HN Gopher Feed (2017-10-12) - page 2 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Google commits $1B in grants to train U.S. workers for high-tech
jobs
264 points by thesanerguy
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/12/google-commits-1-billion-in-gr...___________________________________________________________________
dna_polymerase - 2 hours ago
Yeah, more bootcamp trained JS-"artisans" and Ruby-"artists" for
all of us! If they wanted to do good, invest in the school system,
use your power to monitor Betsy DeVos and call her out for the
bullshit to come from her. If Google could raise interest in STEM
in High Schools already that would be way more organic.
Mc_Big_G - 1 hours ago
Before you go patting Google on the back, consider this. They
stole money from engineers by colluding with the other big players
to keep engineering salaries artificially low and now want to use
some of that money to train more workers to create more supply
which lowers salaries even further.
Overtonwindow - 3 hours ago
Stated differently: "In light of recent criticism on its ability to
import foreign, cheap labor, Google commits to improving their
public image for American labor"
SEJeff - 3 hours ago
You missed something "Google commits to improving their public
image with a future of cheap American labor".There you go.
Perfect!
UncleMeat - 3 hours ago
How is Google importing foreign, cheap labor? Their H1B
applications are public and you can check the salaries yourself.
None of the majors are abusing foreign labor.
IBM - 3 hours ago
Makes sense given the antitrust movement is getting stronger.
Klockan - 3 hours ago
I don't understand why they don't open more remote offices instead.
Around 90% of their employees are currently within the US, wouldn't
it be a lot easier to find tech talent if they had a major position
in other areas of the world as well?
walshemj - 3 hours ago
two reasons time difference and communications
Klockan - 3 hours ago
Those are not issues when you have thousands of employees at a
location, then you can base entire products there. There is
plenty of people in Europe who would love to work for Google
but there are so few positions here that it is almost
impossible to get one unless you want to move to the US, it
wouldn't be hard for Google to get ten times as many engineers
here as they currently have if they just wanted to.
walshemj - 3 hours ago
And why would Goggle move a product away from its HQ - low
level support maybe (but google doesn't do much support and
they can just recruit in Ireland for that)
Klockan - 3 hours ago
Several products are already stationed in Europe so it is
just a question of how much. Ireland does mostly support,
yes, but both London and Zurich owns products.
ggambetta - 3 hours ago
There's plenty of people in Europe that work in Google's
European offices. When I left in 2014, Z?rich was something
like 1500 people, with London and IIRC Paris having similar
sizes, and many other smaller ones. That's hardly "so few
positions", let alone "almost impossible to get one".Also,
time zone differences (and to a lesser extent communications)
were inconvenient, although there were very viable ways to
work around them.
Klockan - 2 hours ago
I know, I work there. Most I know don't even bother
applying since it is hard to get an interview, they don't
see getting into Google as an alternative. All Google would
need to Gobble up all talent in Europe is basically to
start pestering every developer like they do in Silicon
valley, they already pay twice of what 99% of developers
are earning so taking everything would be easy for them.
taway_1212 - 1 hours ago
Does Google pay more than decents contracts in European
big cities (i.e. 120k+ ?)?
jacquesm - 24 minutes ago
Depending on your skill level: yes.
[deleted]
paxy - 2 hours ago
Where are you getting that 90% statistic from? I'm pretty sure at
least 30-40% of their employees are based internationally, and
even within the US they have offices in pretty much every major
city. So most Google employees are already working "remotely".
leggomylibro - 3 hours ago
Great, it's about time that these companies stepped up to bring
more people into their workforce. It's ridiculous to complain to
legislatures about skills shortages without stepping up to bring
your own resources to bear on the issue.Still, as nice as giving
money to other organizations is, it would even better to see them
actually training people from a diverse variety of backgrounds.
They're not exactly taking any responsibility here.
yahna - 3 hours ago
It's ridiculous to whine about skill shortages while
simultaneously having a strange amount of pride in your
overwrought false-negative prone hiring process.
praxulus - 3 hours ago
>It's ridiculous to complain to legislatures about skills
shortages without stepping up to bring your own resources to bear
on the issue.Do you hold people who want to fight climate to the
same standard? Is it ridiculous for an individual to support a
carbon tax without voluntarily buying carbon credits on their
own?
leggomylibro - 2 hours ago
Well it depends on the means of the individual, but basically
yeah. I'd expect someone with a decent amount of disposable
income to purchase renewable energy from their utilities
company or a 3rd party. It's not crazy expensive compared to
other discretionary expenses, and it's a pretty clear ethical
obligation in the current times.Maybe Yellowstone will erupt in
80 years and it won't matter, but on balance, it's a no-
brainer.
0xbear - 3 hours ago
Carbon credits don?t really do anything for the environment.
Giving up a car, picking a smaller house, not traveling, and
not having kids would be meaningful steps, but that?s not
really an option even for people who make their livelihood from
environmental advocacy, such as Al Gore who lives in a mansion,
has 4 kids, and flies everywhere in a private jet.
perpetualcrayon - 2 hours ago
I think not only do we need to be thinking about getting people
"prepared" with new skills, but also about smooth lateral movement
across industries.In a lot of cases these are probably viewed as
the same thing but, for example, I would ask: When was the last
time a Senior Java Developer was a candidate for a Senior FrontEnd
Web Developer position?I think the future is going to be a lot less
about being hired for "jobs" with "companies". Instead it's going
to be substantially more about "projects" being done by "groups /
organizations". The groups / organizations being assembled /
disassembled with high frequency.
paxy - 3 hours ago
Prediction ? people will still bitch and whine, as always.
craftyguy - 3 hours ago
Wow, literally a self-fulfilling prediction!
swendoog - 3 hours ago
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 to pay higher, and higher
salaries.If you are a SWE right now, save your money, and invest
your time into improving YOURSELF. Have a backup plan, because I
promise you, the good times are coming to an end sooner than you
think.
Aunche - 1 hours ago
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.
thatonechad - 2 hours ago
I would agree with this but its not going to happen by 2030 thats
for sure. Its going to take a lot longer.
runT1ME - 56 minutes ago
>software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year
jobs, by 2030.There have always been 'blue collar' engineering
jobs. When I started in the tech industry I was making $13 an
hour writing HTML and a bit of SQL here and there.There are
probably tens of thousands of "Software Engineers" putting
together PHP sites, doing front end JS work at an entry level,
hacking together some minor software customizations. I think
you're right, this will become more prevalent. The world needs a
lot more engineers to do this kind of work.>There is a
disinterest among business to pay higher, and higher
salaries.Evidence points to the contrary, salaries have
skyrocketed in the last ten years... have you been paying
attention?
mljoe - 36 minutes ago
Agreed. I'll add that it is also worth noting current job
openings don't mean "potential job openings". There is entire
things we might not even be considering as a society simply
because there is not enough people to consider it. I think this
is the case in tech. So much of our society is lagging behind
what current technical capability allows. I still have to fax
paper forms sometimes. Why? The potential employment might be
10x, maybe even 100x what it is now. Just to keep entire
industries even remotely up to date.
corporateslave3 - 2 hours ago
Personally, I think you are wrong. If you are an average
engineer, you should be very afraid. But if you are exceptional,
you will see your comp shoot through the roof in the coming
years.
twoquestions - 2 hours ago
Average developer here, and I am scared. I'm worried that
programming is going to have a similar winner-take-everything
compensation scheme not unlike music or art, where only the
very best make any money at all.
Apocryphon - 3 hours ago
The solution to lower wages created by more workers isn't to
clamp down on the supply. The solution is to unionize and to
ensure that labor has leverage through collective bargaining.
Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers seems
as wrongheaded as arguing against building more homes in a
housing crisis.
humanrebar - 2 hours ago
> Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more
workers...Except many unions do exactly this through closed
shops and other tactics.
