|
Am I the only one that's amazed Yahoo! even still exists? They feel like a relic from a former era at this point.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Everybody agrees about that. What we really need is a regulatory system that allows new taxi businesses to start up, instead of providing a state-imposed monopoly on the number of people who can get permits to drive taxis. However, Uber is bypassing not only the medallion system, but also standard rules about insurance, liability, training, security checks .... all under the claim that it's just private citizens moonlighting. This is America. They'll find ways to get around that too. "Well hey we aren't a taxi system we just let people charge gas money for rides to their buddies." The problem with Uber is that it's basically illustrating what America stands for right now. Other than the people writing the app they've passed all of the cost of operating the business to the drivers. They're using the "but these guys are their own bosses now!" type of thinking to justify it when really it's a way to just a way of making it impossible to unionize or fight against any bullshit the company does. They're deliberately exploiting the stupid and/or desperate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Brannock posted:What I'm curious about is the knock-on effect all these pending collapses will have on cities like Seattle and San Francisco where the prices are exploding out of control thanks to all the techies concentrating there. Tech is already springing up in a ton of other areas, especially ones with far lower costs of living. I live near Pittsburgh and its tech sector is growing rapidly. One of the big issues Silicon Valley and the like are running into is that a great many people just flat out don't want to live in a place where the rent is $3,000 a month for a studio apartment. Yeah sure you can probably start at $70K a year there but you're already paying half of that in rent before taxes or other expenses. Is it worth it? Some people say yes, others say no but where I'm originally from you can buy an entire goddamned house for less than a year's rent. That also makes remote positions even sexier if people can nail them. I don't think there's going to be a ton of knock-off effect as the tech giants probably aren't going anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Companies absolutely will do this. It's dependent on whether the costs of moving seem to outweigh the benefits, and in particular there's a secondary benefit of moving- it adds to your company's reputation as a ruthless negotiator. Larger companies are more able to toe this line. Walmart is infamous for forcibly rearranging whole legal regimes, then pulling multiple stores on a pretext if something doesn't go their way. Which is a pretty good argument in favor of preventing companies that massive from existing in the first place. Or, alternately, saying "knock this poo poo off here are some laws if you do this again we'll come after you." One of the issues with the internet and tech in general is that you suddenly have easy access to like...the loving planet. If every search engine is just a few letters in a box away why bother using anything but the best one? If there are 500 apps that all do the some thing, they all cost the same, and you can install them with a click why bother with the other 499? Especially if you already have and are using one you like. Sometimes whoever gets there first gets the big market share and good luck dethroning them. Plus if Uber is losing money continually, well...that makes me think of the fuckery that was going down in the 19th century. Standard Oil was notorious for moving into new markets and obliterating smaller companies that wouldn't sell by selling oil at a massive loss until the other company went under. If Uber is deliberately pricing under cost then they're going to strangle out literally everything else if their pockets are deep enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:12 hour days is a bit conservative What I'd like to know is where this idea of "LITERALLY WORK ALL OF THE HOURS" being a desirable thing came from. Well no I do know; rich fucks that want to run a business on a skeleton crew but still. If their drivers are working that many hours a day just to make a living that's a massive, massive problem that will need to be addressed. Especially considering that they're probably not getting overtime. Or benefits. Or stability.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:I've actually never been to a city where cabs have the option of setting their own rates -- I can't imagine that this is a common thing. And the fact that rent-seeking medallion owners might be able to exploit the artificial scarcity created by the medallion system to further reduce the profits of their lessees doesn't seem like a positive aspect of the system. Kind of the point of medallions is to give the city a certain amount of control over the system; especially how many taxis actually exist. The idea is to keep it so that there aren't so many that the city is just flooded and the price of rates stays fair. In practice, just like literally every system that exists, somebody figured out a way to take advantage of the system as it stood and then refused to allow it to change after that. Transportation services need some changes but Uber...is not the right direction. Granted Uber also suffers from the fundamental problem of America's transportation system being "CARS CARS CARS CARS CAAAARRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!!!! gently caress MASS TRANSIT WE NEED MORE loving CARS!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
