|
It seems like the answer to the thread title is "They're not" and this seems like a parallel but less hilarious thread to the Justine Tunney thread.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Then you're just dense. Not all unions are effective and do great things for their workers, but there is no worker whom collective bargaining and effective organisation would not benefit. And yes, software developers are absolutely workers, even though many of them probably wouldn't like to think so. Ugh, you call him dense but you're insulting him for what you consider to be not accurately perceiving his own self-interest (and I'm not even going to touch the line about developers not wanting to consider themselves workers...). There's nothing worse than a liberal who hates the poors for voting Republican. Here's a newsflash for you, programming is an established industry with its own norms and history. Programmers are not strangers to the concept of collective action. The reason unions have never caught on in programming is a complicated subject. Discussion on why full-time programmers are usually salaried and not paid hourly could itself probably fill an entire thread, tangled up as it is in the programming "culture" of working insane hours and the reciprocal slack that programmers get in other professional areas. Throw in the steady availability of off-shore and contracting resources (in some ways even more accessible than in manufacturing industries) and basically you're insane if you think you can write off this topic with "A union would be great for programmers but they're just too dense to figure it out for themselves!" If you're going to prescribe how programmers ought to organize themselves, you could at least consider some of the specifics of the profession. FamDav posted:That's not what he's saying though. It is what he's saying, since my quotes in that sentence are where I am literally quoting from the post he responded to. If he isn't disagreeing with that point, and is instead just bringing up a purely tangential point about the "knowability" of programming, then my first sentence stands: quote:I would strongly suggest that you step back and analyze whether that exceedingly general statement contributes anything of value to a discussion. Especially when that line of argument is frequently leveraged for very dubious claims about the STEM fields in general. TheresNoThyme fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
size1one posted:The difference is that chiropractors and naturopaths are claiming they are a legitimate alternative to Medical Doctors. Software Engineers are not claiming to be an alternative to any other engineering discipline. Except that software developers do not have the rights, privileges and responsibilities of professional engineers. Yet by claiming the title, they imply exactly that. "Builds complex systems" isn't going to cut it, because that describes almost everyone working in a scientific or technical field. In fact, we describe someone who uses the technical specifications (already developed by someone else) sitting in front of them to assemble a system as a technician. The main barrier as I see it is that software development has not yet obtained the maturity to build a "materials science" for software. The field has barely even acknowledged that measurement and standard tests are needed, which are the basis of engineering. But if you'd like to play the definition game, then you should have a look at what each state legally defines as the practice of engineering. Here's Colorado: quote:(a) "Practice of engineering" means the performance for others of any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work, including consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, and the observation of construction to evaluate compliance with plans and specifications in connection with the utilization of the forces, energies, and materials of nature in the development, production, and functioning of engineering processes, apparatus, machines, equipment, facilities, structures, buildings, works, or utilities, or any combination or aggregations thereof, employed in or devoted to public or private enterprise or uses. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Especially when we have self-proclaimed software developers claiming they want to institute the same structures that bankers did to maintain control and power. Hi, that was me. I'm not actually self-proclaimed; it is what I get paid to do. I can send you a copy of my resume, but I'd have to blank out all the identifying information so maybe it wouldn't be that helpful. Second, somebody was saying that if there is nothing obviously stopping just anybody from learning your trade (he was confusing software development with programming, but whatever) then it will inevitably be commoditized. I asked him what makes another field that has existed for centuries and hasn't seen commoditization work, and he said nothing. So I said well great then software developers could just do the same thing so I guess your thesis was wrong? I just want people to think about why their premise might be flawed. I'm sorry if you think I was actually advocating for forcing people to take on loads of debt and finangle their way into a few key institutions to land that cushy (but soul crushing) I-banking job. I actually think its pretty stupid! And I'm all for the proliferation of documentation and tutorials for coding (though remembering, code and software development are different things!). I think people would do better to learn more CS fundamentals when they go this path, but hey if its enough to get you in as an entry level dev somewhere then obviously there is a market for that. I don't really see the market being commoditized just because the bubble bursts and a lot of small businesses that should have never existed cease to exist. A lot of people won't be able to find jobs that they once had (I think a lot of these people who just learned frameworks/worked at small scale will