What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last year(computerworld.com)
computerworld.com
What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last year
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245494/What_STEM_shortage_Electrical_engineering_lost_35_000_jobs_last_year?source=rss_keyword_edpicks&google_editors_picks=true
13 comments
10 or 20 years ago that electronic lock likely would have used a microcontroller too. The difference is that 10 or 20 years ago it was quite possibly the same person who designed the circuit that wrote the firmware. Back then the firmware might have been 512 bytes of machine code that required deep knowledge of the hardware. These days the firmware quite possibly includes Linux...
I was an "Embedded Systems Engineer" (EE/CS combination) for almost 20 years, but as the hardware systems became more and more commodity, I ended up spending more and more time on software. I still do occasional uC projects via my consultancy, but my FTE has been software-only since 2001.
An interesting aside is that I think the type of software I'm writing benefits from having a deeper knowledge of the underlying hardware.
An interesting aside is that I think the type of software I'm writing benefits from having a deeper knowledge of the underlying hardware.
The article says there were only 19,000 net new software jobs and unemployment in that category remains high.
I have revised how I phrased this post:
I am confused as to the methodology by which IEEE extracted that conclusion from BLS data. On noticing my confusion, I attempted to verify every number in the article. I have just spent an hour with OES data from 2012 and 2011, since I believe the IEEE was looking at the 2012 data released in 2013 rather than the 2013 data which be released later this year.
I remain confused as to how to generate any number that the IEEE has quoted in this article.
I have considered the possibility that the IEEE has accessed to unpublished data from the BLS for 2013. However, if I interpret the numbers they are quoting as from 2013 with the delta from the year previous, I am unable to reproduce the BLS' numbers from 2012.
I am confused by the magnitude of the discrepancy. For example, the IEEE claims that "The number of employed software developers, the largest IT occupation segment, increased by only 1.75%, to 1.1 million, a gain of 19,000." I have difficulty reconciling this with the BLS numbers from 2012, which report that employment in that segment is 1,397,780. The one-year gain in that segment is, according to the BLS, over 100,000 jobs, again assuming that we're looking at 2011 to 2012.
I have taken the liberty of repeating the analysis while intentionally making several easy processing mistakes in interpreting the 2012 data, for example looking at the numbers for only the private sector. I have not yet found any combination of data sources or mistakes which produces the numbers the IEEE is claiming.
I am confused as to the methodology by which IEEE extracted that conclusion from BLS data. On noticing my confusion, I attempted to verify every number in the article. I have just spent an hour with OES data from 2012 and 2011, since I believe the IEEE was looking at the 2012 data released in 2013 rather than the 2013 data which be released later this year.
I remain confused as to how to generate any number that the IEEE has quoted in this article.
I have considered the possibility that the IEEE has accessed to unpublished data from the BLS for 2013. However, if I interpret the numbers they are quoting as from 2013 with the delta from the year previous, I am unable to reproduce the BLS' numbers from 2012.
I am confused by the magnitude of the discrepancy. For example, the IEEE claims that "The number of employed software developers, the largest IT occupation segment, increased by only 1.75%, to 1.1 million, a gain of 19,000." I have difficulty reconciling this with the BLS numbers from 2012, which report that employment in that segment is 1,397,780. The one-year gain in that segment is, according to the BLS, over 100,000 jobs, again assuming that we're looking at 2011 to 2012.
I have taken the liberty of repeating the analysis while intentionally making several easy processing mistakes in interpreting the 2012 data, for example looking at the numbers for only the private sector. I have not yet found any combination of data sources or mistakes which produces the numbers the IEEE is claiming.
The general form of Patrick's point is that the BLS employment statistics don't always map to our common-sense understanding of terms like "engineering" or "software" jobs. So if you want to really understand what's going on, you have to dig into the definitions and how the data is gathered.
An example that received some discussion on HN last year was the employment numbers for the movie industry. Since many (most?) people who work on movies are technically independent contractors working under contract, they are not "employees" and therefore not included in some measures of film industry "employment".
An example that received some discussion on HN last year was the employment numbers for the movie industry. Since many (most?) people who work on movies are technically independent contractors working under contract, they are not "employees" and therefore not included in some measures of film industry "employment".
Actually, the article says the rate for software developers is 2.7%, and is referred to as "elevated."
Would it be fair to say that some percentage of that percentage probably aren't qualified to find work as developers, and that contributes to the elevated number?
Would it be fair to say that some percentage of that percentage probably aren't qualified to find work as developers, and that contributes to the elevated number?
Based on my experience interviewing at 3 separate software companies, I think that's fair to say.
Looking at any shortage by the number of applicants or job-seekers assumes that the bulk of the applicants are qualified to do the work.
This is not even remotely true in practice. A large proportion (over 50%, honestly) of the developers I've interviewed in my life can't tell the difference between a tree and an array, much less apply them intelligently. The majority cannot articulate the performance and storage differences between arrays and hash tables. These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.
Without excluding this massive, massive pool of yahoos, I don't think the statistics here are ultimately that meaningful.
Looking at any shortage by the number of applicants or job-seekers assumes that the bulk of the applicants are qualified to do the work.
This is not even remotely true in practice. A large proportion (over 50%, honestly) of the developers I've interviewed in my life can't tell the difference between a tree and an array, much less apply them intelligently. The majority cannot articulate the performance and storage differences between arrays and hash tables. These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.
Without excluding this massive, massive pool of yahoos, I don't think the statistics here are ultimately that meaningful.
> These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.
That seems like a very strong assertion. I don't have formal CS/data structures training; I've read about all of these structures in the past but probably wouldn't be able to answer your questions about them to the level you seem to expect. (I could tell the difference between a tree and an array, because they look different, but frankly I have no idea where it would make sense to use a tree; they aren't offered as a native type in any of the languages I use day-to-day and I've never missed them. I know a bit about the difference between arrays and hash tables because it's one of the most common criticisms of PHP, but again; to the extent that I use PHP--and I avoid it like the plague--their implementation of "arrays" using hash tables has never once affected me. It is the least shitty part of that language.)