aksuur posted:Not sure how it is Uber's fault that people willing work for them at current pay scales. It isn't Uber's fault but it does point out a systemic problem that needs to be dealt with. Enough people are utterly desperate for any job at all they'll let companies like Uber blatantly exploit them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Holyshoot posted:So if uber is burning cash from vc's what is their end game to be profitable? I thought people create businesses to make money through profit? My guess is to crowd everything else out of the market and form a monopoly. But that's one of the things in the software world that's been happening like forever. If that isn't their plan then their plan is high pay for the founders, golden parachutes, and loving over everybody that's doing all of the actual work.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
If you haven't watched the talk Lowtax gave at a college like a thousand years ago go find it. He actually touched on what happened during the tech bubble and it sounds eerily similar to what's going on now. He talked about stuff like "people mostly spending money on fancy chairs to ask people for more money to buy fancier chairs with to impress people wealthier than that." Revenue wasn't talked about beyond getting traffic to your site to sell ad space to spend that money on ad space to get more traffic. What the website did was irrelevant and was sometimes "literally nothing."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I haven't been there a year but it still seemed pretty cheap to me. Anything over $1,500 a month for a 1BR is pretty crazy. I'd argue that anything over $1,000 is crazy. The Bay Area has tiny studio apartments that are going for over $3,000 a month. NYC is almost as bad and Seattle is pretty ridiculous too. There are cities where you can snag a decently sized 1BR for $700 a month downtown. If you're making bank in a tech job that's payable but what if you aren't? If you're making $10 an hour it costs you over 300 hours (think taxes) a month just to pay your rent. Guess how many people can actually do that? I don't live in a city but here I can snag a 1BR that would comfortably house two people, including all utilities except internet, for $550 a month.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
To be honest that's kind of one thing that confuses me about some of the attitudes in software land. What's so wrong about having a little niche that you fill? Why does everything have to grow exponentially forever?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm That was a drat fine article and actually hits on a lot of stuff I've been thinking about as well as things I've been bitching about. I was a CS major. Got the degree and everything. I really like technology but at the same time the practical side of me is scratching its head. Who gives a poo poo of a phone can have 500,000,000 apps? It's like having 250 cable channels. I'd watch maybe four of them. I rarely upgraded my cell phone and most certainly not every year like a ton of people. If it does what I need it to then what else do I need? It's my phone, my note pad, my scheduler, and not much else. I can Google search poo poo if I want to or find something to read if I'm in a situation like being on a train for a few hours and being bored. It serves its purpose and, like that article says, it's Good Enough. It does absolutely everything I need it to so it's unlikely I'll replace it until it breaks. I saw that attitude with computers a lot as well; I know people with computers that are 10-15 years old because gently caress it, the thing works. It gets on the internet, it sends e-mails, it types letters, it plays solitaire, and that's all the person wants it to do. ToxicAcne posted:Great article, and really relevant! Just today I saw an idiotic post that claimed that in 10 years we will get commonplace simultaneous translation. A stupid question but do CS majors not study physics or anything like that, because it's bizarre how willing they are to disregard real physical barriers No. They tend not to, actually. CS people generally get their science electives done in math. A few study physics but most of them take the basics at most. Which is why you get predictions like that; Moore's Law makes certain things make mathematical sense but not physical sense. It also has to do with problems relating to AI in general. Natural language processing is one of them and the difference between a digital brain and one made of meat is the other. A meat brain is more like gently caress loads of processors running in parallel, it turns out, and brains are capable of rewiring themselves. Computers are not. Whereas a computer has specific cores you can tell apart a meat brain's "cores" are not clearly separated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever see people manage to say absolutely nothing in multiple paragraphs quite like a startup talking about itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That is the future of technology, and arguably it's already started to happen with computers right now. In the future, computers will be appliances like microwaves or refrigerators - maybe they cost a reasonable amount, but they're very simple and closed off to the general consumer. When it breaks, you either hire a specialist to fix it or buy a new one. This scares people for some reason. The specialist you hired to fix your car or refrigerator isn't going to find multiple GB of your weird fetish porn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Eh, I've been PC gaming since Windows 3.1, and at least since Quake, there was a 2 year PC upgrade cycle to keep up with the most recent games, but my last computer was 4 years, and this one's been 4 years so far with no plans to upgrade My last computer I had for...like 7 or 8 years I think. Ran everything fine. I replaced the video card once and it didn't run games at as pretty a level as a newer box but it worked. The only reason it got replaced was because it died.