Apocryphon - 2 hours ago
Sure. 19th century unions in the U.S. were often racist and
or nativist, seeing non-WASPs workers as a threat. But surely
a unions formed by 21st century tech workers with over a
century of historical wisdom and the modern day spirit of
innovation should be able to do better, no?
arjie - 2 hours ago
I sincerely cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
The first order of business of any tech union will be to
stall the H1-B program and then follow that up with strict
gatekeeping rules. Just read HN, a supposedly enlightened
class of programmers. It's all short term protectionism
from people insecure of their ability.
HillaryBriss - 1 hours ago
1. it seems to be more complex than that. i mean, if you
look at, say, the SEIU's position on immigration, it does
not oppose additional immigration to the US. if anything,
the SEIU has taken a pro-immigration position:
http://seiu.org/cards/solutions-for-immigration-reform-
expla...2. protectionism from people insecure of their
ability describes both tech workers and tech companies.
Google, Facebook, Apple et al have increased their
political presence in recent years with additional
lobbyists. corporations love an unfair playing field as
much as anyone.
Apocryphon - 1 hours ago
Surely an industry that prides itself on thinking
different can figure out new and innovative solutions to
seemingly impossible problems.
swendoog - 2 hours ago
Unions? How has that worked for every other craft industry in
the US?Forgive my crass reply, but, I have only seen unions
become weaker and weaker in the U.S. And even when they were
"strong" they didn't protect labor interests against increases
in labor supply. Globalization has wrecked a number of
industries, which unions were powerless against. The strongest
card in the hand of any laborer is their scarcity.Also, nobody
(including myself) is advocating for "playing gatekeeper". I
merely made a post warning people of what's coming. If you
look closely my advice was to the individual - invest in
yourself. Don't count on unions, or governments playing
gatekeeper, to protect your current salary.
Apocryphon - 2 hours ago
Doctors, actors, pro athletes. There are many types of guilds
and professional associations beyond unions.Furthermore, if
tech is about disrupting everything, including the nature of
work itself (through on-demand) and even the nature of human
relations itself (through social media), then surely some
attempt could be made to better labor relations by inventing
a better type of union. It's especially rich to hear "no, it
can't happen, it's always failed in the past" comments wrt
labor unions come from workers who work in an industry that's
supposedly all about innovation.I wasn't trying to attack you
for your original comment, in any case. You actually offer
good advice. But my general sentiment is that we shouldn't
try to restrict the labor market- it seems as wrongheaded as
trying to fight gentrification by limiting house construction
just because some of those units will be luxury condos
instead of affordable housing- and that lowered wages could
be fought by the presence of a tech union that protects tech
workers.
HillaryBriss - 2 hours ago
i partially agree. e.g. public sector labor unions in Los
Angeles have succeeded at maintaining high wages and great
benefits for themselves.but when you say the solution "isn't to
clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your
argument.clamping down on the supply is exactly what a public
sector union does. union work rules and other union-favorable
city regulations exclude or limit non-union workers who might
otherwise be hired to carry out various city functions.working
for the city or the department of water and power can be a very
good deal for the worker, but city residents pay more in taxes
and see less service as a result. merely unionizing the labor
force helps some people but hurts others.indeed, a case can be
made that, because police officers are so highly paid and
benefitted, they are scarce. and because they are scarce,
there's more property crime, and murder, than there would be
otherwise. it seems quite plausible that some city residents
pay a very high price because of this public sector
unionization.in politics, this leads to a strategy wherein city
residents who live in "electorally unimportant" areas (i.e.
poor areas with lower voter turnout) receive lower levels of
government service than city residents in areas that vote a
lot.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
"but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the
supply" i lose the thread of your argument."I've not seen an
example of this. And I do not consider being a member of the
union to be clamping down.
HillaryBriss - 20 minutes ago
here's an example: in LA a large number of electrical power
poles are at end of life and need replacement. but the city
is slowed by union rules in efforts to contract this work
out to take advantage of the labor force at large:One key
obstacle, officials say, is the contract with DWP?s largest
union, IBEW Local 18. The agreement requires that managers
negotiate with the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers before hiring contractors. Initially, the
department is supposed to attempt to fill any internal
vacant positions, Howard said. The contract also obligates
managers to offer IBEW workers overtime to fill some of the
need.IBEW business manager Brian D?Arcy declined to be
interviewed for this story.from:
http://www.dailynews.com/2014/05/06/dwp-lagging-behind-on-
re...
Joeri - 2 hours ago
Counterpoint:The amount of programmers needed is rising across
the globe. Every country is going to try to retain its IT talent.
In a cut-throat globally competitive world you can't afford to be
the country that lets its best minds leave to greener
pastures.Also, programming isn't the sort of job where you can
fake your way through. If new people are trained up to enter the
field they'll need to skills to match. As a relative share to
population size the number of people studying computer science
has been falling, not rising. These bootcamps and training
programs are trying to bridge the skills gap, and so far have not
succeeded. If anything there's going to be a skills glut, with a
corresponding rise in pay.Sure, employers always try to minimize
pay. IT is not special, this is the case for all industries.
Labor price is set through supply and demand, and programmer's
wages are no different. Can you give a single example of an
industry that used to have high wages but now has low wages? It
would be exceedingly unlikely for IT to behave unlike every other
industry.
hobofan - 55 minutes ago
> Also, programming isn't the sort of job where you can fake
your way through.Not sure why you think programming would be
special in that regard. In a lot of companies, you will be able
to keep your badly done job for a really long time as long as
you have a good bond with your higher-ups. This goes for
programming the same as sales or any other profession.
psyc - 26 minutes ago
I'll believe there's a shortage or urgent demand when I notice a
change in hiring standards and practices, and recruiting methods.
As a former hiring person, yeah, it's kind of a pain in the ass
to have to interview a lot of people before you find one who's
any good. But if there was a genuine shortage + this alleged
urgent demand, I have to believe that something about the tired,
inefficient, and false-positive-allergic process would change in
a newsworthy way.
cromwellian - 2 hours ago
"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 take on some of
the load is "flooding the market with n00bs"This just seems like
protectionism by another name.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?
vkou - 1 hours ago
> 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 our
owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on
their investment every year, for doing nothing?They are
certainly spending their energy on fighting attempts to spread
the economic pie around. We need solidarity, not shaming people
for protecting their means to make a living.
Apocryphon - 1 hours ago
Sure. Solidarity to push back against the owner class to take
a smaller piece of the pie, so the rest of the workers
underneath - whether long-time veterans or recent entrants -
may share it. In this, new workers shouldn't be seen as a
threat, but an opportunity to create a bigger force to band
together against the execs.
WalterBright - 1 hours ago
> Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6%
return on their investment every year, for doing nothing?You,
too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading
account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10
for a trade.
propogandist - 15 minutes ago
Stop paying $10, and use Robinhood which offers Free
Trades.It has limitations, so you'd want a traditional
broker also.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
You're forgetting the part about having enough money to
make meaningful investments.
WalterBright - 1 hours ago
If you'd invested $1000 in Boeing in the early 80's, it'd
be worth $200,000 today. Sounds meaningful to me.
s73ver_ - 48 minutes ago
And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick
and needed to sell that stock early to pay for
treatment?Your point still is predicated on the "already
having money" part.
WalterBright - 38 minutes ago
Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not
sidelined by disastrous health problems.The point is
invest early in your working life, and you'll have the
needed results when you're ready to retire.$1,000 is not
what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000
is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than
$1,000.
s73ver_ - 28 minutes ago
A car is a necessity in most of America for getting
around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000
laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another
can of worms in itself.And depending on who you're
talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is
"having money".
WalterBright - 17 minutes ago
> Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying
around.True enough. Because they spend it, like the
person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on
beer/cigarettes/weed in a year?> And knowing what to
invest in is another can of worms in itself.That's true.
Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and
one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the
vast majority of adults.
vkou - 1 hours ago
Since I wasn't born into money, or won the lottery, I can't
live off that 6% return for another two decades.Either way,
even if I can, the guy who makes my morning coffee can't,
and never will be.