So anyway, I confess my ignorance. And I'm very open to learning more about the structures you're talking about (seriously). But I (and many of the programmers I know) have been successfully writing programs that work for people who want it (and gladly pay for it) for a relatively long time without meeting your most basic qualifications.
That seems like a very strong assertion. I don't have formal CS/data structures training; I've read about all of these structures in the past but probably wouldn't be able to answer your questions about them to the level you seem to expect. (I could tell the difference between a tree and an array, because they look different, but frankly I have no idea where it would make sense to use a tree; they aren't offered as a native type in any of the languages I use day-to-day and I've never missed them. I know a bit about the difference between arrays and hash tables because it's one of the most common criticisms of PHP, but again; to the extent that I use PHP--and I avoid it like the plague--their implementation of "arrays" using hash tables has never once affected me. It is the least shitty part of that language.)
So anyway, I confess my ignorance. And I'm very open to learning more about the structures you're talking about (seriously). But I (and many of the programmers I know) have been successfully writing programs that work for people who want it (and gladly pay for it) for a relatively long time without meeting your most basic qualifications.
You're overestimating the level I expect.
When I say that someone can't tell the difference between an array and a tree, I really mean someone does not know what a tree is. The number of interviews I've conducted where the candidate has heard of trees before, but cannot articulate, even in a basic way, what they are, is depressing.
To be more clear, the basic level I'm expecting is "it's a way to store data, where one object has children objects, which in turn have children objects", or something along that theme. Really, if you articulate in some way that it's stuff pointing to other stuff, you're already further along than half the people I've interviewed.
A lot of people can't even get that far.
These questions aren't designed to defeat you, they're questions that have depth so that you can get some idea about the candidate's level of understanding of data structures. Once you get past "it's an object with children" we can go deeper - what is the complexity of fetching an object out of a tree? What of sorting? Disadvantages and advantages in application? Cycle detection? All of these are nice to haves - but the basic requirement is that you have to know what a tree is.
When I say that someone can't tell the difference between an array and a tree, I really mean someone does not know what a tree is. The number of interviews I've conducted where the candidate has heard of trees before, but cannot articulate, even in a basic way, what they are, is depressing.
To be more clear, the basic level I'm expecting is "it's a way to store data, where one object has children objects, which in turn have children objects", or something along that theme. Really, if you articulate in some way that it's stuff pointing to other stuff, you're already further along than half the people I've interviewed.
A lot of people can't even get that far.
These questions aren't designed to defeat you, they're questions that have depth so that you can get some idea about the candidate's level of understanding of data structures. Once you get past "it's an object with children" we can go deeper - what is the complexity of fetching an object out of a tree? What of sorting? Disadvantages and advantages in application? Cycle detection? All of these are nice to haves - but the basic requirement is that you have to know what a tree is.
Cool, okay that sounds pretty reasonable. Although I've successfully interviewed candidates without even asking them about trees, and they turned out just fine. I think there is a general tendency (and I don't intend to make assumptions about your specific case) towards overestimating the level of computer science knowledge required to crank out operational code for 99% of programming jobs. I think it's important for teams to have that knowledge within them, but not necessarily replicated through every individual member. (I know, I know, "A players" and all that... but the best teams I've known or been a part of, in programming or otherwise, had a couple of A players and a lot of B's who had the potential to be A's.)
EDIT: I'm more distressed by the number of applicants I've come across who've never written an SQL query, or have no idea what a database schema should look like (never mind noSQL stuff). I generally prefer working with programmers who understand and appreciate big picture design principles over the ones who sweat the details (because in my experience the former are usually able to pick up details pretty quickly, while the latter are not always able to appreciate the big picture design decisions being made) but in bigger teams there is presumably room/requirement for both types.
EDIT: I'm more distressed by the number of applicants I've come across who've never written an SQL query, or have no idea what a database schema should look like (never mind noSQL stuff). I generally prefer working with programmers who understand and appreciate big picture design principles over the ones who sweat the details (because in my experience the former are usually able to pick up details pretty quickly, while the latter are not always able to appreciate the big picture design decisions being made) but in bigger teams there is presumably room/requirement for both types.
How do you know SQL and not know what a tree is ? How about we ask a simple SQL design question that you can't answer without knowing about the datastructures : what operations does an index accelerate, and which are unaffected and why ... How do you answer that without using the word hashmap/hashtable ?
It is entirely possible to use a database without understanding its internals. Look, I'm not encouraging incompetence--not by a long shot--I'm just challenging the assertion that everyone who "writes code" (the words 'potatolicious used, which started this sub-thread) needs to have the same knowledge base.
I've worked with a lot of academics who write code for math and stats without any real computer science knowledge (including no more than a rudimentary understanding of the most basic data structures). I have a business mentor who makes millions of dollars with a piece of legacy web software he wrote himself--I'm certain he could tell you that certain fields are indexed in the DB because the SQL performs better that way, but I doubt he would use the word hashmap/hashtable at all and that doesn't undermine his credibility in my eyes one bit. I have friends who write embedded code all day but couldn't write an SQL query to save their life; that is obviously fine for what they do, and it doesn't make them any worse of a programmer.
My example in the parent comment was obviously relating to web programmers, where the necessity of being able to write a usable SQL query is of far greater importance than the ability to explain how the database is actually executing that query. All I'm saying is that if we are able to deflate our own self-importance just a little bit (and accept the idea that the role of an employer might also be to act as a mentor), suddenly the pool of qualified applicants becomes bigger.
I've worked with a lot of academics who write code for math and stats without any real computer science knowledge (including no more than a rudimentary understanding of the most basic data structures). I have a business mentor who makes millions of dollars with a piece of legacy web software he wrote himself--I'm certain he could tell you that certain fields are indexed in the DB because the SQL performs better that way, but I doubt he would use the word hashmap/hashtable at all and that doesn't undermine his credibility in my eyes one bit. I have friends who write embedded code all day but couldn't write an SQL query to save their life; that is obviously fine for what they do, and it doesn't make them any worse of a programmer.