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Startup Promising Cash For Weddings Pivots To Crowdfunding Platform, Infuriates Couples Who the hell thought that that would be a good idea at all? I get that most marriages end in divorce but unless people are betting over double what they're getting loaned that business is guaranteed to fail right out the gate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Why do investors keep believing that social media is somehow profitable? Facebook and MySpace made tons of money at one point. People like to talk to each other. Everybody uses social media these days (well, almost everybody). It's way easier to create some new social space than it is to create something that solves an actual problem. It's a bunch of people following the path of least resistance and expecting to be Zuckerberg some day. Social media is profitable if you do it right but the other snag is that it's coming out that internet advertisement isn't as profitable or as effective as people thought it was. It's also absurdly over-saturated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Things like YouTube Red show how far advertising has fallen as a revenue source. I'm not in the field, but offering users the chance to pay to opt out of ads seems like it would really reduce the value of your advertising. I think "people who are willing and able to pay for a premium, recurring online service" are a group that almost every advertiser wants to reach, and buying advertising that specifically excludes that group sounds like a bad idea. One of the issues with internet advertising that has existed as long as internet advertising is that it can become obnoxious as hell. This is why stuff like ad blockers exist; there is just this nonstop attempt to cram adverts in your face as often as possible in ways that force you to pay attention to them. Then malware started sneaking in and people got extremely annoyed. Angry, even; so now people are saying "I don't want to deal with this poo poo" but you just can't provide everything for free. Money has to come from somewhere because the people actually making things and maintaining the servers would like to pay their rent and eat this week, thank you very loving much. It also, top to bottom, involves programmers and programmers are not cheap to hire. There is still a ton of inertia behind the "everything should just be provided absolutely free because you should do this because you love it not for the money" idea but that's also kind of dying off; the music industry is especially seeing this. People just plain don't want to become musicians anymore because the musicians don't get paid. It can take many, many years of blood, sweat, toil, and making other people money while you live in crushing, extreme poverty before you have even the slightest chance of Making It. Other areas of the world want it to be like that from the business standpoint. HuffPo just started getting fire because they're not paying writers. Spec work is running rampant and people have been uploading copyrighted stuff to YouTube, Vimeo, and the like for as long as they've existed. Content creators are started to shift toward "no gently caress you, pay me" as it became increasingly apparent that everybody was expecting them to perform and create completely free without even offering to cover their expenses. Advertisements were a kind of, sort of answer to that but that was a house of cards from the get go. This is a fundamental problem of the internet; somebody, somewhere is probably offering whatever you want for free so why bothering to pay for it? Software and the games industry are seeing this too and trying to shift things but there's that question; why pay for a game you can just get off of a torrent? gently caress the game industry, bunch of greedy fuckers that just want to swim in pools full of Benjamins. Ignoring that Codey McCompscigrad programming the games lives in a $2,000 closet and has $50,000 of student loans to pay off. If the company he works for doesn't make any money because nobody is willing to pay for games he doesn't get a paycheck and the company folds. What the internet in general wants is something that it literally can't have. The internet wants everything for free, all the time, forever but that can't keep up. One major issue that web dev unicorns are running into is that they're all ticking time bombs. You can't offer free poo poo or poo poo below cost forever. It's impossible but that seems to be the business model a lot of the time. It becomes worse when you have fat cat investors saying "I want X% return on this investment, guaranteed." Everybody is demanding things from the tech sector that are literally impossible in the long term. Short term these things are being promised but when the piper wants paid there's an empty bag and the question of "well gently caress, now what?" It turns out that there are people willing to pay for premium, no adverts, easy to use services but then you get into issues like the utterly random content available on NetFlix and Hulu. Even if you pay sometimes you end up finding that torrents are the only place to actually get what you want. Even if you're actively trying to give people money sometimes pirating it is, in fact, the best option.