WalterBright - 57 minutes ago
> for another two decadesI.e. start investing and in 20
years you'll be financially independent. Sounds good to
me to be living in the US.> the guy who makes my morning
coffee can'tI talked with a guy once who told me he
"can't". He was driving a new car, and the payments,
rent, etc., added up to more than his income. I suggested
he sell the car, buy a car he can afford to pay cash for,
and start investing.He partially did take my advice. He
sold the car, bought one he could pay cash for, and then
blew the extra income on some other luxuries. Of course,
then he still was in "can't" territory.My current car I
bought used 25 years ago and still drive every day. It
costs me practically nothing.
swendoog - 47 minutes ago
I continue to be thoroughly surprised by the people who are
accusing me of things like "protectionism".If you re-read my
original post you will notice that I did NOT advocate for
artificially restricting worker supply, or any kind of
protectionism.I merely warned that what we're seeing in tech
WILL bring an end to the "high" salaries, and that those who
wish to maintain their current state, should consider PERSONAL
GROWTH and advancing their skillset as a means of protection.We
can debate all day about whether its a "perceived" lack, or a
real lack. I whole heartedly disagree that salaries are, as
you put it, "sky rocketing", especially when you account for
cost of living in the areas where the "skyrocketing" is
happening.And oh, yes, how dare a doctor who spent upwards of
$500,000 in medical training, and devoted years to internships,
and residency, be worried about a lowered skill cap or
regulatory protections (which they counted on) for entering
their profession! How dare they!Please. Of all the examples
of protectionism you could have given, you chose perhaps the
most acceptable and understandable. Yes, people care about
their livelihood and the ability to retain efforts and
investments they have made, so would you.
cromwellian - 13 minutes ago
The difference is people saying "I got mine, and I'm going to
vote against and oppose any thing that increases
opportunities for other people to enter my industry and
compete with me."To me, that's unfair and wrong.
vonmoltke - 1 hours ago
> Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially
disprove your point?What's your definition of "skyrocketing"?
Outside of, maybe, a dozen high-prestiege companies located in
a couple specific areas I don't see salaries skyrocketing.
Mine hasn't; not saying I'm not well compensated, just not as
overpaid or in demand asbsone people make it sound.Further, my
experience with the aforementioned high prestige companies is
that they are picky as hell. That tells me that either there
is no shortage of talent for them or they are choosing beggars.
rtuulik - 39 minutes ago
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
basically still. You can point to people getting $120k+ as a
first year employee at Google, but salaries like that are
massive outliers. Average developer in america earns much
less.[1] Dice Tech Salary Survey 2017
https://marketing.dice.com/pdf/Dice_TechSalarySurvey_TechPro...
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
"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?
cromwellian - 15 minutes ago
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.
southphillyman - 3 hours ago
How does flooding the market with more developers who can't pass
their interviews help them lower salaries?
[deleted]
ithilglin909 - 2 hours ago
I don't think you're wrong; I could see certain kinds of
engineering jobs becoming more blue collar. But at the risk of
sounding pretentious, there's a bit of an intelligence
restriction on certain kinds of engineering work. There will
probably always be more of a demand than supply for people who
are really good and useful.
olavgg - 2 hours ago
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 have a class with introduction
to coding. And everyone, except those few who enjoys computer
science, says that class was the hardest class to pass by far
compared to the rest.So I believe the opposite will happen. The
demand for software developers will grow beyond our imagination.
swendoog - 2 hours ago
I just can't share that optimism. I taught myself to code
using youtube videos and books. There are 14 year olds on
YouTube coding iOS video games in a matter of weeks.Combine
that with the fact that big companies (like Google) release
SDKs that make application development trivial, and you've got
a recipe for the skill cap lowering along with wages.
nrhk - 1 hours ago
Having more code technicans is great. I'd love to have more
people to help maintain shit, write documentation, do small
bug fixes etc...There will be a differentiation between
Engineers and Coders soon. Hooking up to a few different
APIs, doing some JS and HTML does not count as engineering.
zjaffee - 2 hours ago
Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in depth
understanding of how threads work? How different hardware
components work together at scale? Most people with CS
degrees never acquire the skillset to do such work, why
should I believe that those who are trained via job training
programs will be able to do so. I'd be more afraid of
potential retraining of other highly skilled workers who want
to switch careers than anything else.The skillset of building
a personal website, or even a website for your small business
should be something anyone can do, and will in no way impact
the overall salary of software engineers in the future.Major
companies will always need people who understand the
computational sciences, as scale and complexity follow some
of the same rules as entropy, in that they are always
increasing.Additionally, the reason for high salaries is not
a lack of engineers, it is that top companies have decided
that it is in their best interest to outbid each other for
top talent. In parts of the midwest, where there is less
competition, engineers are already paid 50k a year.
colemannugent - 1 hours ago
>Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in
depth understanding of how threads work?I am constantly
surprised that when other CS students in my classes have
zero idea how anything beyond the particular language we're
learning works. Even in higher skill-level classes that
require a fair amount of proficiency with the language if
you asked what the length of the pointer they just properly
used was all you would get is blank stares.
xfer - 1 hours ago
> "how anything beyond the particular language we're
learning works. "and> "if you asked what the length of
the pointer they just properly used was all you would get
is blank stares"So what is it?It's a computer science
program, not learn a dozen language's quirks and
implementation detail that you use for a single class to
understand some concept.
grigjd3 - 1 hours ago
It's not that bad in the midwest. Salaries in the 70-80K
range are common enough.
socialist_coder - 2 hours ago
Maybe you are both right?The new class of programmers that
governments and Google want to train up from your average
worker will not be as skilled or intelligent as the current
generation of programmers. But, there are still opportunities
for them in software development. They will take jobs that
pay 40-60k a year, while the higher skilled and more
intelligent programmers will be architects or leads who
command much higher salaries.
empath75 - 2 hours ago
Making it easier to do some things we do with code today
doesn?t mean there won?t be new hard problems to solve
tomorrow.
patorjk - 1 hours ago
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.
bradleyjg - 3 hours ago
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 administration to little effect.
grigjd3 - 1 hours ago
These companies do on-the-job training. The problem is that a
college degree in computer science or software engineering
doesn't actually prepare you to work at these companies. It makes
you effectively literate, so that you are feasibly trainable.
ptero - 46 minutes ago
I doubt that hiring average talent and training it is best for
Google business. They believe that it is better to try hiring
only the very best, and do it even if employees do not match a
specific position they ostensibly interviewed for (e.g., train
for skills or find new positions, but after a very high entry
bar).I think retraining programs primarily help sharp, energetic
folks who somehow got into a bad state (useless major, bad
school, rough childhood, etc.); maybe even social connections and
stability are more important than the skills they end up getting.
However, those programs are IMO worthless for folks who lost a
stable job and hope that Yet Another Certification Class will put
them into a pipeline for a similar one. I am not sure how to help
the second type.
grtrans - 39 minutes ago
Google hasn?t hired ?the very best? for at least five to seven
years now; there are plenty ?average talent? employees who do
their job adequately.Mind you they do hire some of the best,
but the idea that google engineers are ?the best? is a myth.
ptero - 31 minutes ago
I never said google engineers are "the best". I said that
this is what Google tries to do. IMO it did this pretty well
10 years ago, but as a company gets big this gets much
harder.I heard though they are still trying to do this, even
being aware of the lower success ratio.
rifung - 2 hours ago
> 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 trainingI 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 free to just focus on learning
as much as I can.I've been here for almost a year now and feel
like I still know nothing so the training is still certainly not
done.I didn't mean to jump to the defense of my employer as I'm
obviously biased but do think we are far from perfect (although I
am very happy here :). I just wonder what the right balance is.
