brudgers a year ago

I wonder how long it would take for Google to spend an extra $1 Billion by bringing janitorial, food service, and other non-technical jobs in-house instead of contracting it out to the lowest bidder.

To put it in perspective, $1 Billion is 10,000 times $100,000. Or 1000 $100,000/year jobs for ten years before discounting for the time value of money. Instead, big chunks of the money will get siphoned off to administrators and technical instructors and computer manufacturers and lots of other areas that already have plenty of money.

A billion dollars is less than half the annual budget of University of Nebraska for serving ~50,000 students [1]. Back of envelope turns $1 Billion into ~22,000 student years which is in the same people-helped ballpark as the 10,000 worker years, with the difference being that those 10,000 worker years come with actual jobs at $100,000 a year. And the 10,000 worker years are offset by the current cost of contracting out the work and the value that work returns to Google's bottom line.


  • fraserharris a year ago

    They aren't doing this for charity - they are doing it to ensure a steady supply of technical hires. Technical jobs are profit centers; non-technical contracted services are cost centers.

    • jondubois a year ago

      The thing about hiring more software developers than you need is that it just adds complexity to the project without adding any new features.

      Big companies are terrible at this. As companies add more engineers, the engineers become less productive, then managers get worried and so they 1. Hire more engineers and 2. introduce new project management tools and methodologies to the company which lowers productivity even more but which creates an illusion of progress for idiotic upper management — Over time managers and engineers get used to lower levels of productivity as it keeps declining and the company keep hiring more and more engineers whose engineering skills themselves keep declining from being poorly used.

      • speedplane a year ago

        > As companies add more engineers, the engineers become less productive

        This is definitely true, but it's a necessary evil. If you want to build something small, you can do it with a super efficient tiger team. But if you want something huge, you need a massive inefficient team, even if each additional engineer is only 1/10th as efficient as the engineer in the tiger team.

        This is explained, with real-life examples, in the classic Mythical Man Month.

    • samfisher83 a year ago

      They are getting tons of apps from top schools like harvard, stanford, etc. I don't think they will have any problem hiring people. Maybe this would help some small company a lot more that can't afford pay google salaries. Also If you believe the Pareto principle most of people at google probably aren't that important to their successes.

      • shados a year ago

        They actually do have problems hiring enough. They get tons of applications, but the vast majority are not worth looking at.

        The people from top schools are in high demand, and Google no longer has monopoly on cool tech workspaces with free lunches and random expensive perks.

        They have plenty of openings and they harass qualified people trying to poach them just as hard as everyone else. And since they actually DO have some unique challenges, they sometimes actually DO need people who know more than Rails CRUD apps, which makes things even trickier.

        • samfisher83 a year ago

          It seems the only stories you hear of them are interviewing people and then ghosting them. If they actually cared about hiring people you figure at least they would treat their candidates better. In my experience even amazon has been more on the ball with the recruiting process.

          • shados a year ago

            I'm not particularly fond of Google or the way they interview, but I've lived just a few blocks from their Cambridge office (so almost every engineer I know around here has interviewed there at one point or another).

            Aside for their criterias and interview questions which I find absurd (but that's subjective, I know a bunch of people who think they're fine), I haven't heard much that was really wrong with it aside for obviously underqualified candidates being brought in and then leaving pissed off after bombing it.

            The reality is that in this industry right now, unless what you're doing is little webapps with REST apis that store/retrieve data and not much else, hiring people is hard. All the somewhat large companies have 100+ openings at any given time and the majority of candidates are code monkeys. My current employer is doing decently and our reputation seems to allow us to get a steady stream of above average people applying, but there's still so many openings.

            Only so much you can do.

      • losteric a year ago

        Their goal is to increase the supply and diversity of good engineers, likely decreasing salaries in the long run. It's about damn time!

        • closeparen a year ago

          Google could cut salaries by half or more while delivering equal or better quality of life if it built substantial engineering presence in cheap cities.

          Education is a wickedly complicated problem compared to not being in California.

      • ryguytilidie a year ago

        >They are getting tons of apps from top schools like harvard, stanford, etc. I don't think they will have any problem hiring people.

        You're outright dismissing the idea that hiring is difficult for Google? You know they have over a thousand recruiters working for them, right?