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Armani posted:Can someone explain to me how something like Etsy works with it being almost entirely knock off fanart stuff? The quality isn't the factor but licensing and intellectual properties. How is that place not sued into oblivion by someone like Nintendo? Etsy isn't selling anything. The people using Etsy to sell things are. That's actually one of the sticking points of the internet right now; from a legal standpoint you have to have a certain amount of policing (look at, say, YouTube) but the hosting service doesn't do anything illegal but not checking everything. If somebody says "hey take this copyrighted thing I own down" they have to but because Etsy is not the one putting it up they can just shrug and say "well you know, there's millions of things on here, we can't look at all of them." Which is actually where the legality of the internet is kind of still being sorted out and why I mentioned the inertia of "gently caress you, everything is free" going on. Why pay for legit stuff from the creators when you can get knock offs way cheaper? Sticking it to the man that way, right? ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I feel like unrealistic investor expectations, greed, and the exponential growth of executive salaries has doomed even traditional companies that sell real physical goods. I work for a company that has gutted its corporate staff over the last ten years to remain profitable, and now we're hitting the point where people's jobs are being threatened if we can't sell 'services' because continued growth is unsustainable via only selling retail goods. It's actually dooming the entire economy, in the end. Even Goldman Sachs recently was like "yeah uh, guys? We can't keep this up forever."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Tech, because they made the finance people that much worse/more powerful. Yeeaaah people who want to get really angry should read about high frequency trading.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:drat. I shoulda known it already existed...that's ok, it's ok. Ummm... here. The joke "there's an app for that" exists for a reason. There's probably some oddball startup or another that's already started an app for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Holyshoot posted:Don't people like her love being ceo? So parachuting off into the sunset with her gold wouldn't be her thing. And ending yahoo on a bad note would hurt her chances at being ceo of another big company no? I think people like that mostly just like having comical amounts of money and being guaranteed to get more. That's the problem with stuff like golden parachutes; doesn't matter what happens in the end she still gets paid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I just want to understand why CEOs are held to such low standards of accountability. They are quite literally less materially responsible for their actions than a call center rep, in many large orgs. Why would you accept this as a board member? Probably because the board has similarly low levels of accountability and are looking to get payouts for it. I'm going to guess that she's good at cutting costs and increasing dividends or something like that. This is not a class that is playing by the same rules as the rest of us; short term gains are all that matters and it's totally fine to burn a company down and pillage it if you're getting hundreds of millions of dollars out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is stack ranking and equivalent bellcurve-based employment metrics a means to this sort of raiding practice? Stack ranking is apparently more or less the same as grading a class on a curve. It's stupid because if you have 100 students and they're all understanding the material and doing A-level work they should all get A's. But a curve requires that you fail some of them whether or not they deserve it. It also puts them in competition with each other. One of the weird things about the tech sector is that libertarianism and "more competition is always good" are ideas that caught hold. Companies are deliberately pitting employees against each other by implementing these sorts of policies. The idea is that you encourage good work by rewarding your top performers which, really, is a fine idea but the way these companies are implementing it has led to situations where people deliberately sabotage each other rather than try to be the best. Amazon apparently has nasty, nasty culture that people tend to just run away from because of that kind of idea. It's absurd because if you had the best 100 programmers in the world on a project you would be required to fire a certain number of them in that kind of system but like...if you have the best 100 programmers in the world why the gently caress would you fire any of them? That's my understanding of it, anyway. In the case of corporate raiding it's a good way to reduce costs by eliminating people and telling everybody it's their own fault they got fired because, hey, if they wanted to not get fired they'd work harder to get ranked better, right? It's also a way to squeeze productivity out of people. Bob works 70 hours a week. You want to be the best performer? Well do more than Bob. Stay for 71. Oh by the way Sandy decided to stay 90 to get the top rank. Beat that, pleb. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Holyshoot posted:Are these people all extremely smart? And then pair that with being rich after PayPal means the world is their playground? Like how do you found so many popular successful companies? Like what sets them apart from your average smart Google engineer or w/e else takes intelligence to work at but is more of a cog type job? From the looks of things they were in the right place at the right time and now pay people smarter than they are to make more things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Industry leadership is incestuous mess. That's true of business in general and has been for centuries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Arguably that's a major reason why it functions. Easier to do business with someone you interact with a bunch. It's also easier to price fix, hand around preferential treatment, collude to keep prices high and wages low, and gently caress over everybody else. The 19th century was god awful for this stuff and was part of why it sucked