My example in the parent comment was obviously relating to web programmers, where the necessity of being able to write a usable SQL query is of far greater importance than the ability to explain how the database is actually executing that query. All I'm saying is that if we are able to deflate our own self-importance just a little bit (and accept the idea that the role of an employer might also be to act as a mentor), suddenly the pool of qualified applicants becomes bigger.
> Claims of shortages of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) workers "have no support in fact and no connection to reality, "
Have to say that's the evidence I find in much of the developed West. I watched a program in the UK last night where they were flouting the Government encouraged idea that over 100K new STEM graduates were needed a year - many of my friends leaving University with STEM degrees or thinking of enrolling on such degrees haven't bothered because job creation at that scale doesn't exist.
With outsourcing and offshoring by the bucketload it's refreshing for this Ron Hira guy to point out the reality for many.
Added link to summary of TV program if anyone is interested: http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain-back-i...
Have to say that's the evidence I find in much of the developed West. I watched a program in the UK last night where they were flouting the Government encouraged idea that over 100K new STEM graduates were needed a year - many of my friends leaving University with STEM degrees or thinking of enrolling on such degrees haven't bothered because job creation at that scale doesn't exist.
With outsourcing and offshoring by the bucketload it's refreshing for this Ron Hira guy to point out the reality for many.
Added link to summary of TV program if anyone is interested: http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain-back-i...
I think that many of the powers that be in the UK are very wary of a manufacturing economy. I suspect they equate it with an organised labour movement and that was part of the ideology behind the push for a post-industrial economy in the 1980's.
I always found the idea of a post-industrial economy rather perplexing as it relies on the idea that we can design and manage the manufacturing of the rest of the world, but the skills required to do that are dependent on having manufacturing experience, which will die out in a generation without an industrial base in which to get the required skills.
I always found the idea of a post-industrial economy rather perplexing as it relies on the idea that we can design and manage the manufacturing of the rest of the world, but the skills required to do that are dependent on having manufacturing experience, which will die out in a generation without an industrial base in which to get the required skills.
"very wary of a manufacturing economy"
Like the US, the UK still manufactures loads of stuff - it's just there aren't many people employed doing it and it's a much smaller percentage of the economy than it used to be.
e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figure...
Like the US, the UK still manufactures loads of stuff - it's just there aren't many people employed doing it and it's a much smaller percentage of the economy than it used to be.
e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figure...
I think the govt is pushing STEM more out of a desire for its perceived competitive advantage than anything to do with today's job market
I think they have to push something and STEM is what the frontbench in Government perceive as cool - no doubt their management consultants concur! Plus they're struggling to sell financial services as a viable career at the moment - though that's another example of where jobs are flowing East.
The program I watched was also interesting as it followed HSBC who had brought call centre jobs back from India to the UK - what it failed to mention is that the higher paying STEM based jobs are moving (rapidly) in the opposite direction!
The program I watched was also interesting as it followed HSBC who had brought call centre jobs back from India to the UK - what it failed to mention is that the higher paying STEM based jobs are moving (rapidly) in the opposite direction!
> Plus they're struggling to sell financial services as a viable career at the moment - though that's another example of where jobs are flowing East.
FinServ is a great target for offshoring, even better than software IMO. The tasks are more rote/routine and well defined which makes it much easier to send it to a cheap team in India. The big concern is the competitive advantage of the information but if you just work as a clearinghouse then it's not as big of a deal since the information is not proprietary.
A friend of mine works at a financial research offshoring company and they were just acquired by Moody's.
FinServ is a great target for offshoring, even better than software IMO. The tasks are more rote/routine and well defined which makes it much easier to send it to a cheap team in India. The big concern is the competitive advantage of the information but if you just work as a clearinghouse then it's not as big of a deal since the information is not proprietary.
A friend of mine works at a financial research offshoring company and they were just acquired by Moody's.
It seems to me that the true motive behind talk of a supposed STEM "shortage" is to flood the market with new STEM workers in order to drive down labor costs (i.e. wages).
The problem is not that STEM workers can't be found, it's that they can't be found for the wages business owners want to pay. And what they want to pay for skilled labor will always be: "less".
The problem is not that STEM workers can't be found, it's that they can't be found for the wages business owners want to pay. And what they want to pay for skilled labor will always be: "less".
I was just going to post the same thing. Here where I live, there's many unemployed engineers, with the situation only going to get worse (engineering still the most popular degree).
The reason STEM is pushed is the same reason the US has the H-1B visa - to drive down wages and increase labour supply in STEM fields...
The reason STEM is pushed is the same reason the US has the H-1B visa - to drive down wages and increase labour supply in STEM fields...
It also serves the purposes of universities and research institutions, providing them with more students to teach, as well as to serve as research assistance (a/k/a exceptionally cheap labor). The perverse incentives exist up and down the system.
It's one of the few areas of our modern economy that reads like it's straight out of Marx. It's straight up capital vs. labor.
And like Marx, it's bad economics. And actually it's not really as simple capital vs labor, but also includes a component of US based labor vs "take rrrr jooooobs" foreign labor.
[deleted]
Are you implying that workers shouldn't have national interests? You appear to be snorting at the idea as if it doesn't make obvious sense. Are you some sort of open borders weirdo? I mean, it was obvious to César Chávez that immigration hurt workers and he wanted it stopped.
> Are you some sort of open borders weirdo
Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or what their passport says.
Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of labor to go around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people.
Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or what their passport says.
Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of labor to go around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people.
I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties. The value of the latter must be taken seriously. Jonathan Haidt has excellent research on how a substantial fraction of people appear to be congenitally blind to these concerns.
> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people
The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965 immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more foreigners in that time.
> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people
The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965 immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more foreigners in that time.
> the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965
Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...
> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties.
I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly, but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.
Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...
> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties.
I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly, but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.
American involvement in WWII destroyed a massive amount of wealth and lowered living standards for years. It was a huge set back, and I don't know why you'd seem to be implying otherwise.
> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become
A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?
> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become
A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?
That doesn't hold water when workers work for companies with foreign customers. One way or another, you're competing with foreign engineers: if they can't work for US companies, they'll work for their local companies in the same markets. For example, Google is now practically the global search engine, but it's an American company making tons of money off foreign users. If only American developers were allowed to work at Google, it's possible many more country-specific search engines would pop up (many already exist, but they're not as popular).