    • evanlivingston a year ago

      Don't forget that if they increase the supply of technical jobs, they get to drive down the cost of those technical hires.

      • sulam a year ago

        I think I know what you meant to say, but what you typed is logically wrong. s/jobs/workers/

    • nbanks a year ago

      Even if google doesn't hire most of the people who graduate, having more people who can do tech jobs could help increase the supply and stop salaries from inflating more.

  • synicalx a year ago

    I guess other than wanting a continuing supply of in-country tech's to hire (as others have touched on), it sort of comes back to the old "give a man a fish" vs "teach him to fish" shenanigans.

    They could hire a bunch of janitors, who are already employed anyway, and essentially just transfer that $1b directly into their pockets but at the end of the day they're still going to be janitors. By investing that some amount of money into education though, they're enabling them to go off and achieve something more meaningful that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to do.

    • baursak a year ago

      This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay. It might be true, but in my opinion an average janitor is more beneficial to society than an average programmer.

      More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!

      • losteric a year ago

        Direct vs indirect utility. Janitors are directly beneficial to a small number of people. The typical Google engineering is indirectly and marginally beneficial to millions.

        • amigoingtodie a year ago

          Is that what we tell ourselves, "I'm making a difference"?

          • losteric a year ago

            It might not be positive, but we are making a difference

      • synicalx a year ago

        > More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!

        That is a good point, but I think it comes down to the barrier to entry - it's easier to become a janitor than it is to become a programmer so one could probably assume there's always going to be a steady stream of people who are willing to do janitorial work.

        > This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay

        It does unfortunately. Given some of the awful stuff janitors have to deal I believe they're deserving of higher pay, but unfortunately the job market doesn't agree with me on that.

      • ENGNR a year ago

        The janitor's salary goes up, and the incentive to automate increases. It's all win really assuming knowledge work is more enjoyable than being a janitor

    • dvanduzer a year ago

      If they brought that support staff in-house, wouldn't it be easier to teach them how to fish?

      • synicalx a year ago

        Possibly, but I wouldn't think it's likely that every janitor is going to want to be a programmer. Whereas if you invest money in a school that teaches programming, there's a good chance that most of the people attending that school will want to be a programmer.

        But you make a good point though, with even a fraction of that budget + maybe a little time investment from their staff, they could create some great opportunities for their otherwise non-technical employees.

  • j45 a year ago

    I suspect 1 billion in the hands of a google will go much further than an academic institution.

WalterBright a year ago

It's never been easier to get training in all sorts of things, for free. For example, I'm currently taking MIT's 6.002 electronics course because I never learned circuit analysis properly. It's on youtube, it's free, I watch it anytime.

There's the Khan Academy, too.

  • kamaal a year ago


    Im learning equity investing, and there seem to be never ending stream of free learning material online. Lectures from the top universities, youtube videos that teach you curious spreadsheet skills, assignments. As a matter of fact you have very few reasons to justify anything these days.

    It just comes down to personal motivation.

    For all practical purposes these days the cost of learning anything is equal to your monthly internet bill.

  • s73ver_ a year ago

    Yeah, but there's no certificate. And, despite what everyone wants to believe, most employers still want that certificate or degree. They're not gonna accept "I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube" as an alternative.

    • WalterBright a year ago

      In the programming biz, they often will if you've got a track record to back it up. Contributing to open source projects is a route to getting such a track record.

      If you already have a degree, just in the wrong field, you don't need to get another degree. Just get the training by whatever means.

      Heck, my degree is in mechanical engineering, yet I had jobs writing software.

      • weirdstuff a year ago

        In my own experience a track record is meaning less and less, and employers are really starting to fixate on credentials. It's very weird and disconcerting to a fellow like myself who likes to believe an impressive record should speak for itself. But apparently it's not speaking as loudly as it used to.

        There really is a "cult of the degree" and I really don't get it. Is the field getting saturated and employers are finding it necessary to erect barriers? Does this, an average, make good fiscal sense? I would think successful, relevant experience is something (that when verified) would reduce risk for businesses.

    • kbart a year ago

      Usually, as soon as you get through the first interview, your papers won't matter much. Credentials might help to get you that first interview, but getting a good engineering job still requires deep technical skills and that's where those, who "watch a bunch of youtube videos" can shine. I have my credentials written on CV, but never have been asked to show any of these papers or shown any interest in them.