make up most of this group), but I do not see it depressing wages or commoditizing software development to the level of blue collar work like a lot of people here believe. Skills exist on a continuum, and companies have seen what happened when they select below a point on that continuum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:The main barrier as I see it is that software development has not yet obtained the maturity to build a "materials science" for software. The field has barely even acknowledged that measurement and standard tests are needed, which are the basis of engineering. One of the big issues here is the divergence of corporate knowledge vs academic, and is also why software development (as opposed to cs) degrees/pre-professional programs are looked down upon. The other issue is that a lot of these really interesting systems for testing and monitoring only exist at large tech co's and remain behind closed doors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:It seems like the answer to the thread title is "They're not" and this seems like a parallel but less hilarious thread to the Justine Tunney thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:# Considering yourself left-wing yet also anti-union is apparently a thing in the software industry, and likely the Bay Area at large. I'm not anti-union per see, I just don't think it's appropriate for the software sector at the moment. If Walmart workers want to unionize I'm all for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:I'm not anti-union per see, I just don't think it's appropriate for the software sector at the moment. That means you're anti-union. Either you believe that you are a worker and that workers need to bargain collectively for their rights, or you think you're better than some workers and deserve to use guile and betrayal and cheat your way above your station. It isn't complicated. "It's not like I don't believe I have common cause with you, it's just that I think I can get a little more mileage out of betraying you before I come talking about solidarity, hat in hand."
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:All the same, when San Francisco tech billionaires decide to throw their money at Congress- and their hesitancy to do so is going to subside sooner rather than later- I get the feeling that a few years down the line, we'll be wistful for the days when Wall Street ruled Capitol Hill. At least bankers know that they're assholes- not only do techies deny that simple fact, but they also hide it in patronizing "we're making the world a better place (at the expense of the public sphere)" bullshit. They already are, FWD.US is just the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That means you're anti-union. Either you believe that you are a worker and that workers need to bargain collectively for their rights, or you think you're better than some workers and deserve to use guile and betrayal and cheat your way above your station. It isn't complicated. Oh good, here comes the rabid leftist ideological purity portion of DnD threads. Well have fun circlejerking about how everyone to the right of you is a class enemy and pretend that the average person you are discussing actually gives a poo poo about political ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Typo posted:Oh good, here comes the rabid leftist ideological purity portion of DnD threads. What? No one is saying you have to be pro-union. Just literally denying the fundamental premise of union solidarity while pretending to be pro-union is a little hypocritical. Don't take it so personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Reminder that supporting unionization for all workers is a fundamental plank of the US Democratic Party's platform, and not some extreme whackadoo ideology. Since moving to the bay area, it's been constantly hilarious to see how often people don't seem to realize this around here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:"Builds complex systems" isn't going to cut it, because that describes almost everyone working in a scientific or technical field. In fact, we describe someone who uses the technical specifications (already developed by someone else) sitting in front of them to assemble a system as a technician. Good thing I said "design and build" then. This type of argument is why I insist on the title so much. You're grossly underestimating the scope and quality of work that some of us do. Are you seriously that concerned that a software engineer will try to sign & seal engineering plans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That means you're anti-union. Either you believe that you are a worker and that workers need to bargain collectively for their rights, or you think you're better than some workers and deserve to use guile and betrayal and cheat your way above your station. It isn't complicated. Who or what exactly is being betrayed in this hyperbolic example? The numerous software development unions who don't exist? The pure principle of worker solidarity itself? You and smudgie seem to really enjoy knocking down technocrat strawmen while dismissing as irrelevant the actual details of the work and the pressures/reasons why developers might have issues with unionization. If that attitude is what you consider to be "pro-union" then unions have some dark days ahead indeed. H.P. Hovercraft posted:Reminder that supporting unionization for all workers is a fundamental plank of the US Democratic Party's platform, and not some extreme whackadoo ideology. You're correct, unionization is a political objective and not just a question of ideology. So who exactly is the ideologue in this current discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Reminder that supporting unionization for all workers is a fundamental plank of the US Democratic Party's platform, and not some extreme whackadoo ideology. But my boss showed me a video that said the union takes your muny
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