for pretty much anybody that wasn't rich going into it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:There actually is. The wealthy are sitting on a lot of money and there is only a limited number of "good" investments. So every rich fucker dogpiles onto things which show a slight possibility of return, driving up the prices until the price is incredibly out of balance with the risk. Repeat. The irony is that it's the riches fault they can't suck anything more out of the blood funnel in the first place. They already own everything but they keep screaming "MORE MORE MORE"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Are you kidding me? If she was getting paid and not getting yelled at for doing nothing that sounds like the perfect job. Some people go insane if they don't have things to do but have to be in specific places for specific periods of time. Go try to spend eight hours sitting somewhere doing literally nothing. Imagine doing it for multiple days a week. It's crazy. Yeah maybe you can find poo poo to do but when it comes to a job somebody is going to notice that you just read Wikipedia every day for eight hours. Then it's like "why do you do this?" to which you say "nobody gives me anything to do." Then you might get "then you find things to do!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:When a company is obviously in bad straits, it's the good people who leave; the bad people don't have alternatives and stay. And, of course, the good people who believe in loyalty. Company loyalty is one thing that's confused me. I used to suffer from that until I realized that a company would dumb your rear end to the curb for all sorts of incredibly stupid reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of people don't like uprooting everything every few years, even though that's the prevailing trend these days. I get that but that's not company loyalty specifically but rather "the only things I have offers for are places other than here." Yeah moving sucks no matter what; I've done it...I think 20 times in my life so far but that's a practical concern rather than company loyalty. Because, well... Arsenic Lupin posted:the problem is the day you realize that you made sacrifices for it, but it will make none for you. American businesses are profit machines. You are valuable to them only as long as you generate profit. If you stop your days are numbered. If the business is failing then the executives are going to be busy crafting golden parachutes for themselves, holding the business together only long enough to do so. The business and its executives don't care about you and never will. They'll take every sacrifice you're willing to give, every hour you're willing to work, and every bit of productivity they can squeeze from you. They'll give back only the bare minimum it takes to keep you there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
The biggest problem is that you don't get competent programmers for cheap. Programmers are expensive to hire but programming is a slow, difficult thing pretty much no matter how you slice it. Everybody wants veteran coders but not many places are willing to pay to develop new veteran coders.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Nope. Everybody wants programmers with >3 <10 years of experience. Once you're over 50 Silicon Valley doesn't want you, with rare exceptions. (This has made multiple newspapers.) That's the part that confuses me the most, honestly; I have a CS degree and did very, very well in college. I even studied math and design so I was more than just a CS major. I'm all like "I have several skills!" but every single position I see up anywhere is senior this, experienced that. I send in resumes anyway but I get returns of absolute silence or rejections. I can pass code tests, I can explain things beyond what the expect of a standard CS major, I can point to things I've done... But it's always "do you have three year's experience? No? Then go away." It's like...if nobody wants to let you get experience then you don't get experienced employees. I also keep seeing "go study tech!" everywhere. "There are hundreds of thousands of job openings! There aren't enough developers!" but 90% of the positions are companies trying to snipe each others' talent rather than letting a new guy enter the industry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is common in any STEM field that doesn't require grad school for meaningful employment. It's why the conspiracy theories about people wanting STEM graduates to push down STEM wages always ring kind of hollow to me. Even if that was the intent, they hosed up massively in actually getting those graduates to market. Really I think that's another major issue; not everybody in school realizes just how important internships are. A lot are just focused on getting from enrollment to graduation without starving. Some may just plain not be able to do an internship for some reason or another.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yes. That totally sucks. The deal used to be (decades ago) that companies hired inexperienced employees, they trained them, and then the employees stayed for several years afterward. Then companies stopped being loyal to their employees, and the employees returned the favor. The other catch you're dealing with is that companies are starting to look at new programmers' github checkins on open-source projects and prefer those pre-tested coders. The ability to donate time to open source is also a luxury item, of course. And yet at every single job I've ever had the boss has complained about employee turnaround, nobody liking their jobs, and how we need to be loyal to the company. While knowing full well that anybody that's been there a decade and is actually making non-terrible wages has crosshairs on them and will be fired at the