It seems like if people can't program at all then it's not really
on the job training because they wouldn't be working right?At
least my own experience has been that I came in with some college
experience but no college degree and not really knowing anything
besides the bare minimum to contribute (being able to program,
having some grasp of CS fundamentals) and have learned a ton on
the job and still have much much more to learn. I think there is
an expectation (and pressure!) for all SWEs to hit the senior
level, L5, so in a way everyone who is hired under that level is
doing on the job training no?Sorry for the long post!
ehsankia - 1 hours ago
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.
bradleyjg - 1 hours ago
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 are a
for profit company and they don't have to do anything at all
about this problem. And, sure, the donations they are making
instead are probably better than nothing. But as I mentioned,
and as top19 mentions on what is as of this writing the top
post on this article, the track record for these job retraining
programs going back decades isn't very good.What I'm saying is
that if Google were to go to Pittsburgh, Youngstown, or
Detroit, hire some bright unemployed people, pay them a decent
but by no means exorbitant salary while it taught them how to
code and then, as you point out, how to be a productive
engineer at Google, at the end of the process those people
would likely have very marketable skills to either continue
moving up the ladder at Google or elsewhere. Of course this
would cost Google something -- not only in the salaries while
people were learning and not contributing but also in the
salaries of people that were training and mentoring them. But
Google is planning on spending a billion dollars anyway, so
here's another way they could do that. A way that I think would
be more effective.--Congrats on getting what sounds like a
great job.
joshhart - 1 hours ago
My company, LinkedIn, has started an in-company program
called Reach to do exactly that.
https://careers.linkedin.com/reachRather 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
goialoq - 46 minutes ago
Training people on-the-job from scratch to be professional
engineers is extreme.A more reasonable path is HelpDesk /
Hardware Tech -> operations software / SysOp -> software
engineering
rifung - 42 minutes ago
> 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.That does make
sense and I think that would be super cool if companies could
do that today.I admit I don't know much about the history but
isn't building software today more complicated though not
necessarily harder than it was before?My impression is that
before we would just build programs that ran on computers. So
in that sense, if you knew how to program and had a compiler
to use, that was sufficient to do what companies wanted to
do. However, now we have people building other things like
services, which is requires additional complexity and tooling
on top of what was previously necessary.The point I'm trying
to make is that I suspect nowadays there's more prerequisite
knowledge for most jobs than before.> But Google is planning
on spending a billion dollars anyway, so here's another way
they could do that. A way that I think would be more
effective.That's a really good point. I imagine even if it
takes a very long time to train people, with a billion
dollars you have the time to do that..The optimistic side of
me wants to say it's because handling the logistics for that
would be a nightmare and it's really outside of our core
expertise.The realistic side of me thinks that it probably is
too expensive to give the same benefits to those employees
that we give to current full time employees.The pessimistic
side of me also thinks that there's a certain level of
prestige associated with working at Google that has been, at
least to some level, successfully marketed both inwards and
outwards, and hiring people who don't meet whatever "bar"
would undermine that.> Congrats on getting what sounds like a
great job.Thanks!
dyarosla - 3 hours ago
What criteria determines who should get a position then? What
salary should those positions command? Sounds pretty
handwavy.Edit: responders to this comment seem to miss that the
parent comment is suggesting Google hire new individuals and
train them, not find talent in their workforce and do training
there. Thats the unrealistic part- creating a secondary
application process for individuals without the skills -- when
they already reject a ridiculous number of people with many of
the skills.
alistairSH - 2 hours ago
I don't have solid answers, but that's exactly how my father-
in-law got into the computer field back in the early 60s. He
was working an administrative job at a bank, someone IDed him
as having potential, and the bank put him through internal
training in programming and computer science-y stuff. It
worked out, he spent some time programming, and eventually
moved into management.
bogomipz - 2 hours ago
>"What criteria determines who should get a position then?A
basic aptitude for the role or transferable skills maybe?>"What
salary should those positions command?"Whatever the company
wants to pay. Why does that matter at all? Employment is still
an agreement between the two parties.>"Sounds pretty
handwavy."Not at all, "on the job training" has a history
stretching from Medieval Ages and the guild system, to the
industrial revolution, powering the war-time workforce
etc:https://msu.edu/~sleightd/trainhst.html
drharby - 3 hours ago
Who determines who should get a training slot? What kind of
subsistence shouls that training command?The commitment of
capital to tanglible jobs that lead towards ojt is not handwavy
at all. That said, i bet the tax breaks from the schooling is
substantial
blackguardx - 3 hours ago
On the job training was pretty standard in the tech industry in
the past. I worked with a guy at an HP (oldest high-tech co. in
CA) spinoff that was the head embedded software architect and
worked his way up from the machine shop in the '70s. He started
out manning a drill press and learned to program when they
started using NC (numeric control) machine tools.Do you think
Google lets anyone to work their way up from front desk admin
or barista?
was_boring - 2 hours ago
This is basically how my mother was trained as a programmer.
She got a job, was literally handed a stack of books and
reference material and started figuring shit out.She changed
careers before I can really remember her at that job, but I
too am self-taught in this field (but I trained myself at
home).The whole idea of companies not investing in their
people is relatively new.
vanilla_nut - 43 minutes ago
To be fair, employees are no longer particularly faithful
to employers-- after all, it's considered completely normal
to spend only 2-5 years at a job, then move to the next
one. This definitely complicates the benefits of on-the-job
training: why waste 3-12 months training somebody to basic
competence when they might leave a few months after that?
Some of this is obviously due to employees fighting back
against stagnant wages/lack of promotions, but it makes me
wonder: who started the faithlessness first, employers or
employees?
BjoernKW - 1 hours ago
Usually I'd agree that on-the-job training is more beneficial
than untethered training programs.However, just today I listened
to the most recent Freakonomics Radio episode, which was about
how Germany managed to become the economic powerhouse it is
today. Most economists that were asked agreed that an essential
ingredient of Germany's economic success is its unique concept of
vocational training, which combines on-the-job training with
school education and general - as opposed to employer-specific -
job training.Perhaps a system that's essentially a combination of
both on-the-job training and more formal training programs would
be conducive in this case as well.
soperj - 47 minutes ago
Yeah, it's also helpful that German tertiary education is free.
briholt - 3 hours ago
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.
SamReidHughes - 2 hours ago
A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 --
you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.
Joeri - 2 hours ago
Isn't half the population below 100? How can you consider
that low?
SamReidHughes - 45 minutes ago
That's lower than half the population.
ivl - 2 hours ago
I was under the impression among people with undergraduate
degrees it was closer to 110-115.
learc83 - 2 hours ago
An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the mean score of the
general population.The average IQ of someone with a college
degree is a good bit higher than that. From a quick Google
search it looks like it's around 115, which is a standard
deviation higher than the general population.
SamReidHughes - 2 hours ago
I was referring to more of a minimum than an average.
jas_far - 10 minutes ago
What exactly is a college-level IQ? Does everybody who goes to
college have a college-level IQ?
vilmosi - 1 hours ago
IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I
believe most people can be trained to do almost any job.I don't
think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate
peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time
these days.
sunir - 46 minutes ago
Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world
was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps
your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes
thereof is inaccurate.
vilmosi - 25 minutes ago
Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically
obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone
somewhere knew how to write.What do you think people did
before the industrial revolution?
[deleted]
BjoernKW - 1 hours ago
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 problem-solving
skills but it doesn't necessarily require a college-level IQ.In
fact a high IQ could even be harmful in that situation because
apart from getting bored quickly highly intelligent people can
display a tendency to overthink problems (which is probably how
many notorious enterprise frameworks came about ...).
FLUX-YOU - 51 minutes ago
>doesn't require a lot of creative thinkingIt doesn't, but
you still need "higher level" developers to cover security
and concurrent/parallel/distributed problems and maybe
architecture.It's not that someone can't also learn that
stuff, but exposing a product publicly without some
experience in those areas is asking for trouble.IMO, Software
is resisting division of labor and work by collapsing roles
into "Full stack devs" or "DevOps Engineers".
BjoernKW - 18 minutes ago
I agree there have to be different skill levels but I think
that distinction has to occur within denominations like
'full stack' and 'DevOps'. These labels simply determine
what you do not how skilled you're at it.In my opinion,
full stack and DevOps is the normal, sane way of
approaching software development. Artificially dividing up
roles into labels such as 'front-end', 'back-end',
'database programmer', 'system administrator' only leads to
more silos, less collaboration and sometimes even downright
hostility between these roles.
briholt - 1 hours ago
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.