And it's nevertheless the best argument we have. You see, capitalism would suggest the price of any product goes down to the marginal cost. That means the price paid for labour should be just barely above subsistence.
Do you want to live like that ? If the answer is no, you must find a way to avoid it, and not being an "open borders weirdo" is one of the more common suggestions.
Do you want to live like that ? If the answer is no, you must find a way to avoid it, and not being an "open borders weirdo" is one of the more common suggestions.
My father in law is an EE. He was forced out of his job a few years ago (in his mid fifties). From what it sounds like, many of his similarly aged coworkers face the same treatment - if you don't hit a certain level of management by the time you're middle aged, promotion paths become closed to you and eventually you become marginalized, because there are so many new graduates coming in willing to work for close to half of what the experienced EEs command for salary.
He wasn't able to find another EE position, except at a small company as a part-time tester. He's retired now, mostly because he gave up trying to find fulfilling work.
He wasn't able to find another EE position, except at a small company as a part-time tester. He's retired now, mostly because he gave up trying to find fulfilling work.
So, I was at the park watching soccer. My friend introduces me to a "world famous neurosurgeon." We all talk and he says that he'd interested in giving her son (now in CS) an internship, and then something about not trusting a programmer over 40.
Now, the kicker is that the neurosurgeon is in his 60s.
I think he missed the implication that if programmers must stop by 40, but neurosurgeons can keep going and keep up into their 60s ... neurosurgery is easier than programming?
(I don't doubt that in all fields there are people who slack off, but also in all fields there are smart people who keep on learning. It is very sad that 50's engineers are exculded on the assumption that they are slackers.)
Now, the kicker is that the neurosurgeon is in his 60s.
I think he missed the implication that if programmers must stop by 40, but neurosurgeons can keep going and keep up into their 60s ... neurosurgery is easier than programming?
(I don't doubt that in all fields there are people who slack off, but also in all fields there are smart people who keep on learning. It is very sad that 50's engineers are exculded on the assumption that they are slackers.)
Is it the case that an EE with 30+ years of experience isn't much, much better at the job than a fresh grad?
Good, experienced EEs are worth 10 or more recent grads. Especially those that know RF and/or embedded programming. But then again I'm in a area that has a large number of EE's.
Not when you have MBAs making decisions, apparently.
I've heard that in most professions, experience is most relevant in the first two years, then stops being valuable after that, with intelligence and conscientiousness being more important.
I was a H1B before, and I can tell you that I was not paid less, if not more. Most of my H1B peers are well paid as far as I know, you can tell that by how fast they purchase the house and cars and start a STEM-professional new life in USA. The low-paid H1B steals good-quality-STEM-engineer-job theory does not hold water for me.
The STEM shortage is so true, while I agree outsourcing saves money, H1B are most often not, more likely, it's because the company can not hire the right STEM candidates and they have to go through the painful H1B hiring process, while paying for their very expensive immigration attorney bills to keep them.
More high-quality STEMs, less outsourcing, are the real solutions for a booming local job market. When we have more good STEMs locally, the H1B will become a non-issue.
The STEM shortage is so true, while I agree outsourcing saves money, H1B are most often not, more likely, it's because the company can not hire the right STEM candidates and they have to go through the painful H1B hiring process, while paying for their very expensive immigration attorney bills to keep them.
More high-quality STEMs, less outsourcing, are the real solutions for a booming local job market. When we have more good STEMs locally, the H1B will become a non-issue.
This is matter of statistics, not personal anecdote. All reporting on the matter I've seen indicate H1-Bs in IT earn sub native wages, and employers easily get around the rules to hire cheap foreigners.
Anyway, as a matter of national policy it's remarkably short sighted to import large numbers of skilled workers to a large nation like America. Can't people see that addressing any "shortage" this way perpetuates it? People have got the memo loud and clear: If you are a technical worker you are a fungible commodity of little status. Your prestige and earnings will be attacked with immigration policy, visas, and outsourcing. Why go in for this as a career if you have options? The most able will go elsewhere.
Anyway, as a matter of national policy it's remarkably short sighted to import large numbers of skilled workers to a large nation like America. Can't people see that addressing any "shortage" this way perpetuates it? People have got the memo loud and clear: If you are a technical worker you are a fungible commodity of little status. Your prestige and earnings will be attacked with immigration policy, visas, and outsourcing. Why go in for this as a career if you have options? The most able will go elsewhere.
The ugly truth is that, without H1B policy, the big corps will more likely do more outsourcing,which is worse.
I agree some big foreign IT agencies are hiring cheaper H1B, those are normally pure-software jobs, the EE/H1B looks different to me, in that, H1Bs are not cheap, if at all. I am EE.
I checked again and again, the college graduates here fail to do basic math is beyond imagination. I hope STEM can help to better that, in fact I'm leading a local math club as a volunteer to do just that.
> do more outsourcing,which is worse
Why would outsourcing be worse? The detailed analyses show that bringing people here has large costs externalized to tax payers. People use schools and when eligible chain-migrate low skill relatives.
If businesses feel the business environment the citizenry of America have built up is not worth the costs, well I'm fine with them choosing other places to operate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is import a new citizenry.
Why would outsourcing be worse? The detailed analyses show that bringing people here has large costs externalized to tax payers. People use schools and when eligible chain-migrate low skill relatives.
If businesses feel the business environment the citizenry of America have built up is not worth the costs, well I'm fine with them choosing other places to operate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is import a new citizenry.
In the long run, the engineers trained via outsourcing will become strong competitors, while USA have nothing to compete against then. USA can not have all the local graduates do architecture-design or marketing/project-management,that will doom the country soon or later.
Usually H1Bs' kids excel at school, and their parents pay tax on that. For their poor relatives to immigrate 22+ years later(roughly 5 year for greencard, 5 year for citizenship, 12 years for relative immigration waiting period), it's a immigration policy issue, however it's still all legal, at least 10X better than those who came here illegally.
Keep jobs local is vital, outsourcing R&D is so short-sighted, with more STEMs, H1B will be irrelavant.