      • s73ver_ a year ago

        "Usually, as soon as you get through the first interview, your papers won't matter much"

        Unfortunately, getting that first interview can highly depend on those papers.

    • lkbm a year ago

      My company seems happy to hire qualified college dropouts. A college diploma is a signal that you've learned something, but to be honest, it's not a very strong signal. Some of our most talented engineers didn't graduate college, or didn't major in CS, and I know several CS majors who aren't very competent at all. (I might be one of them--I'd say I was when I first graduated.

      Big, mature bureaucracies want formal signals. Small/young businesses and startups care about competence. Google is very large, but I suspect still manages to act "young" in many respects.

    • kamaal a year ago

      >>They're not gonna accept "I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube" as an alternative.

      Soon they will.

      If the internet people come at cheaper prices.

      There isn't much difference between people who watch a lecture on the internet vs those who watch it live.

      • netheril96 a year ago

        > If the internet people come at cheaper prices.

        But filtering out the good ones from the "internet people" is more expensive than seeking through college graduates.

      • WalterBright a year ago

        And I can rewind/pause yootoob if I missed something or need a little more time to understand it.

    • sulam a year ago

      No degree here, and when I was in college I was essentially an artist. No one has ever asked me about it in an interview. Instead I get asked how to solve problems, and maybe what problems I’ve solved in the past.

    • j45 a year ago

      A certificate is one thing.

      Expecting your education to make something of you, instead of making something of your education (track record) is another.

      Managing to get a certificate does not guarantee one can apply those YouTube videos.

      • s73ver_ a year ago

        I never, ever once implied anything of the sort.

  • forapurpose a year ago

    Training often requires other resources besides one-way communication. A professor who only lectured and didn't otherwise interact with students would be a bad, ineffective teacher.

    • WalterBright a year ago

      The internet is full of people who can help you, like for programmers.

      • forapurpose a year ago

        Yes, but it's not really the same thing at all as a teacher in a classroom and after class, focusing on the student and their educational development, or a professor in their office. Few I've encountered online are as knowledgeable as 90% of my professors. (And most fields of knowledge have less online community than IT.)

        If someone said they were shutting down local schools and just telling the kids to watch YouTube and ask question online, I'd be horrified, the kids would get far less attention and teaching, and the kids would be far less educated. Also, few would have the self-motivation to pull it off.

        Not to knock Khan Academy, etc. completely. One idea I've heard is having students watch the lecture at home - everyone can see the best lecturers in the world - and do their 'homework', with personal attention from the teacher, in class.

        • kamaal a year ago

          >>Yes, but it's not really the same thing at all as a teacher in a classroom and after class, focusing on the student and their educational development, or a professor in their office.

          In most top universities, teaching largely works through learning by doing. Its just that they keep the quality of assignments high. So your projects make up for it. Also note those taking online courses have an active interest to get good at things, so they would work on these projects.

          In the real world you need as much as you can receive from a lecture. Beyond that mostly you have to learn on the job. So online learning will work for most cases. Yeah in some cases you can't fully learn it without a teacher, such cases will exist, but will be exceptions to the rule.

          >>If someone said they were shutting down local schools and just telling the kids to watch YouTube and ask question online, I'd be horrified, the kids would get far less attention and teaching, and the kids would be far less educated. Also, few would have the self-motivation to pull it off.

          There is a reason why despite all the awesome public education system US has compared to the rest of the world, only a fixed percentage of awesome people come out of it every month.

          Every thing at the end comes down to personal motivation. You can't make anyone succeed without their participation and will.

    • klokoman a year ago

      This is how most of uni lectures are. The only interaction you get is badly answered questions that would not have been asked if it was to possible to pause or rewind the lecture.

  • notyourwork a year ago

    6.002 was a great resource when I was in CSE.

jorblumesea a year ago

How does flooding the market with developers that will never be able to pass their interviews help them? I guess it will increase the amount of people in the 1% by expanding the size of that pool?

Just seems like Google out of all companies has a need for the best, not just blue collar code slingers. Many people with 4 years CS degrees from good schools do not get hired.

  • sulam a year ago

    A couple misconceptions seemed buried in here. First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. The hiring process is far more random than we’d like to imagine it is when you have a “high bar”.

    • jorblumesea a year ago

      > First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads.