BjoernKW - 31 minutes ago
You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120
is mentally impaired.An IQ of 100 is defined as the median
IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130
covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's
commonly considered normal.Much of the day-to-day work in
IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful
application of known methods and patterns, which in turn
doesn't require a college education.
briholt - 20 minutes ago
Find one successful programmer at
Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90.
Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of
functions sorted in your head, even understanding
FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive
ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts
you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200
million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts"
and "productive programmer."
BjoernKW - 2 minutes ago
> Find one successful programmer at
Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/Point proven, eh? I'm not
talking about these people (though I surmise there are
quite a few in these companies as well who don't have
that level of intelligence and simply tag along ...) but
about the vast majority of IT workers working on some
supposedly 'boring' database application.Google and Apple
in particular have been known for hiring highly qualified
engineers only to then have them maintain some run-of-
the-mill administrative software they're vastly
overqualified to work on.
nerpderp83 - 1 hours ago
The vast majority of the population already has a "college-
level-iq" for whatever definition of. Tech work is not a
geniuses' only game.
Gargoyle - 2 hours ago
The vast, vast majority of tech work doesn't require any
exceptional intelligence. It just requires a system of
thinking, one which can be...trained.
[deleted]
ThrustVectoring - 1 hours ago
... and the ability to be trained into learning arbitrary
skills is IQ. Higher IQ means its easier to train yourself
into being able to use a new system of thinking.Like, being a
soldier doesn't require any sort of exceptional intelligence
either. It doesn't even require average intelligence. What it
requires is an IQ of 85 - below that point, and the US army
cannot effectively train you to become a soldier. Despite
having every incentive in the world, the US army still
rejects about 15% of the population.
nerpderp83 - 1 hours ago
15% of the population doesn't apply to join the Army. And
those that do self select. Using the Army rejection rates
for determining the IQ level of the population isn't a good
method.
smhost - 59 minutes ago
It's the definition of IQ. 15 points is 1 standard
deviation, so about 15% of the population has an IQ of 85
or below by definition.
kazinator - 52 minutes ago
Just following up to add that these two 15's are
unrelated, in case any readers get the wrong idea.The
area under the normal distribution curve from minus
infinity to -1 (one standard deviation left of centre) is
about 0.1586 or about 15-16%.The 15 points = 1 stddev
property of IQ is arbitrarily established.
scythe - 1 hours ago
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
"proportionally" less intelligent as measured by the IQ. Rather
the IQ scale is set up to have a seemingly normal distribution
relative to the observed distribution of fluid reasoning in the
human population. The standard deviation of IQs is arbitrarily
set at 15, and the mean is set at 100. We could easily reform
the IQ scale to have a mean of 1000 and a sigma of 1, or a mean
of zero and a sigma of 100. The number, itself, is meaningless
without context.There is no evidence that a person with low IQ
cannot accomplish the the tasks involved in e.g. software
engineering, although they would probably do so more slowly
than a person with high IQ. From Wiki:"The prevailing view
among academics is that it is largely through the quicker
acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates
job performance. "Also, going to college has no effect on IQ,
so "college-level IQ" is meaningless gobbledygook.
andrewwharton - 1 hours ago
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.
tdb7893 - 1 hours ago
It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far
fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing
up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really
meaningful for much except wealth nowadays
blacksmith_tb - 1 hours ago
That may say as much about you as it does about the
population at large, right now about a third of adults in the
US have a bachelor's degree[1].1: http://thehill.com/homenews
/state-watch/326995-census-more-a...
tdb7893 - 10 minutes ago
I would guess the vast majority of people in my highschool
were in the top fourth of income in America (including my
family, we were well off but not super rich because my dad
was in the military and then a commercial pilot and my mom
was a teacher). I'm sure other people have different
experiences but waaaayyyy more than the national average of
people from my highschool went to college and I can tell
you that while it was a decent school it was not filled
with geniuses. It's why I think a large amount of the
reason people go to college is cultural and that to many
people college ends up being more of a symbol of status
than a intellectual achievement.
mlloyd - 3 hours ago
Maybe - or maybe it just requires a specific way of thinking
about things i.e. Problem Solving and Time/Task Management? As
well as the ability to learn the task of course.
umanwizard - 2 hours ago
What's the difference between "problem solving" and "IQ" ?
They seem like almost the same thing.
jaibot - 53 minutes ago
"IQ" is a scalar semi-objectice well-defined metric that
predicts some things about the much more complicated and
less-well-defined concept of problem solving.
goialoq - 44 minutes ago
"IQ" measures something called "G", which is pattern-
recognition ability (coincidentally the cutting edge of
today's ML neural nets). The scientific theory of IQ is
that that if you are good at pattern recognition, then you
will be good at a wide range of cognitive tasks.
madamelic - 1 hours ago
Problem-solving: the ability to deconstruct a problem into
atomic pieces and construct solutionsIQ: How fast you do
it.tl;dr: Problem-solving is software, IQ is hardware
jimmaswell - 2 hours ago
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 the online
hype like "it's easy to get a job in CS if you do [some
combination of good side projects, internships, good gpa, etc]"
is an outright falsehood at this point in time - it's very hard
unless an opportunity approaches you like what eventually
happened to me amd it turned out all that applying and trying was
a waste of time.In my case I had no choice but to do a draining
unpaid internship in college, their return offer was only $15/hr,
nowhere I applied to for months (likely hundreds of applications)
would take me even though I did all those things in the list and
continually put my resume through those resume threads on reddit,
except one offer for 30k. 15/hr and 30k are abysmal insults to
the amount of time money and effort put into programming since
middle school, getting a BS CS degree, volunteering on big online
projects since high school, etc. I'm not in the middle of nowhere
either, this was NY/NJ.These experiences signal to me that the
tech field is hightly oversaturated for new grads and it's a
matter of time before people realize the bubble popped. Someone
in my position should not be getting offered what amount to
poverty wages taking into account student loans, the high price
of car insurance for a driver of my age range, etc. Programs like
what google is doing are just going to make this problem even
worse as companies feel further emboldened to require
increasingly more experience out of junior programmers and offer
them salaries further approaching minimum wage.
southphillyman - 1 hours ago
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]
jimmaswell - 50 minutes ago
Yeah, it's frustrating how the narrative is that where you
got your degree doesn't matter when it absolutely does.
heroprotagonist - 2 hours ago
> continually put my resume through those resume threads on
redditFrom curiosity, and certainly not to offend.. you _did_
place your resume elsewhere as well, right?
jimmaswell - 1 hours ago
I meant resume critique/improvement threads. I put the resume
on sites like Monster as well as sending it to specific
postings, usually customized for that posting.
heroprotagonist - 1 hours ago
Oh, good, that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for my
confusion.
was_boring - 1 hours ago
Was this Accenture? They used to have a 3-week java training
program for those entering as new grads, but I believe that's
been reduced in scope now.
jimmaswell - 52 minutes ago
Tata. Is Accenture one of those ones with clauses that you
have to pay a fine if you quit within a few years like
Revature?
[deleted]
Denzel - 2 hours ago
I suggested exactly that 2 months ago [1]; the idea was not
popular here.[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15003048
0xFFC - 3 hours ago
What they mean by high tech specifically ? Android dev, web dev,
etc qualifies as high tech job?
TuringNYC - 2 hours ago
I wish Google could spend just a fraction of that money employing
technical writers to better document their technologies. So much
of the documentation is outdated or flat out broken. Even stock
sample projects right on the Android Studio sometimes fail to
work.Oh, and remember the mess Gradle was in 2015/2016? How much
money could it possibly cost to better document some of the major
tools?