Usually H1Bs' kids excel at school, and their parents pay tax on that. For their poor relatives to immigrate 22+ years later(roughly 5 year for greencard, 5 year for citizenship, 12 years for relative immigration waiting period), it's a immigration policy issue, however it's still all legal, at least 10X better than those who came here illegally.
Keep jobs local is vital, outsourcing R&D is so short-sighted, with more STEMs, H1B will be irrelavant.
And yet, if you read HN, most developers make over $100k and can find a new job that pays more overnight if their current employer does anything that offends them. What's the reality?
The reality is that there's a shortage of highly qualified STEM majors. As an ECE student, if I were to ask students in my major to code a linked list, or binary node tree, a good 25-50% would fail. And this is at a Top 10 program.
Coding one's own own data structures/routines for common data structures is probably suboptimizing. There are debugged modules available in most languages. Do students get an extra 10 points if they use a debugged tested solution from a library? e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6831231/should-programmer...
Yes, in production code you'd usually use a library implementation - although if you had specific requirements you would still need to build your own. That's beside the point though - any decent engineer should still understand how they work and be able to write a implementation of them fairly easily.
> Coding one's own own data structures/routines for common data structures is probably suboptimizing. There are debugged modules available in most languages.
But if you can't code common data structures on your own, you'll probably have trouble coding the more advanced data structure that you found a paper on describing (possibly described in part by replacing parts of a more common data structure) with some code, but not in your language of choice, that would be, from its description, far better than the common data structure for your problem, for which there is not a debugged library for your platform of choice.
But if you can't code common data structures on your own, you'll probably have trouble coding the more advanced data structure that you found a paper on describing (possibly described in part by replacing parts of a more common data structure) with some code, but not in your language of choice, that would be, from its description, far better than the common data structure for your problem, for which there is not a debugged library for your platform of choice.
You're describing an edge case. While certainly true, it doesn't represent the current needs of the job market or the realities of the industry.
I'm really having trouble with the notion, common on HN, that programmers don't need to understand or be able to code simple data structures. Hash tables, simple binary trees, and heaps are extremely basic computer science. You may never use a DIY binary tree container library, but if you can't comfortably write a binary tree or a heap, you won't be able to understand or implement advanced or domain-specific algorithms either.
This is a learning task that might take a competent developer all of 2-3 days. If you're rationalizing not figuring out how to write a heap or a hash table, consider asking yourself whether you actually want to be a developer. You might feel OK about what you're doing now, but a career spent redesigning unit test suites and coming up with ever- more- elaborate HTML templating schemes is unlikely to be fulfilling.
This is a learning task that might take a competent developer all of 2-3 days. If you're rationalizing not figuring out how to write a heap or a hash table, consider asking yourself whether you actually want to be a developer. You might feel OK about what you're doing now, but a career spent redesigning unit test suites and coming up with ever- more- elaborate HTML templating schemes is unlikely to be fulfilling.
I've expressed disagreement in another sub-thread with the idea that programmers need to understand or be able to code simple data structures, not because I think that knowledge is unimportant, but because "need" is a very strong word. (My previous objection was in the context of hiring--for 99% of CRUD web apps being built, the ability to use or implement a binary tree won't matter, and even when it does matter it won't need to matter for more than a few members of the team.)
It's very possible to make a positive programming contribution in a professional context (and in a wide variety of fields) without having ever implemented a hash table (I had not, before just now). Obviously it's more important in some contexts than others, and that's fine, but the suggestion that programmers who don't have that experience are not programmers or that they're incompetent programmers is nonsensical--the context in which they work makes the difference.
Now obviously, it's been a bit embarrassing making essentially this same post multiple times recently, so I just implemented a hash table and read a few sources for heaps and binary trees--yay! But this isn't rocket science--if I ever encounter data which doesn't conveniently fit in the basic structures available in my environment, I go find out what works (so, for example, I'm working on a project where I need to find the closest points in a data set according to Euclidian distance, and discovered that VP trees fit the bill).
It is entirely possible that the ability to synthesize a simple data structure is a valuable signal of programmer competence for people with a formal computer science education (because they were presumably taught and tested against that knowledge multiple times, and if they can't reproduce it afterwards they might be bad at learning) but my suspicion is that the implementation of domain-specific algorithms is more often limited by a lack of domain knowledge than a lack of CS knowledge.
It's very possible to make a positive programming contribution in a professional context (and in a wide variety of fields) without having ever implemented a hash table (I had not, before just now). Obviously it's more important in some contexts than others, and that's fine, but the suggestion that programmers who don't have that experience are not programmers or that they're incompetent programmers is nonsensical--the context in which they work makes the difference.
Now obviously, it's been a bit embarrassing making essentially this same post multiple times recently, so I just implemented a hash table and read a few sources for heaps and binary trees--yay! But this isn't rocket science--if I ever encounter data which doesn't conveniently fit in the basic structures available in my environment, I go find out what works (so, for example, I'm working on a project where I need to find the closest points in a data set according to Euclidian distance, and discovered that VP trees fit the bill).
It is entirely possible that the ability to synthesize a simple data structure is a valuable signal of programmer competence for people with a formal computer science education (because they were presumably taught and tested against that knowledge multiple times, and if they can't reproduce it afterwards they might be bad at learning) but my suspicion is that the implementation of domain-specific algorithms is more often limited by a lack of domain knowledge than a lack of CS knowledge.
> I'm really having trouble with the notion, common on HN, that programmers don't need to understand or be able to code simple data structures.
Well, do they? Being able to code simple data structures is not a pre-requisite to being paid to write code.
I can't base this statement on cold hard numbers, but I feel comfortable stating that the majority of dev positions in the world today do not require this particular skill set.
Thus : no, they (programmers) don't need to be able to understand or be able to code simple data structures.
If the inverse were true - namely, that a large percentage or majority of dev work required knowledge of and the ability to implement basic data structures - then you would be quite correct.
> You might feel OK about what you're doing now, but a career spent redesigning unit test suites and coming up with ever- more- elaborate HTML templating schemes is unlikely to be fulfilling.
That's a bit dismissive. Also, are you speaking generally or referring to me as an individual?