size1one posted:Good thing I said "design and build" then. This type of argument is why I insist on the title so much. You're grossly underestimating the scope and quality of work that some of us do. And you are grossly underestimating what is required both educationally and professionally in order to earn and maintain the privilege of that title. Are you seriously that concerned that you can't call yourself a fancy word because you don't have an education and career based around the rigorous application of physics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Perhaps they lack much experience with other people, and the experience did they have was mostly negative because they lack strong social skills. That can give you a pretty grim view.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Guys look, it's OK. Let's strip away the bullshit arguments about carpenters and naturopaths. We get it, you hate these people for being smarter than you and earning more than you and living more comfortable lives than you. Roll your eyes all you want, that's what it really comes down to: privilege. Just like the rich hate the poor, the poor and middle class hate the rich. And both sides feel like they need legitimate-sounding reasons for their hatred to prevent coming across as total bigots. It's the never-ending story of American class warfare. This. This is why I don't get along with a lot of programmers. Sure, programming makes a lot of things easier. Sure, it can do some really cool stuff that actually does make the world a better place, and no one is disputing that. But when you start insisting that it's the future and that everyone else doing other stuff isn't actually benefiting anyone? That's when you start to piss me off. Because quite frankly, if the only way for me to be optimally productive is to do something that I find mind-numbingly boring, I'm going to opt out. It's not that I don't want to do programming: I WANT to NOT program. The optimal path for our economy, and the ultimate goal that I see for it, is to let everyone do work that they find fulfilling. For both me and most other people, that is not programming. Let us do what we find inspiring, and don't tell us that it's useless. Because frankly? If I was to go into programming, I'd suck at it, just as much as you'd probably suck at my job, because you wouldn't like it. The future will be shaped by people doing what they enjoy. Some of them will be programmers. Others will be engineers of all varieties, politicians, business people, teachers, and yes, carpenters. I don't care if that chair changes the world: if that person finds building it to be deeply fulfilling, then that's the best thing they can be doing, and they can be happy knowing that they made a good chair for the people who do receive it. So get off your high horse, and stop telling us what the future will be like. We'll get there soon enough, and then we'll know for sure. You do your best to make it a good future, I'll do mine, and so will everyone else, because everyone has something to offer. And just as a side point? You're exactly proving the thread's opening question. Maybe you aren't arguing for deregulating or pure capitalism or anything, but you're saying that you're the gifted ones who are the future, and anybody who's not is worthless. It's the mindset of superiority. EDIT: H.P. Hovercraft posted:And you are grossly underestimating what is required both educationally and professionally in order to earn and maintain the privilege of that title. Still, they use engineering design practices, regardless of whether there's a physical product or not. Maybe they don't use Newton's laws, but they do analyze and break down problems in the same manner. I'd agree it doesn't meet the current, dictionary definition of engineer. But honestly, I'd argue that definition might need to change, because the fact that they design stuff is more critical to classification than what they design. I dunno. But I'd be totally for regulation of software engineers. The people who design the physical parts of a plane need to have certification. Why not the people who write the code? Karia fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:58
|
|
"
|
TheresNoThyme posted:Who or what exactly is being betrayed in this hyperbolic example? The numerous software development unions who don't exist? The pure principle of worker solidarity itself? You and smudgie seem to really enjoy knocking down technocrat strawmen while dismissing as irrelevant the actual details of the work and the pressures/reasons why developers might have issues with unionization. If that attitude is what you consider to be "pro-union" then unions have some dark days ahead indeed. The people posting don't actually give a poo poo about such petty things as details of unionizing the software sector, or whether it's actually appropriate. They are basically posting from the ideology purity of "Unions good, employers bad" and are mad because not everybody buys 100% into their ideology, and they have too much free time so they spend a lot of it making aggressive posts for the sake of internet political crusades. They are not so much interested in real actual discussion (which this thread actually had a few pages of) but in winning one for their political ideology, and it usually ends up with one or more of them making themselves obnoxious/insulting enough that anyone disagreeing with them just stops posting. And since they are posting from a position of ideological purity they can essentially always accuse the other person of not support unions enough or w/e. quote:That means you're anti-union. Either you believe that you are a worker and that workers need to bargain collectively for their rights, or you think you're better than some workers and deserve to use guile and betrayal and cheat your way above your station. It isn't complicated. quote:What? No one is saying you have to be pro-union. Just literally denying the fundamental premise of union solidarity while pretending to be pro-union is a little hypocritical. Don't take it so personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:This is pretty much exactly what I mean. Straight up throwing out insults and then telling them not to take it personally it just....either really tone deaf or demonstrate a complete lack of social skills. Why pussyfoot around?