      Google's hiring process does not reflect this at all. Even entry level positions have very high bar. Boring has nothing to do with it, Google wants the best.

      > Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there.

      That's not random, that's just setting a really high bar.

      Have you been through a Google interview? Their phone screen questions are equivalent to many companies' "hardest" interview problems.

      • sulam a year ago

        I've been through the entire Google interview, yes. And I'm going to go (slightly) out on a limb and say that if Google could reduce their false negative rate, they would. IOW, yes, that's a factor of having a high bar, but what that statement is capturing in aggregate is the fact that their interviewers are not all equally calibrated and the interview process can be very uneven, although always looking for very strong people. They then turn around and give those really strong engineers a very high salary and (in many cases) relatively uninteresting work. It would be surprising to me if that changes as a result of this $1B grant, but I would be equally surprised if they don't try to skim the cream off that particular crop.

  • hobofan a year ago

    Maybe the want to free up "good" developers that work jobs requiring a lower skill level, by providing a better fitting low skill person for the job?

    (Not to be taken too seriously)

    • FLGMwt a year ago

      I'll take you seriously.

      $1bn is a lot of money when put towards education and Google can make 5+ year investments when it comes to tech talent.

      • speedplane a year ago

        It's a nice sum of money, but education is extremely expensive, it's probably less than you think. It's enough to pay roughly, for 7000 to go to college, or maybe 50,000 people to take a one semester programming bootcamp.

        A great start, but it's not exactly transformational.

afpx a year ago

Google spends what, upwards of $10B a year on software engineer salary and benefits? So, seems like a good deal. If they can spend $1B and decrease salary’s and benefits by at least 10% over a few years, they get return on investment.

  • alpb a year ago

    Why would salaries or benefits decrease?

    • tiggybear a year ago

      Your paid based on your leverage not how much your output is worth. If supply of workers with your skills goes up, your leverage to negotiate goes down and so does your wages.

      Labor does not get to share in economic growth, they get to split an ever decreasing share of profits. The more people that are available to sell their labor, the more pieces that shrinking pie has to be cut into.

    • carlmr a year ago

      Law of supply and demand. More supply, steady demand => More bargaining power on the side of the company.

  • thebarknight a year ago

    This was exactly my thought as well

TuringNYC a year ago

I wish Google could spend just a fraction of that money employing technical writers to better document their technologies. So much of the documentation is outdated or flat out broken. Even stock sample projects right on the Android Studio sometimes fail to work.

Oh, and remember the mess Gradle was in 2015/2016? How much money could it possibly cost to better document some of the major tools?

Klockan a year ago

I don't understand why they don't open more remote offices instead. Around 90% of their employees are currently within the US, wouldn't it be a lot easier to find tech talent if they had a major position in other areas of the world as well?

  • paxy a year ago

    Where are you getting that 90% statistic from? I'm pretty sure at least 30-40% of their employees are based internationally, and even within the US they have offices in pretty much every major city. So most Google employees are already working "remotely".

  • walshemj a year ago

    two reasons time difference and communications

    • Klockan a year ago

      Those are not issues when you have thousands of employees at a location, then you can base entire products there. There is plenty of people in Europe who would love to work for Google but there are so few positions here that it is almost impossible to get one unless you want to move to the US, it wouldn't be hard for Google to get ten times as many engineers here as they currently have if they just wanted to.

      • ggambetta a year ago

        There's plenty of people in Europe that work in Google's European offices. When I left in 2014, Zürich was something like 1500 people, with London and IIRC Paris having similar sizes, and many other smaller ones. That's hardly "so few positions", let alone "almost impossible to get one".

        Also, time zone differences (and to a lesser extent communications) were inconvenient, although there were very viable ways to work around them.

        • Klockan a year ago

          I know, I work there. Most I know don't even bother applying since it is hard to get an interview, they don't see getting into Google as an alternative. All Google would need to Gobble up all talent in Europe is basically to start pestering every developer like they do in Silicon valley, they already pay twice of what 99% of developers are earning so taking everything would be easy for them.

          • taway_1212 a year ago

            Does Google pay more than decents contracts in European big cities (i.e. 120k+ €)?

            • jacquesm a year ago

              Depending on your skill level: yes.