WalterBright - 1 hours ago
It's never been easier to get training in all sorts of things, for
free. For example, I'm currently taking MIT's 6.002 electronics
course because I never learned circuit analysis properly. It's on
youtube, it's free, I watch it anytime.There's the Khan Academy,
too.
forapurpose - 18 minutes ago
Training often requires other resources besides one-way
communication. A professor who only lectured and didn't otherwise
interact with students would be a bad, ineffective teacher.
s73ver_ - 56 minutes ago
Yeah, but there's no certificate. And, despite what everyone
wants to believe, most employers still want that certificate or
degree. They're not gonna accept "I watched a bunch of videos on
YouTube" as an alternative.
WalterBright - 51 minutes ago
In the programming biz, they often will if you've got a track
record to back it up. Contributing to open source projects is a
route to getting such a track record.If you already have a
degree, just in the wrong field, you don't need to get another
degree. Just get the training by whatever means.Heck, my degree
is in mechanical engineering, yet I had jobs writing software.
weirdstuff - 28 minutes ago
In my own experience a track record is meaning less and less,
and employers are really starting to fixate on credentials.
It's very weird and disconcerting to a fellow like myself who
likes to believe an impressive record should speak for
itself. But apparently it's not speaking as loudly as it used
to.There really is a "cult of the degree" and I really don't
get it. Is the field getting saturated and employers are
finding it necessary to erect barriers? Does this, an
average, make good fiscal sense? I would think successful,
relevant experience is something (that when verified) would
reduce risk for businesses.
Top19 - 3 hours ago
As much as something like this is appreciated, the history of job
retraining programs are filled with over promises, under-
commitments, and disaster, stretching back to the 1970?s.There is
no need to train more CS people. There is a need for recovering the
?grand bargain? between employers and employees that began in the
1940?s and was slowly unwound beginning in the mid 1970?s.The
reason that business schools exist on university campuses in the
first place is because they were supposed to train business leaders
to aspire to the same ideals as a university: knowledge,
development of character, the search for truth to create a better
word, etc.If people knew how much harder they work today for
fractions of a chance at a reward that is now 3x expensive,
gestures like this would be seen for what they are, a band-aid in
place of a tourniquet.BTW if you?re upper-middle class, know life
is now pretty good, but your economic base is being slowly eroded
as well and there will be a time when your economic fall will
come.*- - - -EDIT: Keep in mind, this is the same company whose
head of HR (Laszlo Bock) literally says he does not believe
training helps at all develop people. This sounds like I am taking
him out of context but I kid you not. I wish I was at home so I
could find the physical page numbers, but he says it in his book
?Work Rules!? from a couple of years ago. It?s at the beginning of
the chapter where he talks about the New York Yankees.
rgbrenner - 2 hours ago
Keep in mind, this is the same company whose head of HR (Laszlo
Bock) literally says he does not believe training helps at all
develop people.Laszlo Bock stepped down in July of last year.
Eileen Naughton is the head of HR: http://fortune.com/2016/07/27
/google-eileen-naughton/https://qz.com/744740/googles-hugely-
influential-head-of-hum...He works here now: http://www.humu.com/
[deleted]
whack - 2 hours ago
Is the following what you're referring to? If so, he's
specifically referring to training programs for existing
googlers. Not educational training for full-time students, and
someone looking to make a career switch. The latter clearly has a
much bigger impact than the former.Regarding your larger point, I
agree that we need more support for the lower middle class, but
that's no reason to abandon training programs that provide better
job opportunities to those who need it. On the margin, training a
thousand janitors into productive web developers, would be a net
positive for the economy and society as a
whole.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-have-just-finished-
reading-..."Did you know that within 1 hour of training an
employee, they have forgotten 50% of what they were taught.
Within 24 hours they have forgotten 70%, and within a week they
have forgotten 90%.There is mostly because people truly learn
from constant repetitive actions, yet companies cannot afford to
have people learning 5 days a week instead of working 5 days a
week - which makes 90% of training and development programmes a
waste of money. Money which Google invest in recruiting
instead.Laszlo Bock says that because we learn on the job, the
very best people not only have learnt more than you can teach
them already, but they seek learning themselves in everything
they do and naturally grow without you needing to spend a fortune
on training."
aswanson - 2 hours ago
That "grand bargain" is over, and never returning. The economy is
global, cutthroat and changes on a dime. Every man/woman is in a
mercenary situation today, whether they're aware of this fact or
not.
TheAdamAndChe - 2 hours ago
If this was the case, then why wouldn't Google just tap this
global labor reserve instead of training people? Why is the
federal reserve expecting inflation to rise as unemployment
continues to be low?
aswanson - 2 hours ago
"If the sky is so clear and the sun is shining, how could
there possibly be a hurricane approaching...?"
dv_dt - 1 hours ago
Those of us who depend upon exchanging our labor to survive
are in a mercenary situation (some in better situations
than others). But I think it's a stretch to equate it to a
physical source of scarcity, but maybe I'm taking your
analogy too far...
huac - 2 hours ago
> business schools exist on university campuses in the first
place is because they were supposed to train business leaders to
aspire to the same ideals as a universityHarvard Business School
was founded to promote Taylorism and fight back against unions
and organized labor.
jorblumesea - 1 hours ago
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.
hobofan - 44 minutes ago
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)
slosh - 1 hours ago
How about a billion to high tech trains
polishTar - 2 hours ago
Better link: https://blog.google/topics/causes-community
/opportunity-for-...
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
How many of these grants are going outside of already tech heavy
areas? How many of them are going to coal country, or to the Rust
Belt?It's great that they're doing this, but unless they're going
to be doing it in the places that are hurting, not much is going to
change.
brudgers - 1 hours ago
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 administrators and technical
instructors and computer manufacturers and lots of other areas that
already have plenty of money.A billion dollars is less than half
the annual budget of University of Nebraska for serving ~50,000
students [1]. Back of envelope turns $1 Billion into ~22,000
student years which is in the same people-helped ballpark as the
10,000 worker years, with the difference being that those 10,000
worker years come with actual jobs at $100,000 a year. And the
10,000 worker years are offset by the current cost of contracting
out the work and the value that work returns to Google's bottom
line.[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nebraska_system
fraserharris - 25 minutes ago
They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure
a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit
centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.
nerpderp83 - 1 hours ago
This is absolutely lovely news.
2close4comfort - 2 hours ago
They just want cheap labor! There is nothing altruistic about
Google and their commitment to their fellow man. They merely want
children (teach a kid scratch so they can be enslaved for a
lifetime!) and people in lower income countries to take up where
the people here need more inorder to live here. And if Google were
to be honest they need people who want to live in the bay area and
are willing to enslave themselves to do it! And now that the flow
of new blood was cut off now Google again needs fresh souls...so
they are coming for anyone who can type, and wants to move the CA
and live in their Hooverville.
perpetualcrayon - 1 hours ago
I say let them attempt to improve peoples' lives.I doubt it will
make you feel any better, but I don't think there will be a place
in the world for a private company the size of Google
(comparatively speaking).Imagine a world where individuals will
be starting up companies in their garage with a scale equivalent
to Fortune 50 companies of today.
Apocryphon - 3 hours ago
To the critics in this thread- maybe it's time to consider
unionizing tech workers after all?
marnett - 2 hours ago
I agree but how? Or would co-op consulting shops make more sense?
Apocryphon - 1 hours ago
Why not try both? The point is that the status quo is
untenable, corporate power is going to commodify devs just as
they have done to workers in many other industries, and you
might as well try fixing about it rather than getting disrupted
like so many other dinosaur entities that tech has done to.
triangleterd - 26 minutes ago
hy
[deleted]
eatbitseveryday - 25 minutes ago
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.
wehere1 - 3 hours ago
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
pmorici - 3 hours ago
Hey, better than supporting H1B exploitation.
tptacek - 2 hours ago
You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny
violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply
while making integer multiples of the median US household income
building up an industry premised on automating away everyone
else's jobs.Stop worrying about your wages! Your job will
eventually be automated away. A basic income is sure to protect
you.