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:And you are grossly underestimating what is required both educationally and professionally in order to earn and maintain the privilege of that title. I'm suggesting that some of us programmers adhere to equally high standards. The only person here who is intentionally belittling and talking down to others is you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Reminder that supporting unionization for all workers is a fundamental plank of the US Democratic Party's platform, and not some extreme whackadoo ideology. They didn't even bother taking the low-hanging fruit of getting rid of the stupid postal union health care pre-funding when they had the chance in 2008, they really don't give a poo poo. If you want them to actually take a stand on it then you've got a lot of purging to do first. Karia posted:The optimal path for our economy, and the ultimate goal that I see for it, is to let everyone do work that they find fulfilling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
quote:The people posting don't actually give a poo poo about such petty things as details of unionizing the software sector, or whether it's actually appropriate. No, you keep saying that you support unions but not in software because of ~reasons~. You haven't actually ever listed any for us to discuss. The fact you rely on "well, I can't see how a union would help me" is not exactly indicative of someone with pro-union beliefs. Seriously, do some reading on "union solidarity" and you'll see why that attitude is a classic anti-union trope. Typo posted:This is pretty much exactly what I mean. Straight up throwing out insults and then telling them not to take it personally it just....either really tone deaf or demonstrate a complete lack of social skills. Are you seriously that upset I called you "a little hypocritical"? I hope that is not enough to silence your voice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
size1one posted:I'm suggesting that some of us programmers adhere to equally high standards. The only person here who is intentionally belittling and talking down to others is you. The title is an important, hard-fought for privilege requiring years of work that many are simply unable to complete and should not be used lightly, merely because someone feels that they are qualified enough. Self-evidently, the term engineer has a meaning that holds value, because it is associated in the public mind with a particular level of education, training, and most importantly legal liability to the public's safety. If it did not, Microsoft wouldn't want its people to be called engineers, because they wouldn't gain any benefit from it. But they fought for it with the MCSE, because they were gaining a benefit from it. In Texas awhile back, the tech sector there even attempted to codify it into law: quote:[Ken Rigsbee, chairman of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers legislative committee] said the industry holds out its products as having been "engineered." And he said there is a belief that the computer companies are in a better position to win contracts if they can say they have 150 engineers on staff instead of 150 programmers. That measure failed, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:This is fantasy. Nobody with money to spend cares how fulfilled you are, but rather how much value you can provide, the only way people even get to do fulfilling jobs is by giving someone else the job of stocking shelves, scrubbing toilets, and pulling carrots out of the ground. I said ultimate goal. We can't do it now, won't be able to for a very long time, possibly ever, but it's a good goal, and something to work towards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
This thread is great. First some dude accuses tech people of being libertarians then a bunch of people just run with it despite most tech people itt saying 'no, we lean left'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This was made possible with software, the culmination of an untold number of developers collaborating and making poo poo happen. And the trend is only accelerating, with no end in sight. You don't see anything remotely similar in any other industry, even if it's high-tech. I'd love to see a carpenter building a chair and touching the lives of millions of people with it. But it just ain't happening. So yeah, the information economy is a fountain of technological advance but ultimately governmental and economic powers still hold the reins of political, social, and technological control, and thus, the future of homo sapiens. But do bloviate on how you're a bigger cog than everyone else. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
redreader posted:This thread is great. First some dude accuses tech people of being libertarians then a bunch of people just run with it despite most tech people itt saying 'no, we lean left'. Ayn Rand posted:The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups—particularly on non-union workers and on unskilled labor, which was being squeezed gradually out of the market. Today’s widespread unemployment is the result of organized labor’s privileges and of allied measures, such as minimum wage laws. For years, the unions supported these measures and sundry welfare legislation, apparently in the belief that the costs would be paid by taxes imposed on the rich. The growth of inflation has shown that the major victim of government spending and of taxation is the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Yes, there are software developers with the title "engineer." There are people with the title of "manager" that don't manage people. Editors who don't work