      • walshemj a year ago

        And why would Goggle move a product away from its HQ - low level support maybe (but google doesn't do much support and they can just recruit in Ireland for that)

        • Klockan a year ago

          Several products are already stationed in Europe so it is just a question of how much. Ireland does mostly support, yes, but both London and Zurich owns products.

thatonechad a year ago

Universities need to start focusing on skills instead of general education. Imagine the amount of skills you could learn if you didn't have to take 60 hours of nonsense credits and focus on skills you require.

Programming / Networking / Hardware need a new type of University that is similar to Trade colleges but focus primarily on the skills and nothing more. The first 1-2 years could focus on the foundations while the next 2 years focus around solid design principles and actually developing projects (real or fake).

  • ralmidani a year ago

    I know this is a cliche, but universities (are supposed to) teach you critical thinking as well as social and life skills, not just train you for a specific vocation.

    Watering down university education is not necessary. If someone wants to focus just on tech skills, they can go to a boot camp. Expanding boot camps so they become multi-year experiences may be a good idea, but they should not be called universities.

    • thatonechad a year ago

      I would agree and my use of the term University is not necessarily meant to be used in that traditional sense. What I believe is that there should be an alternative to Universities that could focus more on that aspect and present you with a 4 year degree.

      I guarantee if you created a tech school that focuses strictly on tech related classes for 4 years compared to a University that you would produce higher quality students than you would from schools that spend half of your college teaching you things that are not directly related to your job.

      • ralmidani a year ago

        Maybe "higher quality" in the sense that they've spent more time growing their tech skills, but there is more to a person than their skills in a chosen vocation.

        Also, what happens if a student wants to switch majors? Or graduates but later wants to change careers? Your proposal doesn't make that feasible.

    • j45 a year ago

      I would say few universities teach critical thinking or transferable skills in the context you are referring to.

      Some programs in universities can be glorified vocational schools. Other programs are excellent, relevant and evolving both for industry, and as innovators.

    • humanrebar a year ago

      > ...universities (are supposed to) teach you critical thinking as well as social and life skills...

      I disagree. I think they provide services to customers. Customers decide what the services are for. I suppose some students are very interested in laying a foundation in the liberal arts. Most, in my experience, are more worried about getting their careers started out on the right foot (especially considering all the loans that they are taking out). There is also a nontrivial number of students there for unsupervised extensions on their adolescences, though.

      > ...they should not be called universities...

      Why not? Is that going to be a regulated word now? What purpose does the distinction serve? We don't look at a degree and think, "Oh! University degree! This is a well-rounded person with a good foundation in the liberal arts!" No, we see, B.S. in Communications from Boise State and draw inferences from there.

      • ralmidani a year ago

        There's nothing preventing you from naming your institution a "university", but if you want accreditation, there are already certain criteria you have to meet.

  • forapurpose a year ago

    > nonsense credits

    The assumption here is that education is nonsense. I think the skills are far less valuable: Education teaches you about the world you have to live in, in business, and as a citizen, a parent, a consumer, etc., by exposing you to leading people and ideas from around the world and throughout history. It teaches you to reason, by exposing you to the great thinkers now and in history. Reading blogs on the Internet isn't nearly the same thing.

    If we send people home from college only with the vocational skill of building an integrated circuit, they will find that it doesn't begin to address most of the challenges in life, much less their community's and society's.

    Integrated circuits aren't what the West needs to move forward at this point, to address poverty, discrimination, war, and all the other issues. In our current society, we do very well with integrated circuits and very poorly with life, social and political issues, perhaps we need to focus on education in the latter, not the former.

    • thatonechad a year ago

      Seriously? So how does everyone else that go to technical trade school or don't go to college at all learn about the real world? Are you seriously trying to say that college teaches you about the real world. Thanks for the laugh.

      • forapurpose a year ago

        Yes, education teaches you things, important things, that likely you will not know otherwise. For example, I studied Chinese history and culture with some of the world's leading experts; I'm confident that I know much more about it than people who spent the same time learning Java. And because I know those things, I have a much better understanding of everything I read about China and also about my own country's history and culture, because I can see it context of what people in other countries do.