TheAdamAndChe - 2 hours ago
There are already places that require tons of experience to
even get an IT job. Complete automation and centralization of
IT jobs isn't required to strongly impact American lives.Not
everyone lives in a tech hub of the country.
ra1n85 - 40 minutes ago
>"A basic income is sure to protect you."An unplanned,
unsustainable, and uncommitted allowance provided to you by a
group of people that seek power and do not share your interests
will meet all of your future needs.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
"You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny
violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply
while making integer multiples of the median US household
income building up an industry premised on automating away
everyone else's jobs."So what is the exact dollar amount one
has to make before they no longer are allowed to worry about
whether or not they'll have a job?"A basic income is sure to
protect you."Given the current political climate in the US, I
can only say bullshit.
bkovacev - 3 hours ago
Well put. In my eyes this is simple math,they're investing now
and are eliminating fees and adjustments for inflation in the
future. The pool of workers will be bigger and all of the workers
will be of somewhat same skill level which will eliminate the
need for higher salaries + larger equity shares in order to get a
high skilled worker. Their shares in the future will certainly be
more valuable then 1B now, and this incentive will allow them to
dictate the market.
cm2187 - 3 hours ago
High labor cost just because of skill shortage may be gratifying
and lucrative for the happy few but is not an efficient
allocation of resources for the wider society. Increasing the
skill supply is the right thing to do.Replace "developer" with
any other profession to convince yourself.
notyourday - 2 hours ago
Oh how quick we forget that we bitch about $35k/year H1Bs
Y7ZCQtNo39 - 3 hours ago
Nah, because I'm going to put my self-interest first. Just like
Google is. So I should naturally oppose this as a developer. I
benefit from a low supply of people with my skill set. Do you
think google cares about "efficient allocation of resources for
the wide society?" Tech companies embody the complete opposite
of that mindset. The tech firms most in this forum work at
bring in billions, but only require a few thousand workers. And
most of the cash ends up overseas, doing nothing. It's not an
efficient allocation of capital at all.
SapphireSun - 3 hours ago
You'd think that, but then you'd remember that if the
population isn't making money capitalism doesn't work. People
need money to buy things. The big picture is that labor is
being defeated everywhere and money is accruing at the top. The
whole system will break down if something isn't done.
alexanderstears - 32 minutes ago
It's not as if the skill shortage reflects some barriers to
entry (like the Doctor's union deciding how many people get to
go to medical school). The skill shortage reflects the
difficulty of acquiring the skills, the high salaries are
critical to ensuring that skilled people develop their
technical skills.I don't know how much a piano teacher costs,
but I know it's the right amount because that's the
equilibrium.A more efficient allocation of resources would look
like getting rid of 'too big to fail' banks and decreasing the
rent that the finance industry extracts.
8note - 3 hours ago
Yes, that's why we have labour unions. The cost should be high
because we demand it to be so, not because of a shortage.
jasonlotito - 3 hours ago
If Google hadn't been involved with a scheme that helped keep
the salaries of employees artificially lower (and by extension,
affecting the rest of the industry), you might have a point.
But as it stands, Google's own actions means it's imperative we
question their motives. After all, if Google and others hadn't
done what they did with the anti-poaching scheme, would the
resulting salaries be higher for all involved?
baursak - 3 hours ago
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 military
expenditures. Etc, etc.Increasing the skill supply is the right
thing to do if you're Google stakeholder, or broadly speaking,
a capitalist. It's much more questionable if you're in the
labor force.
stale2002 - 1 hours ago
Uhh, I do NOT love the AMA.The AMA is responsible for maximum
doctor quotas that drive up the cost of healthcare.The AMAs
decision to artificially increase the cost of Healthcare
literally kills people.
sounds - 2 hours ago
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.)
TeMPOraL - 2 hours ago
They're likely betting that investing in training programs
will be even more effective.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
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.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
Neither are these companies getting lots of cheap labor and
keeping the difference for themselves and their
shareholders.And, more importantly, why should I care if it's
an "efficient allocation of resources" when the alternative is
that I no longer get a decent wage?
Apocryphon - 3 hours ago
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.
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
Why do they need to continue growing? They're already what, 80%
of online ads?
Apocryphon - 12 minutes ago
Google will just continue to move into more markets and
moonshot projects until either the shareholders revolt or the
government applies antitrust. But if not them, some other
organization will need tech workers, and are you going to ask
them to stop growing? See this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15461924
baursak - 3 hours ago
> 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?
Apocryphon - 3 hours ago
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?
s73ver_ - 1 hours ago
But is Google doing that? And does it have to be Google?
Apocryphon - 14 minutes ago
I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. I'm not
praising Google in this story- I think they're doing this
strictly for business reasons- but I still think it's a
positive action even if it's motivated by the bottom
line. But it's inevitable that them, just like most other
giant companies in the black, are going to expand sooner
or later, and they will need more workers. So there's not
much you can do about that. If it's not Google or Apple
hiring, it's going to be Tesla or SpaceX or Kiva or these
guys (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/technology/a
-start-up-sug...)My main point is trying to stem the
demand for more workers, whether H1Bs or American
citizens, is futile. And even if somehow American firms
stopped demanding more tech workers, firms abroad will be
as well. So why not try to train more people to become
workers?
dqpb - 2 hours ago
This sounds like fixed pie logic to me.My intuition is that the
Pareto optional solution is one where nearly everyone is
proficient in engineering. I see engineering as the new
reading/writing. I think an engineering literate society would be
more valuable and stable than our current society is.
zjaffee - 2 hours ago
Or maybe, Google just wants to train people to work on their
platforms rather than moving to a competitors. I doubt google has
the intention of hiring the people that graduate from these
programs, they just want people to learn google apis so that they
use their products over competitors.This can be seen through how
companies sponsor hackathons, the courses they create on websites
like udacity and so on.
merpnderp - 3 hours ago
Programming is sufficiently hard enough, wages will always be
higher than most other professions. If I could make this money
just about any other way, I'd likely give it a go. But either be
a PA, a doctor, or one of the lucky few who graduate law school
and make good money (and I think PA's make less than most
programmers I know).Otherwise be a programmer.
notyourday - 2 hours ago
$35k/year developer on H1B
Y7ZCQtNo39 - 2 hours ago
Most developers aren't on H1B. There's what, tens of
thousands on H1B, and hundreds of thousands of tech workers.
While it's true some developers are underpaid, they are few
in number and presumably of little significance on the
prevailing developer wage.
notyourday - 2 hours ago
This stuff is funny to read. There are two cases:1. H1Bs in
"tech" do not affect salaries of those not on H1B so it is
irrelevant that there are those who come to the US on H1B
and make $35-50k/year in tech because it does not affect
the market for $80k-250k/year jobs i.e. Old Navy, Gap and
Banana Republic are totally different markets, Old Navy's
$10 t-shirts and $25 jeans does not move upmarket and
cannibalize GAP's $30 T-shirt and $80 jeans which in turn
does not cannibalize BR's $120 T-shirts and $200 jeans -
ask whoever shops for clothes in your family.If that's the
case, we should applaud Google generating more $35-50k/year
tech workers and we all should be baffled by those
complaining about H1B tech imports (the number of them is
rather low compared to the number of 35k-50k workers
training programs would generate so if we need those
workers before we train ours we should lift the caps on
H1Bs)2. H1Bs in "tech" does affect salaries of those not on
H1B because it eats into the market market for $80k-
250k/year jobs. In which case having a flood of $35k-
50k/year workers is a problem regardless if they are coming
in on H1B or from ITT Tech/GoogleJobsTrainingSchool.I would
suggest we should really pick one and be consistent.
salpalpable - 23 minutes ago
Hey, I'm looking for that career change, I got some diversity
points. How do we get in on this?
gaius - 3 hours ago
Great! They won't need to offshore any more work! Or rely on
exploiting H1B's!
cletus - 3 hours ago
There is exploitation of H1B workers but it's not at the hands of
the tech giants. Pretty much all the abuse of foreign workers on
visas I've seen is at the hands of these Indian bodyshops that,
given the long wait for green cards for those born in India, such
jobs are tantamount to indentured servitude.Speaking as a Xoogler
who was on a visa and got a green card sponsored by Google, from
my own experience I and others in my position were treated very
well.
vkou - 3 hours ago
As an H1B at Google, I do not feel at all exploited. I am
treated... Just like my American co-workers.Nothing like the
horror stories I read about non-SV tech companies.
jabba_d_hut - 3 hours ago
Too much generalization?
wavefunction - 3 hours ago
I am glad to see Google doing something like this.All of humanity
growing together towards a brighter future for everyone is truly
our highest calling.