for a publisher. Writers who edit, rather than write--consultants who aren't there to give or receive advice, technical writers that really just do coding, and other horrible workplace thoughtcrime. We have to stop developers from calling themselves engineers before this non-existent problem comes to a head. Someone noted pages ago, by the way, that software engineers working in specific industries with impact on public safety do need appropriate certifications. "We have to stop programmers from titling themselves engineers--somehow, I guess--or they will become too powerful and be able to design vast and complex systems for use through all levels of society! This means that soon, the Army Corps of Engineers will be filled with app designers and highway construction will be overseen by Google. Don't let your town's construction project be next!" Meanwhile you can literally go on Wikipedia right now and learn that software engineering is considered a thing and that engineering is an incredibly broad field covering countless industries and disciplines. And yet your farcical semantics argument continues to be entertained, in this thread already based on a demonstrably idiotic premise. I once heard all engineers are sheltered, worshipful, and heinous Republicans who think a knowledge of advanced math gives them unique insight into politics. Thread, tell me why this is true by discussing this asinine premise to death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Rime posted:Programmers, and developers in general, have a bizarre fetish for the "unfettered free market", and bringing up any sort of unionization or labor movement with one inevitably leads into a frothing screed which would be very much at home on Free Republic. Source, please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why pussyfoot around? Out of curiosity are you actually in a union irl?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:Out of curiosity are you actually in a union irl? I wish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wish. oh lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:and their business models increasingly based on leveraging public goods for private profit while leaving individuals on the hook for all liabilities it is hard for me to see how this is just jealousy. See, this is a salient point. As the technology industry matures it is no longer the plucky outsider, but an establishment industry. It is now acting like virtually every other industry by suppressing wages, treating workers poorly and attempting to socialize risk and privatize rewards. I would argue most of this is due to managers, not technical workers, but regardless of the reason the trend is clear. Trabisnikof posted:I mean between the owners of these titan of industries calling themselves best pals with Rand Paul, their employees arguing for slavery, maintain control and power. This is just people finding justification for their jealousy. Congratulations on finding a handful of dumbasses who are employed in the Tech Sector. What sector do you work in? Is it Free of Reactionaries with no dumbasses in it? Probably not. Lets not even talk about how much "othering" you have to go through to try and project the views of a couple of people onto an entire profession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
redreader posted:This thread is great. First some dude accuses tech people of being libertarians then a bunch of people just run with it despite most tech people itt saying 'no, we lean left'. Claiming to lean left and crying about unions as being against your rational self interest are fundamentally incompatible, and call into question the motives behind the original claim of leaning left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yes, there are software developers with the title "engineer." There are people with the title of "manager" that don't manage people. Editors who don't work for a publisher. Writers who edit, rather than write--consultants who aren't there to give or receive advice, technical writers that really just do coding, and other horrible workplace thoughtcrime. We have to stop developers from calling themselves engineers before this non-existent problem comes to a head. Haha yeah and you would have a point if "manager" was a title that conferred significant legal responsibility and was only earned after completing a notoriously difficult degree followed by licensure exams with a pass rate comparable to the Bar. You sound exactly like someone attempting to justify a professional title that they did not earn. And I suspect you have some idea of how hard you would be laughed at if you introduced yourself as such to a real engineer. Or yelled at by an older engineer; those guys tend to be much more prideful. But in case you do not, allow me to explain: it is a legally protected title (yes, there is a Software Engineering license) for several reasons, one of which is in order to insure that the title is not diluted through misuse. An article I linked upthread explains how Boeing was forced to change their internal policy regarding title misuse, particularly with "Customer Service Engineers" and "Sales Engineers." No one was concerned that people working those jobs were going to be asked to design civil infrastructure. In some jurisdictions they specifically call out "software engineers" as an example of misuse if they are not actively registered engineers; here's Florida: quote:"A person may not [...] use the name or title “professional engineer” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer when the person is not licensed under this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following titles: [...] 