        Another thing education teaches you is how to reason effectively, the most important skill of all: Reason is what separates people from animals, the Enlightenment from the Dark Ages, science from superstition, rationality from hokum. And almost the first thing you learn is intellectual humility: I am wrong about so much, and others know so much that I don't and have such different experience, that it's foolish to dismiss them. You learn we are each prisoners of our own narrow perspectives and experiences, and that the more challenging another point of view is, the more likely it is to be worth listening to. So when you say you "laugh" at my ideas, I think you should have spent less time on Java and more on learning.

        • thatonechad a year ago

          I'm sorry but reason isnt taught in college its taught with experience. I know many people who have reason, empathy, and everything else without having to be taught. It's part of your upbringing not taught in college.

          I believe most people would benefit from learning the skills they need for a job rather than learning about China because rarely will a tech job require your vast knowledge of Chinese history. They want to know whether or not you can push code that the business needs.

          I understand your point and I am not saying that these classes are useless. But at the end of the day colleges are there to produce for jobs and my point being is that if you had more time on tech related classes than classes you don't need then you would most certainly be more ready for a job.

          When I went to college there were so many classes I really didnt need. Regardless of if they were "good" for me it was a waste of my time because I didn't care nor need that information. I took classes in sociology, macro and micro economics, accounting 1 and accounting 2 and so on and so on.

          Did these classes help me in some way? Yes I would say so but what if I took an extra 5 classes honing skills related to the job I was going to seek after college. Can you really sit here and say that those 5 classes are better off? I don't think so.

          • forapurpose a year ago

            > reason isnt taught in college its taught with experience

            I know I learned an awful lot about reason in college, and many others I know did too; sorry you missed out! If you read your Facebook feed and I study the great thinkers of history, guided by modern-day experts, I'm very confident I'll be far ahead. Unless you think you can come up with all that on your own - who needs Descartes or Hannah Arendt, apparently; anyone can figure it out? To disparage all that knowledge and learning is easy to say but very hard to support. To say those people knew and said nothing valuable seems like willful ignorance.

            > colleges are there to produce for jobs

            Says who? I disagree strongly. I know the parent's claim is fashionable now, but that certain hasn't been true for most of history. The liberal arts, which are not vocational, long (always?) have been dominant - that wasn't for job skills.

            I'll add that few businesses value actual job skills learned in college or grad school. A new lawyer or engineer right out of school knows nothing, in many ways, and needs to be trained in real-world job skills by their employer.

  • kbart a year ago

    You mean making meat robots that can code? Higher education is supposed to be much more than just acquiring technical skills. If you want purely technical skills, there are plenty of intense courses, workshops etc. available.

  • FullMtlAlcoholc a year ago

    Univerisities should remain centers of education and the pursuit of knowledge.

    Training people for jobs is the responsibility of vocational schools and corporate training .

  • xfer a year ago

    I am not sure, how "skills" would be helpful in long term. People need to develop a good understanding and ideas on Computer science, not learn a particular software/language or whatever.

    As, there is no guarantee that it will even be alive by the time you leave university/your potential employer would be looking for that particular "skill".

    • thatonechad a year ago

      Wait what? If you went to school today and learned java i bet in 4 years java is still around. I bet 4 years C# still around. and I bet in 4 year C++ is still around. What kind of world are you living in? You are saying that taking 60 hours of non tech related classes are more beneficial than taking that many hours dedicated to actually putting those skills to work?

      Also you realize that learning a programming language can translate into other programming languages right?

      • xfer a year ago

        Learning a programming language doesn't translate into other language, but the principle of programming in general does.

        In another language you may not be using classes, objects heavily, so learning about how to make class factories mean very little. What matters is, through this you might learn about good abstractions and its power, and that's what is important.

        And that is what universities should be teaching with the use of any language/tool. I am not sure what you mean "non-tech" class, i am pretty sure there aren't any such things in CS programs. If you dedicate yourself to one particular tool, you will have a very narrow view of software development. Don't need to go to university, you can learn it by yourself and save both time and money.

  • demygale a year ago

    Name a giant in this industry, that person benefitted from a liberal arts education.

    • petra a year ago

      Are we training giants now ?

    • thatonechad a year ago

      I'm sure all the gender studies classes has helped the vast majority of tech students become better developers

      • s73ver_ a year ago

        Given all the stuff that's happening lately with people like Susan Fowler, a whole lot of developers could have benefitted from more of those.

        Of course, that's completely ignoring that there is far, far, far more to "liberal arts" than gender studies.