SadWebDeveloper - 3 hours ago
So this means there are new open positions for foreigners/H1B at
Google?
walshemj - 3 hours ago
No its about training US workers - they have seen the anger /
nativisam stirred up by the last election and are trying to
improve their pr
SadWebDeveloper - 3 hours ago
And implied that US workers aren't on par with the rest of the
world, therefore it will help them get better _in the future_
but meanwhile, while the next generation of tech-savvy US
workers appear they will need skilled foreigners working at
google for at least the next 10 years. If my predictions are
correct, seems a good time to apply for Google at this moment.
twoquestions - 3 hours ago
Stated differently, "Google commits $1B to flood the market with
newbie tech workers, and to grow future client businesses".The
cynic in me can clearly see their interest in the effects of this
grant, but thinking on it more that interest might serve us better
in the long run. I just hope the community gains from that money
before it makes it's way back to Google.
dontreact - 3 hours ago
Even if it's self interest, at least good to see a company
thinking in very long term self interest. This aligns incentives
much better with the common good.
jbob2000 - 3 hours ago
I saw it totally differently. The recent election showed me that
there are huge amounts of untapped labour across the US, but they
lack to capital to elevate themselves. To me, this was google
saying "hey, we don't need to import people for tech, we can just
home grow them"
[deleted]
Apocryphon - 3 hours ago
For a long time the anti-H1B segment has been critical of Big
Tech for trying to undercut American tech workers instead in
investing in citizens. So now they're investing in the wrong
citizens?
nova22033 - 2 hours ago
There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about
their own jobs. They see any move like this as a plot by
bigcorp to undermine their job prospects.Training kids to code?
Yup..threat to their own job.
crdoconnor - 1 hours ago
>There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure
about their own jobs.If the rest of the job market looked
like it did in the 1950s, sure - no problem. I don't see any
reason to feel particularly secure when this is what's going
on outside of tech though:https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/sep/28/adjunct-prof...>They see any move like this
as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects.Either
tech bigcorp is concerned about their bottom line or they
aren't. If they are, then wouldn't it be economically
rational to try and reduce their largest expense - developer
wages?I wonder sometimes if people are really naive enough to
think that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to "reform immigration"
or "get CS taught in primary schools" out of the goodness of
his heart.
nova22033 - 34 minutes ago
What does the plight of adjunct professors have to do with
the job market for software professionals?>I wonder
sometimes if people are really naive enough to think that
Mark Zuckerberg is trying to "reform immigration" or "get
CS taught in primary schools" out of the goodness of his
heart.First a non sequitur and now a strawman? I don't
think Zuckeberg lets me use facebook out of the goodness of
his heart either...
UncleMeat - 2 hours ago
I swear, many of the HN crowd seems like they'd be happiest if
they were the only developer on the planet.
vkou - 1 hours ago
You should ask taxi drivers about how they feel about
millions of people getting paid peanuts to drive for Lift and
Uber.Or lawyers about how they feel about millions of people
with law degrees unable to find work as lawyers.Or Physics
PHDs about how they feel driving a cab^wUber.Or musicians,
who live off selling t-shirts.Why do you think supply and
demand does not apply to the IT labour market?
klipt - 2 hours ago
Well obviously, think of how well I'd be paid! /s
twoquestions - 3 hours ago
Hardly, especially if they execute aggressively on the "grow
future client businesses" bit.I'll admit that part of my
suspicion is rooted in self-interest, but if demand for my
labor grows faster than other people can supply it I'll still
win out (along with many others).
zzzcpan - 3 hours ago
Abundance of cheap labor allows to "grow future client
businesses", not the other way around. Cheap labor is key
here, no matter where it comes from.
ransom1538 - 3 hours ago
They could instead pay taxes instead of stashing cash overseas.
bkeroack - 3 hours ago
...which will depress the wages of everyone on HN reading these
words. Especially entry level engineers or those without CS
degrees."Coding bootcamps" are the new DeVry IT program of the
2010s.
merpnderp - 3 hours ago
It seems like the more IT workers we have the more IT workers
we need. When I started in IT, a starting programmer made about
the top scale of a teacher. Now a starting programmer makes
about 175% of a top scale teacher. At least in the Mid-West.
jasonlotito - 3 hours ago
What people tend to forget is that Google and others were
involved in anti-poaching deals that kept the wages of workers
down. What people don't realize is that this affected you
whether you worked for Google or some company competing with
Google. After all, if they could match Google's artificially
lower salary, or get near it, they were good. Those actions
hurt everyone in the industry.While it's great they are working
to train workers, it's not hard to imagine them having a
conversation about this regarding lowered salaries.
bkeroack - 2 hours ago
Exactly. Instead of colluding to artificially depress wages,
flood the market with trainees to naturally and legally
accomplish the same end.
panarky - 3 hours ago
I understand your instant skepticism, but I think it's misplaced
here.This is a billion dollars going to nonprofits to help people
level up their skills.While Google should benefit indirectly from
this, their investment will also help countless other enterprises
and individuals.This is badly needed, so I'm going to suppress my
reflex to twist the story against Google and celebrate the fact
that they're taking concrete action.Show me another company doing
anything similar.
walshemj - 3 hours ago
But will google employ any of these employees or is it just
presentism
[deleted]
thatonechad - 2 hours ago
Universities need to start focusing on skills instead of general
education. Imagine the amount of skills you could learn if you
didn't have to take 60 hours of nonsense credits and focus on
skills you require.Programming / Networking / Hardware need a new
type of University that is similar to Trade colleges but focus
primarily on the skills and nothing more. The first 1-2 years could
focus on the foundations while the next 2 years focus around solid
design principles and actually developing projects (real or fake).
xfer - 58 minutes ago
I am not sure, how "skills" would be helpful in long term. People
need to develop a good understanding and ideas on Computer
science, not learn a particular software/language or whatever.As,
there is no guarantee that it will even be alive by the time you
leave university/your potential employer would be looking for
that particular "skill".
forapurpose - 8 minutes ago
> nonsense creditsThe assumption here is that education is
nonsense. I think the skills are far less valuable: Education
teaches you about the world you have to live in, in business, and
as a citizen, a parent, a consumer, etc., by exposing you to
leading people and ideas from around the world and throughout
history. It teaches you to reason, by exposing you to the great
thinkers now and in history. Reading blogs on the Internet isn't
nearly the same thing.If we send people home from college only
with the vocational skill of building an integrated circuit, they
will find that it doesn't begin to address most of the challenges
in life, much less their community's and society's.Integrated
circuits aren't what the West needs to move forward at this
point, to address poverty, discrimination, war, and all the other
issues. In our current society, we do very well with integrated
circuits and very poorly with life, social and political issues,
perhaps we need to focus on education in the latter, not the
former.
demygale - 2 hours ago
Name a giant in this industry, that person benefitted from a
liberal arts education.
thatonechad - 2 hours ago
I'm sure all the gender studies classes has helped the vast
majority of tech students become better developers
s73ver_ - 51 minutes ago
Given all the stuff that's happening lately with people like
Susan Fowler, a whole lot of developers could have benefitted
from more of those.Of course, that's completely ignoring that
there is far, far, far more to "liberal arts" than gender
studies.
hobofan - 42 minutes ago
I think it's more the people around them that would have
benefitted from it.
s73ver_ - 29 minutes ago
That too. Everyone would benefit!
Animats - 3 hours ago
Actually spending $10 million. Talking about $1 billion over 5
years.