'software engineer,' 'computer hardware engineer,' or 'systems engineer.'" Now why do you think that might be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Is there something special about software engineering that a person overseas who can be paid significantly less can't be taught how to do it? It's not that they can't be taught. It's that good, constant, communication is vital to the success of a nontrivial software project. I've made a lot of money taking the code an offshore cheap contractor made and fixing it so it does what the client wants. The total expense of the project usually ended up higher than it would be if they'd just hired local talent to do it in the first place. Say I have a question, "do you want it to do X or Y here"? A frequent response is, "what difference does it make?". Which leads to a discussion of the impacts and eventually a decision. If I'm a native English speaker in the cube across the hall from you this discussion is verbal and takes 5 minutes. If I'm a $14 an hour contractor in India to whom English is a second language this discussion happens via email and takes several days, maybe a week, due to time shift and language barrier. The man-hour costs of everyone involved in it will dwarf the man-hour costs of my 5 minute conversation despite wages on the programmer side of the conversation being much less ( but still not bad! $14 an hour is well over min wage in the us). If the discussion were about something physical the employer could simply send a picture or a blueprint of what they want. These are worth thousands of words and communicate very effectively. You can send a picture/mock up of a UI so off shoring UI implementation works fairly well which is why so many of those shops specialize in web pages. Furthermore, the up-front documentation costs are higher when you offshore. You can get away with a fairly basic set of requirements and flesh it out as you go along verbally with a physically present programmer - or at least a native speaker in the same time zone who you can skype with frequently. But Pong Yang down in Beijing ( actual person I worked with ) can't just pick up the phone and call you whenever. Its 7:00 pm here when she comes in to work. So when shipping her work the description of what you need needs to be extensively documented to reduce the need for her to talk to you. Now all a computer program is is precise descriptions of what the computer should do - written in a computer language. Computer languages are simple. They'll have all of a few dozen words each. The translation of what you want from English to Computer is rarely the hard part. Having a business analyst ( also highly compensated position) define/document the problem clearly enough to get Pong Yang going incurs a large extra expense up front that you don't have if you hire me. You'll get better results quicker for less money hiring local programmers most of the time. Even though the wage for local programmers is higher. They've been trying to offshore us for a decade now and they get burned when they do. /Shrug
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
McAlister posted:It's not that they can't be taught. It's that good, constant, communication is vital to the success of a nontrivial software project. I've made a lot of money taking the code an offshore cheap contractor made and fixing it so it does what the client wants. The total expense of the project usually ended up higher than it would be if they'd just hired local talent to do it in the first place. The dirty little secret of offshoring is that it almost never saves money. I worked for one of the larger consulting companies that focused on offshoring. They promised 66%-75% Headcount offshore knowing it would never work. But the point wasn't to get the offshore model to work. The point was to get their foot in the door so they could get onshore guys in the company. Usually guys they paid $50k/yr but billed at $150-$200/hr to the client. Then they start "standing up" the offshore team and slowly start moving things offshore and go until the client screams at them to stop because the outcomes are so terrible. Usually at 25%-33%. But at this point half of the original IT team panicked at the 75% number and changed jobs. So their jobs get filled by the consulting company. More onshore guys making $50k/yr guys billing $150-$200/hr. The company won't want to higher permanent people, since the offshore model is going to start working aaaannnnnyyyyy day now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
McAlister posted:It's not that they can't be taught. It's that good, constant, communication is vital to the success of a nontrivial software project. I've made a lot of money taking the code an offshore cheap contractor made and fixing it so it does what the client wants. The total expense of the project usually ended up higher than it would be if they'd just hired local talent to do it in the first place. This a million times. Software development is a much wider discipline than programming itself, so while you can easily find programmers everywhere, the development process needs a constant feedback loop of thoughts and idea, and when you throw in a cultural and linguistic barrier in there things tend to go really wrong really quick. I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see companies opening entire shops for start to finish products overseas to exploit cheap labour in the future though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:The title is an important, hard-fought for privilege requiring years of work that many are simply unable to complete and should not be used lightly, merely because someone feels that they are qualified enough. Congrats, you just described a computer science program and it's high attrition rates. Microsoft engineers aren't dealing with the public's safety on a regular basis either. It's almost as if the public's safety has nothing to do with the title beyond introducing the need for regulation. For what it's worth, I would agree with you that the title for specific disciplines (e.g. Structural Engineer) should be restricted if they require certification. "Engineer" is too broad of a term that doesn't describe an area of expertise. This is the exact reason why some states license specific disciplines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:04
|
|