        • Klockan a year ago

          Diversity training doesn't work though and it often makes things worse.

          • somebehemoth a year ago

            You will need more citations to prove that point. Same publication, more recently published, "Two Types of Diversity Training That Really Work".

            "For one, a recent meta-analysis of over 40 years of diversity training evaluations showed that diversity training can work, especially when it targets awareness and skill development and occurs over a significant period of time."


        • hobofan a year ago

          I think it's more the people around them that would have benefitted from it.

          • s73ver_ a year ago

            That too. Everyone would benefit!

    • KC8ZKF a year ago

      Steve Jobs

synicalx a year ago

You know, I'm actually really impressed with Google for speaking with their money on this. There's a lot of "why don't these hicks just get a real job", but no one really seems interested in furthering that sentiment.

There's popular opposition to Trump's promise to give people jobs by resurrecting industries that a lot of people (probably Google as well) would rather see stay dead. But there's no denying people need jobs, and formal education ain't cheap.

Now we've got a tech giant backing that up with cold hard cash. It would be great to see other companies getting on board and putting some dough in the ring or at least offering some kind of internship/work experience programs for people coming out of an education funded by these grants.

Overtonwindow a year ago

Stated differently: "In light of recent criticism on its ability to import foreign, cheap labor, Google commits to improving their public image for American labor"

  • UncleMeat a year ago

    How is Google importing foreign, cheap labor? Their H1B applications are public and you can check the salaries yourself. None of the majors are abusing foreign labor.

  • SEJeff a year ago

    You missed something "Google commits to improving their public image with a future of cheap American labor".

    There you go. Perfect!

dna_polymerase a year ago

Yeah, more bootcamp trained JS-"artisans" and Ruby-"artists" for all of us! If they wanted to do good, invest in the school system, use your power to monitor Betsy DeVos and call her out for the bullshit to come from her. If Google could raise interest in STEM in High Schools already that would be way more organic.

  • speedplane a year ago

    Don't think there is anything wrong or ignoble teaching people JS. It's an excellent start.

Apocryphon a year ago

To the critics in this thread- maybe it's time to consider unionizing tech workers after all?

  • marnett a year ago

    I agree but how? Or would co-op consulting shops make more sense?

    • Apocryphon a year ago

      Why not try both? The point is that the status quo is untenable, corporate power is going to commodify devs just as they have done to workers in many other industries, and you might as well try fixing about it rather than getting disrupted like so many other dinosaur entities that tech has done to.

      • stale2002 a year ago

        The status quo is untenable???

        I am not sure what world you live in, but the world that I live in is one where software engineering salaries and jobs have continued to increase over the last 5, despite all these bootcamp grads and the large increase in CS majors.

        • jimmaswell a year ago

          The tech labor shortage seems to me to be essentially a fabrication invented by tech companies to encourage further oversaturation. I just cannot believe jobs are growing faster than the workforce when my experience has been this:

          The status quo is untenable because it's a bubble. There are far too many junior programmers.

          • stale2002 a year ago

            Hmm, I am a couple years out of college and therefore fit the definition of "senior developer", so perhaps you are right, and I just haven't noticed the effects yet.

            But right now, things are really really good for developers who only have a couple years of experience. But perhaps that is going to change as all these junior devs become senior.

  • natoliniak a year ago

    software dev is too outsourcable for unionization to make sense. Also, real engineering professions are protected by licensure requirements and furthermore, their labor by nature of the discipline cannot be shipped out. Software is too global and portable to protect like that. So, lets enjoy the good times while they last.

eatbitseveryday a year ago

Google is often criticized for not hiring developers who "still need more work", and instead hires experienced people. Hiring less capable people and training them internally would make some sense to me.

  • FLGMwt a year ago

    I'm not Google, but my guess is they'd rather invest in the market to let it float the "experienced" people rather than take a gamble on a known "inexperienced" person and attempt to train them.

    Maybe this is shitty, maybe it isn't, but it's probably more economical.

IBM a year ago

Makes sense given the antitrust movement is getting stronger.

bradleyjg a year ago

I'd be more impressed if they committed to hiring employees that don't already have the skills they are looking for and doing on the job training. That would be far more effective both in terms of actual skills transfer and in terms of future career trajectory than Yet More Retraining Programs untethered from any actual employer or employment opportunities. We've been doing the latter since at least the Kennedy administration to little effect.