Well, do they? Being able to code simple data structures is not a pre-requisite to being paid to write code.
I can't base this statement on cold hard numbers, but I feel comfortable stating that the majority of dev positions in the world today do not require this particular skill set.
Thus : no, they (programmers) don't need to be able to understand or be able to code simple data structures.
If the inverse were true - namely, that a large percentage or majority of dev work required knowledge of and the ability to implement basic data structures - then you would be quite correct.
> You might feel OK about what you're doing now, but a career spent redesigning unit test suites and coming up with ever- more- elaborate HTML templating schemes is unlikely to be fulfilling.
That's a bit dismissive. Also, are you speaking generally or referring to me as an individual?
The realities of the industry would seem to be to write code that doesn't collapse under the slightest strain. In order to write code that doesn't fall down, or that does what it purports to do, the coder needs to understand how stuff works. If you don't understand how to build a linked list, or other common data structures, it is quite likely that you won't know how to use it. Or where it can go wrong. Or where it is not the correct thing to use.
The realities are more stark in our breach-infested world. Sloppily implemented systems put companies in the headlines.
Examples abound, not only with data structures, but also with algorithms. Someone who has written a compiler is far less likely, in my estimation, to try to "parse" a URL with a regular expression, with negative consequences. Someone who has written a hash table is less likely to be surprised when the insertion behavior ends up being n squared.
The realities are more stark in our breach-infested world. Sloppily implemented systems put companies in the headlines.
Examples abound, not only with data structures, but also with algorithms. Someone who has written a compiler is far less likely, in my estimation, to try to "parse" a URL with a regular expression, with negative consequences. Someone who has written a hash table is less likely to be surprised when the insertion behavior ends up being n squared.
You're describing the difference between a "good" and "bad" programmer. That's not at issue.
Are programmers better off having a deep working knowledge of data structures, algorithms, compiler & OS design? Sure.
Do they need to, in order to be (paid, professional) programmers? No.
Are programmers better off having a deep working knowledge of data structures, algorithms, compiler & OS design? Sure.
Do they need to, in order to be (paid, professional) programmers? No.
80/20
It's the edge cases that separate a good engineer from an average engineer. When that good engineer runs into that problem, he/she will solve it quickly and move on. An average engineer will spend days or weeks struggling with the solution -- costing lots of money and potentially delaying schedules.
It's the edge cases that separate a good engineer from an average engineer. When that good engineer runs into that problem, he/she will solve it quickly and move on. An average engineer will spend days or weeks struggling with the solution -- costing lots of money and potentially delaying schedules.
There was a post this week about a Ruby on Rails contractor who helped with a talent search. He didn't recommend people that didn't know what Ruby Gems were or what Active Record was... They got hired anyway.
Amazing. Another reason to still ask 'senior' developers a fizzbuzz type question.
Above is also the reason good (not great or rockstars) developers are in high demand and almost never on the open market. Once you work with people and vet yourself with other good developers, new jobs are usually just a phone call away.
Above is also the reason good (not great or rockstars) developers are in high demand and almost never on the open market. Once you work with people and vet yourself with other good developers, new jobs are usually just a phone call away.
Again, it depends on where you live and who you know.
Every job I have ever landed, I've had to go through the full HR rigamarole, from finding the posting through multiple rounds of interviews. I've never quite been able to make a friend--or even acquaintance--that has subsequently been able to backchannel me into a job. I've had several interviewers say directly that I appear to be one of the most technically qualified candidates they have, but after I walk out the door, I never hear another word from them again, not even to say they picked someone else.
The hiring system is broken. And the damage is at least in a load-bearing member, if not the foundation itself. There is no financial pressure for anyone capable of fixing it to actually do so. And so we suffer as entities with far more political experience glide smoothly among the sharks, depressing our wages today, and tomorrow, they quietly dismantle the dreams of young people passionate about our field.
It sickens me to the point that I feel like there are no good employers left in the U.S., in any field. I have no reason whatsoever to buy a house, befriend my neighbors, and invest in my local community, because at any moment my gracious employer (or their new owners) could decide to fire everyone and move out. That would leave me again in the position where I have to also move, just to find a job not quite as good as the one I just had.
And now that I am in one of the few locales recognized as a "tech center" in the U.S., I find that most of the jobs here are military-industrial complex tax-leeching jobs, where industry best practices are routinely ignored, because the primary goal of the contractor is to produce billable hours instead of permanent solutions, and the overseer-boss got his job via military good-ol'boy networking rather than having one inkling of competence.
What's the solution? I don't know. But making me retype my entire resume into your stupid web forms to better facilitate its automatic rejection for lack of required hidden keywords is completely antipodal to it.
Every job I have ever landed, I've had to go through the full HR rigamarole, from finding the posting through multiple rounds of interviews. I've never quite been able to make a friend--or even acquaintance--that has subsequently been able to backchannel me into a job. I've had several interviewers say directly that I appear to be one of the most technically qualified candidates they have, but after I walk out the door, I never hear another word from them again, not even to say they picked someone else.
The hiring system is broken. And the damage is at least in a load-bearing member, if not the foundation itself. There is no financial pressure for anyone capable of fixing it to actually do so. And so we suffer as entities with far more political experience glide smoothly among the sharks, depressing our wages today, and tomorrow, they quietly dismantle the dreams of young people passionate about our field.
It sickens me to the point that I feel like there are no good employers left in the U.S., in any field. I have no reason whatsoever to buy a house, befriend my neighbors, and invest in my local community, because at any moment my gracious employer (or their new owners) could decide to fire everyone and move out. That would leave me again in the position where I have to also move, just to find a job not quite as good as the one I just had.
And now that I am in one of the few locales recognized as a "tech center" in the U.S., I find that most of the jobs here are military-industrial complex tax-leeching jobs, where industry best practices are routinely ignored, because the primary goal of the contractor is to produce billable hours instead of permanent solutions, and the overseer-boss got his job via military good-ol'boy networking rather than having one inkling of competence.
What's the solution? I don't know. But making me retype my entire resume into your stupid web forms to better facilitate its automatic rejection for lack of required hidden keywords is completely antipodal to it.