slightest provocation. Management would often be actively looking for excuses to fire anybody that had been there for a long time so they could replace them with a new, cheaper employee. Experience got you slightly better than starting when you inevitably moved somewhere else but you had to take a pay cut and repeat the cycle. Then the companies actively screwing their employees demanded higher morale because I guess it's the work force's fault that they get unhappy when you pay them starvation wages and dick them over any way you can get away with. What I think some people fail to realize is that they'd do the same to programmers and computer science people if given the chance. The only reason they can't right now is because the demand for programmers is so high right now, especially good ones but even then if you try to pay somebody who could get $160K somewhere half that then you bet your rear end they'll have no loyalty. Create a situation where an employee's best option is to actively court your competitors, bounce around, and only get promotions/major raises when they jump ship you can bet your rear end they won't be loyal. Then you get into the fact that HR needs more people to track all this crap and go through resumes, recruiters expect to be paid, and job-hunting websites don't work free and...yeah. I get that businesses by default want to reduce their expenses as much as possible but in this case it seems like they're just shooting themselves in the foot. Arsenic Lupin posted:Again, not everybody can afford to go to the big name colleges. Yeeeaaaah and I think that's another issue; I didn't go to CMU or MIT or anything but I can sit down and show people that I am, in fact, a decent (if inexperienced...I graduated in December) programmer but even getting first interviews for anything at all is hard. The school I went to had a pretty well-rated program for CS but it wasn't one of Those Schools so I don't have recruiters banging down my door. The primary reason I went where I did was lack of choice; it was local, it was cheap, and I could commute. Did the best I could given the situation but now I'm all "hey can I have a job please? I can write code." So far the answer has been "lolnope go away stupid, broke noob." The costs to get to the right school and the right internship while living in the right area to get a tech job is just plain out of reach to gently caress loads of people. I think simple statistics is also fouling things up; you have just plain fewer people with the resources to go big in tech. How does a poor kid afford CMU, an internship 3,000 miles away, and then moving to California? They don't. That's how. Doesn't matter how bright the kid is; he can be completely hammered by his situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is seemingly happening in every industry now I've seen programming jobs described as "entry-level" that required a decade of experience in a variety of technologies, a master's degree, and previous experience in more than one field. That is not entry level by any stretch of the phrase. That's something that's been going on for a while though and is coupled with the "everybody goes to college now" thing. The cost of job training gets shunted off to the workers while the business goes "yay more profit!" With the student loan crisis you end up mandating that literal teenagers gamble with their futures if they want to even have a future in the first place. Mix in some stagnating wages on top of rampant youth unemployment and you have the shitstorm of a century.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The most hilarious one I ever saw was one that required 5 years' Java experience ... even though Java had only existed for three years, and that's if you count Oak. It would make sense if it was more like people looking at their current career and wanting a change. Like "yeah I have 20 years experience doing X but I decided I hated doing X so I'm here to do Y instead. Yes I know it pays less" but the banks just had to accidentally the whole economy. So it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why are sob stories relevant to corporate recruiting? There are plenty of poor people that do manage to get into these schools and do well. Maybe these costs mean that students on the margins won't get be able to go, but most top universities have stellar financial aid. Bullshit. Most poor people can't even get into college due to their situations. From the rung of the ladder I started on I got extraordinarily lucky to get in at all. The only way I could do it was to take a mountain of debt even though I went to a public school. Now that college is becoming increasingly profit-driven it's just getting more and more expensive every year. Yeah, some poor folks get to go to good schools but they're the exception rather than the rule. To many, many poor folks "get a college degree" is an insurmountable obstacle. Poor kids also may not have easy access to SAT prep or a non-lovely high school in the first place which just further reduces their potential to go to college.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Then the question for a poor kid is, OK great, you got through college! Now what? One thing that so many non-poor people take for granted is having a place to crash if you don't find a job right away or being able to move a long distance to accept a job. If you can leave all your stuff at your parents place and get them to help you pay for the move you have something the poor kids don't. Not everybody has parents that can let you crash there for nine months while you job hunt. Being poor has some harsh realities that non-poor people don't even know exist. "Well just move to the bay area!" Yeah, good luck with that if you're 2,500 miles away and only have $75.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 06:54
|
|