in terms of generic "difficulty finding qualified applicants." It may be difficult because it puts a strain on resources for payroll and compensation. Like... I'm not saying this because I think there are no good reasons to promote coding as a skill taught in high school. It just strikes me as absurd to wave off the possibility of businesses promoting policy that (among other things) strengthens their bargaining position in hiring as "conspiracy theory nonsense."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
I'm sure there's a push from the tech sector to get more applicants to boost security and lower wages, but I think the main motivation has been well-meaning naivete from non tech people. They see that STEM jobs make good money, so they think encouraging kids to go into STEM will boost help the kids' earnings in the future. It's the old capitalist "try hard enough and we can all win the race" fallacy that a frightening number of people buy into.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
As a software "engineer" employed in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd like to contribute my impression that we are exploited less than most workers only due to temporary historical accidents which have made our labor unusually valuable and unusually rare, and there are definitely local Thought Leaders who publicly agitate for policies with the express purpose of fixing the "rare" part (H1-B nonsense, usually), and even engage in literal conspiracies. Also jrode delenda est
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm sure there's a push from the tech sector to get more applicants to boost security and lower wages, but I think the main motivation has been well-meaning naivete from non tech people. They see that STEM jobs make good money, so they think encouraging kids to go into STEM will boost help the kids' earnings in the future. It's the old capitalist "try hard enough and we can all win the race" fallacy that a frightening number of people buy into. It's a lot of factors; we all want to be successful and feel like we aren't failures. We all also want to set up our children as best we can. We all also like the idea of having more than whatever it is we have now. In a lot of ways it's an indicator of the dual pressures; the boss wants to make himself richer so he wants your wages lower. You want to be richer so you want your wages to be higher. And, well... Doc Hawkins posted:As a software "engineer" employed in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd like to contribute my impression that we are exploited less than most workers only due to temporary historical accidents which have made our labor unusually valuable and unusually rare, and there are definitely local Thought Leaders who publicly agitate for policies with the express purpose of fixing the "rare" part (H1-B nonsense, usually), and even engage in literal conspiracies. ...this happens. There's a strong incentive among employers to keep wages as low as possible. Right now there just aren't enough experienced programmers to go around and programming is hard. Seriously, poo poo is just plain difficult but even the lowliest of programmers still earns a good wage. Programmers are expensive and the best ones can pretty much just set their own price at this point. Businesses of course want programming talent for cheap as code is both profitable and necessary at this point but hiring programmers is just so damned expensive, man!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
So what happens when the software engineering/programming/developing bubble bursts and all the mediocre workers who jumped in to chase the gold rush find themselves stuck in a career path they hate or at least have no real passion for but did begrudgingly for job security and good wages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:So what happens when the software engineering/programming/developing bubble bursts and all the mediocre workers who jumped in to chase the gold rush find themselves stuck in a career path they hate or at least have no real passion for but did begrudgingly for job security and good wages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Or all the people with recent law degrees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Ask all the people who majored in accounting from 2002-2007, when the collapse of Arthur Andersen supposedly meant a whole new level of scrutiny applied to big firms and thus a whole bunch of accounting jobs. Radish posted:Or all the people with recent law degrees. Yeah, the idea of a specific field being "hot," followed by a glut of people joining right as the bubble bursts, is a recurring problem. I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't happened with doctors is active supply controls on the part of med schools. No conspiracy required, just the cold unfeeling hand of the market. Conspiracies can help though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
That's why I think it's kind of dumb to scream "STEM!! STEM!! STEM!!" at people because, in the long term, people who don't really have the mathematical/technical aptitudes or - more importantly - the passion to excel in engineering or programming would be really disserviced to force their round peg into a square hole, collecting a paycheck for several decades while wearily looking forward to when (if) they can retire and die. It's understandable of course given current realities but still short-sighted. Ideally society should be structured to support everyone who want to work on their passions regardless of how much or little money they make from it to be happier and more fulfilled from life in the end. Unfortunately, criminal amounts of debt required for higher education and That this is happening every single day and to millions of people is criminal and society is worse off for it. Although Jrode's society is built on the broken dreams and bodies of the oppressed who would continuously die and be even worse off than what we have now, so...  
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Only vaguely relevant, but this thread is this thread so gently caress it: talking about this stuff always brings Bertrand Russell's essay "In Praise of Idleness," which is an excellent articulation of some of the problems with market-based employment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Radish posted:Or all the people with recent law degrees. I don't think you can easily classify this as "people getting into the market right before the bubble bursts," either--there probably still wouldn't be enough jobs if the economy made a full recovery, and it's been going on for years. The school I worked for touted that its latest class of freshmen was the brightest and most high-achieving ever, because competition for admission was an at all-time high despite the market being in the toilet. (OTOH, I worked for a T14 law school. There's a big gulf between the first tier of law schools and everyone else.) Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Yeah, the idea of a specific field being "hot," followed by a glut of people joining right as the bubble bursts, is a recurring problem. I'm pretty sure the only reason it hasn't happened with doctors is active supply controls on the part of med schools. No conspiracy required, just the cold unfeeling hand of the market. Conspiracies can help though. It specifically hasn't happened with nurses because all of the people who do join for the "guaranteed job!" usually leave the field really quickly. Its why there's simultaneously a nationwide shortage and getting into a hospital job as an associate's nurse can be a bitch in a lot of cities. You're not wrong about med schools, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:So what happens when the software engineering/programming/developing bubble bursts and all the mediocre workers who jumped in to chase the gold rush find themselves stuck in a career path they hate or at least have no real passion for but did begrudgingly for job security and good wages? That's assuming tech is a bubble. Until computers can program themselves I don't think there'll be much bubblyness happening in tech. Maaaaaaabye in the web dev startup world but computer science in general? Unlikely. Part of the problem is that STEM majors wash out in pretty high numbers. This is especially true of computer science. I saw an absolute ton of people go "oooohh money!!!!" and pick CS only to realize that they absolutely hated it or didn't want to do something so difficult. That or people who didn't realize just how much math they'd be doing. As humanity's problems get more complex and we look more toward outer space you're going to see the demand for programmers go up. This is especially true with robotics though one of the issues is that the fallout is dicking over other job markets. Once every car drives itself taxi drivers won't exist anymore. One big, big question that a great many people are refusing to think about is, well, what do you do with the people whose jobs vanished? Socialism is saying "who cares, feed them anyway." Lolbertarianism is saying "lol they should have chosen to be clairvoyant and grabbed a job that wouldn't vanish." Plus the increased automation is part of why labor in general is a buyer's market right now. The rich are getting richer because they just plain have to pay workers less overall. The lolbertarian answer is that these people are earning that money and taking that away is wrong. Which is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's assuming tech is a bubble. Until computers can program themselves I don't think there'll be much bubblyness happening in tech. Labor saving automation isn't necessarily an all or nothing thing, though. Just reducing the number of people needed to accomplish a task suffices. So, computers may not be able to program themselves, but computer programs can aid computer programming. More sophisticated software development suites can make it possible for one skilled software designer to do the work of several others lacking these tools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Poor people can be safely ignored. It's when middle class jobs and functions like Law that start being automated and workers displaced and unemployed that the public will (might?) take notice and ask questions. The surge in programming and software development will ironically accelerate the rate of automation as technology grows exponentially. Karl Marx strikes again! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's assuming tech is a bubble. Until computers can program themselves I don't think there'll be much bubblyness happening in tech. Uhhhhhh, are you posting from 1962 somehow? Tech has repeatedly bubbled and collapsed, and it's bubbling again now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:04
|
|