I don't know Ruby, but I know what these things are from osmosis (running into them whilst searching for other things).
If you don't know what Ruby Gems or Active Record are, you've likely not touched any web technology in depth.
If you don't know what Ruby Gems or Active Record are, you've likely not touched any web technology in depth.
I'm fairly certain their career prospects don't hinge on whether or not they can perform a few job interview parlor tricks.
If I were to poll all my SE colleagues, present and former, and ask them when they last manually coded a linked list or b-tree - I can assure you the answer would not be "on a product we shipped".
If I were to poll all my SE colleagues, present and former, and ask them when they last manually coded a linked list or b-tree - I can assure you the answer would not be "on a product we shipped".
B-trees with augmented information are very fast, and I know of no generic augmented B-tree. So I've contributed to a program that shipped a custom augmented b-tree. I assume the same goes for other types of augmented data structures. Is that so rare ? Or do most people simply not know how/why to augment data structures ?
Depends where you live. Some places are tech hubs that are always craving new manpower, and some places are university towns without much private industry of their own, and some people have ties to an area.
I live in Hamilton (which is Canada's Pittsburgh). We've got a great STEM-oriented school here, and Waterloo (RIM's home) is only an hour away... it took a long time to find a job that didn't involve suffering through a two-hour commute in some of the most miserable traffic on the continent (Ontario's corporate tech-hub is Mississauga).
I live in Hamilton (which is Canada's Pittsburgh). We've got a great STEM-oriented school here, and Waterloo (RIM's home) is only an hour away... it took a long time to find a job that didn't involve suffering through a two-hour commute in some of the most miserable traffic on the continent (Ontario's corporate tech-hub is Mississauga).
I just moved to Hamilton!
Ontario is rough. Most job offers are in the range of 65-75k for 10+ years of experience and highly-specialized skills. The cost of housing and living in Toronto and surrounding regions has sky-rocketed in the last 10 years. And the traffic is terrible.
All of the STEM grads get shipped off to SF or the Valley. There are American recruiting agencies on the campus' of every major STEM-focused university in Canada and are at every job fair. The choice for these grads is pretty easy: stay here and make Wordpress themes for a social media marketing agency and get paid 35-45k or go work at Google/Twitter/Whatever and work with the best-of-breed tech, get paid 90k to start and be making 120-130k within a few years.
We could do better up here. The visa situation is much more permissive here and there are a plethora of grants and tax benefits for tech companies available. VCs are even finally starting to warm up a bit too.
Ontario is rough. Most job offers are in the range of 65-75k for 10+ years of experience and highly-specialized skills. The cost of housing and living in Toronto and surrounding regions has sky-rocketed in the last 10 years. And the traffic is terrible.
All of the STEM grads get shipped off to SF or the Valley. There are American recruiting agencies on the campus' of every major STEM-focused university in Canada and are at every job fair. The choice for these grads is pretty easy: stay here and make Wordpress themes for a social media marketing agency and get paid 35-45k or go work at Google/Twitter/Whatever and work with the best-of-breed tech, get paid 90k to start and be making 120-130k within a few years.
We could do better up here. The visa situation is much more permissive here and there are a plethora of grants and tax benefits for tech companies available. VCs are even finally starting to warm up a bit too.
Yup. With RIM bleeding talent and Waterloo and McMaster shooting out grads on both cylinders, a firm could probably do well sucking up all the budget-priced geeks west of Highway 6. Or the GTA and the province could finally get their crap together with respect to transit and complete Hamilton's transformation into a bedroom community of a bedroom community.
As an original Pittsburgh native, I'm curious which attributes of Pittsburgh you're thinking of when you say "Canada's Pittburgh"?
Hamilton is a steel town. Blue collar workers, steel mills, dense century construction, etc. Or, rather, was a steel town. Our steel industry hung on about a decade or so longer than Pittsburgh, so we're going through the same crap Pittsburgh did when it had to go through that confused process of trying to find its place now that all the jobs are drying up... that's where the similarities end though, Pittsburgh had to stand on its own while we're close enough to Toronto that our answer to the problem might be turning into a bedroom community of a bedroom community instead of a Tom-Murphy-esque revitalization.
Good times are over. All the tech people behind that vile FWD.us site fighting for immigration reform are slowly getting their wishes, opening the flood gates for cheap South/Southeast Asian labor. CS/ECE are over in being lucrative majors to pursue. It'll only be a matter of time before most engineering degrees go the same way.
> Good times are over
Beyond the lump of labor fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy , did you consider that those people have every right to do their best in this world as anyone else, no matter where they happen to be born? That might mean coming to the US or Germany or whatever. If that's easier for them, fine by me.
Beyond the lump of labor fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy , did you consider that those people have every right to do their best in this world as anyone else, no matter where they happen to be born? That might mean coming to the US or Germany or whatever. If that's easier for them, fine by me.
>those people have every right to do their best in this world as anyone else, no matter where they happen to be born?
Nobody's proposing any anti-"doing-your-best" legislation, nor blaming the cheap Indian labor, who is often exploited terribly.
Nobody's proposing any anti-"doing-your-best" legislation, nor blaming the cheap Indian labor, who is often exploited terribly.
Sure they are. They want to keep those people where they were born and do not want to let them into the US.
Say you're born in someplace really bad like the Congo, as an extreme example. No matter how you try, you are not going to do your best there.
Say you're born in someplace really bad like the Congo, as an extreme example. No matter how you try, you are not going to do your best there.
Why shouldn't the current residents be right to selectively exclude people? To think otherwise seems ignorant of basic human nature and thousands of years of history.
People said that about offshoring too, and that didn't work out too well for a few reasons: (1) the CS/ECE programs there are lower quality, (2) cultural and language problems make it easier to work with a native English speaker, (3) there is a limit to the number of people who are inherently intelligent/motivated enough to be a good developer. So FWD.us might well succeed in opening the gates, but I think they're in for some disappointment as to who ends up coming through them.
How much of the population is represented by HN. If you have a bell shaped curve and only people on one extreme are commenting then you can't create a curve based on those samples. Also people who aren't doing that well aren't bragging about how bad they are doing.
It's been a long time since Hacker News was one side of the bell curve.
> Also people who aren't doing that well aren't bragging about how bad they are doing.
Well they don't want to brag, but an online community where you can be anonymous if you want seems like a good place to reach out for help if you're in trouble.
Well they don't want to brag, but an online community where you can be anonymous if you want seems like a good place to reach out for help if you're in trouble.
"STEM" is a conflation of several fields. STEM on the whole is doing well. EE, one small subfield of it, is doing badly.
most developers in the US make over $100k
If these[1] numbers are anywhere near accurate that simply isn't true. Median income is $72,630 and 75th Percentile income is $92,510. So at best you can say that perhaps the 20% highest earning programmers in US make over $100K.
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programme...
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programme...
"Software Developer"[1] is three times as common and has a median income of $89,280. Most programmers are actually classified as software developers.
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer
If you dig into the details[1], there are 4 major cities where the average is at or above $100k, and at least one where it is close.
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programme...
[1] http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programme...
Even this only applies to SF and NY, if at all.
I've heard that $100k might not even be typical for the US in general, but for Silicon Valley specifically.(?)
Nope, not remotely true.
Glad I took computer engineering in an ECE department. Although I'm not really that surprised at these results as let's face it, the centre of electronics hasn't been the US for some time.
Good point. The centre of electronics is switching to asian countries since the beginning of the 21st century and ignoring the global economy leads to a short-sighted analysis.
I don't think STEM reflects market demand as much as it does our new understanding of 21st century skills. While the gov't loves the "college = success" equation, I think it is somewhat valid for STEM students, as it introduces a much more practical skill set and mind set to students.
I feel like I repeat this anec-Data every time one of these posts comes up. This is all fine and good, but I've never worked at a SW company (8 years now) nor had a friend work in a SW company that wasn't constantly hiring. The companies I've worked for pay above market and simply can't find people they're willing to hire.
Seems to be a philosophical shift in the working world & academia overall today. Just need to look to last year, where the guy behind the Higgs Boson said the publish or perish atmosphere today would've never lead to a theory. Then there's also the Phd who fell through the cracks to work at a subway before solving the twin primes conjecture. Somethings gotta get fixed.
It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech jobs like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development.
There's no shortage in the more creative jobs creating new apps, cutting edge web dev, network engineering, game dev, etc.
The kind of stuff that inspires most kids to go into comp sci.
It seems, the big 4 get more resumes than they can shake a stick at.
I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.
There's no shortage in the more creative jobs creating new apps, cutting edge web dev, network engineering, game dev, etc.
The kind of stuff that inspires most kids to go into comp sci.
It seems, the big 4 get more resumes than they can shake a stick at.
I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.
> "It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech jobs like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development."
And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage increases as demand exceeds supply.
And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage increases as demand exceeds supply.
> And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage increases as demand exceeds supply.
Isn't it possible the jobs just aren't worth that much?
There could be hundreds of unfilled positions, but not filling the positions is only costing say ~$50k in revenue. It's not worth paying someone $51k for that position
Isn't it possible the jobs just aren't worth that much?
There could be hundreds of unfilled positions, but not filling the positions is only costing say ~$50k in revenue. It's not worth paying someone $51k for that position
You have described an equilibrium condition in which, by definition, there are not hundreds of unfilled positions.
That seems like a pretty good point. Especially considering I.T. is considered a cost center to most businesses.
The starting pay at a (formerly) local company was $14.25/hr in 2000. They pay $10.25 for the same job 14 years later.
The nearby Costco pays better, has realistic working hours, and offers actual benefits.
I can't remember when it was that I saw such a job that paid a living wage.
The nearby Costco pays better, has realistic working hours, and offers actual benefits.
I can't remember when it was that I saw such a job that paid a living wage.
I believe that Greenspun's article at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/12/12/why-do-people-... is very apropos.
This "shortage" talk is the problem with engineers. They take peoples' opinions and petty desires (such as business requirements and deadlines that are arbitrary) and assume them to be objective truth. I worked at a startup that was cargo-culting Scrum (badly) and people started talking about "Iterations" as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning. They don't.
Engineers insist on truth and struggle with the fact that most people who succeed in human affairs are extremely dishonest.
"Shortage" just means, "we can't hire talent at as low a wage as we'd like to pay". It is not an objective condition. It might qualify as a true shortage if companies were reducing the pay of executives and non-techs to make space for engineers, but that is happening almost nowhere.
Engineers insist on truth and struggle with the fact that most people who succeed in human affairs are extremely dishonest.
"Shortage" just means, "we can't hire talent at as low a wage as we'd like to pay". It is not an objective condition. It might qualify as a true shortage if companies were reducing the pay of executives and non-techs to make space for engineers, but that is happening almost nowhere.
>as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning.
Did you mean to do that? either way, it's pretty funny.
Did you mean to do that? either way, it's pretty funny.
Did you mean to do that?
Do what? I'm not sure what you're asking.
Yes, I know what the word "phallic" means.
Do what? I'm not sure what you're asking.
Yes, I know what the word "phallic" means.
I could read the comment both ways, really, but the sentence parsed awkwardly enough to make me wonder.
It does sound like it could have come from an Agile consultant. "Are your iterations flaccid?" But nobody actually talks that way... right?
It does sound like it could have come from an Agile consultant. "Are your iterations flaccid?" But nobody actually talks that way... right?
Similar people doing similar things for society are suddenly software people, not hardware people, despite the fact that the software they're writing targets a physical device rather than an anonymous Turing machine in the cloooooooooooud.
Consider the employment profiles of "companies selling electronic locks" in 2002 versus 2012. These days it probably ships with a microcontroller. That means, congrats, software people now outnumber hardware people, at least as the BLS measure things. (If you really want to get wonkish, read up on what the tiebreakers are if your work implicates multiple SOC classifications. If you spend more time with a mouse in your hand than a soldering iron you're probably going to get bounced out of engineering occupations entirely, a result which is -- to put it mildly -- not a 1 to 1 mapping with our intuitive understanding of the claim "US employment of engineers just decreased by 1.")