  • rifung a year ago

    > I'd be more impressed if they committed to hiring employees that don't already have the skills they are looking for and doing on the job training

    I work for Google and I find there's already a very large amount of on the job training required due to all the powerful but complicated internal tools. My manager has told me that I should not feel pressured to contribute at all for my first 6 months and I should feel free to just focus on learning as much as I can.

    I've been here for almost a year now and feel like I still know nothing so the training is still certainly not done.

    I didn't mean to jump to the defense of my employer as I'm obviously biased but do think we are far from perfect (although I am very happy here :). I just wonder what the right balance is. It seems like if people can't program at all then it's not really on the job training because they wouldn't be working right?

    At least my own experience has been that I came in with some college experience but no college degree and not really knowing anything besides the bare minimum to contribute (being able to program, having some grasp of CS fundamentals) and have learned a ton on the job and still have much much more to learn. I think there is an expectation (and pressure!) for all SWEs to hit the senior level, L5, so in a way everyone who is hired under that level is doing on the job training no?

    Sorry for the long post!

    • bradleyjg a year ago

      At the dawn of the computer age ATT, IBM, and other companies taught people how to program from scratch. Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers.

      I don't see why Google couldn't do that today.

      I'm not saying they are morally obligated to do so. At the end of the day they are a for profit company and they don't have to do anything at all about this problem. And, sure, the donations they are making instead are probably better than nothing. But as I mentioned, and as top19 mentions on what is as of this writing the top post on this article, the track record for these job retraining programs going back decades isn't very good.

      What I'm saying is that if Google were to go to Pittsburgh, Youngstown, or Detroit, hire some bright unemployed people, pay them a decent but by no means exorbitant salary while it taught them how to code and then, as you point out, how to be a productive engineer at Google, at the end of the process those people would likely have very marketable skills to either continue moving up the ladder at Google or elsewhere. Of course this would cost Google something -- not only in the salaries while people were learning and not contributing but also in the salaries of people that were training and mentoring them. But Google is planning on spending a billion dollars anyway, so here's another way they could do that. A way that I think would be more effective.


      Congrats on getting what sounds like a great job.

      • joshhart a year ago

        My company, LinkedIn, has started an in-company program called Reach to do exactly that.

        Rather than hire a traditional Stanford CS graduate, we find people who have self-taught to some basic extent and give them the chance to work under an apprenticeship. We started with a class of about 25 with decent results and will tune it more based on what we learn

      • ucaetano a year ago

        > Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers.

        This made sense back then because most of the tools, languages and techniques were either proprietary or niche. IBM wouldn't hire an ATT employee as FB hires a Google employee today, and back then people saw jobs as "until retirement", with a very different culture.

        If you invested a lot of money training someone, you could expect them to stick around for a while and "pay back" your investment.

        Today that isn't worth it. You could hire someone out of high school, spend a lot of resources training them just to have them poached by another company right after they are "ready".

        That time is gone.

        • bradleyjg a year ago

          It's true that it doesn't make as much sense from a business perspective as it once did to have a deep training pipeline. If I were suggesting that Google switch over to such a model for all their hiring that would be all there was to say on the matter.

          But here Google is looking to donate $1 billion as a charitable contribution to address a specific social problem. I'm suggesting an alternative way of "spending" that money. From that standpoint the fact that such a training program is sub-optimal in a bottom line sort of way isn't as important -- indeed it is kind of the point. The difference between the optimal business focused process and such a hiring and training program would be in lieu of the donation that Google is planning on making.

          It's my contention that this way of spending money would yield more benefits than the current plan. I could well be wrong, but just criticizing the idea from a business efficiency angle misses the point.

      • rifung a year ago

        > At the dawn of the computer age ATT, IBM, and other companies taught people how to program from scratch. Early on because there were no college programs to do so and later on because programs didn't graduate nearly enough people. And no one was self taught because there were no home computers. I don't see why Google couldn't do that today.

        That does make sense and I think that would be super cool if companies could do that today.

        I admit I don't know much about the history but isn't building software today more complicated though not necessarily harder than it was before?

        My impression is that before we would just build programs that ran on computers. So in that sense, if you knew how to program and had a compiler to use, that was sufficient to do what companies wanted to do. However, now we have people building other things like services, which is requires additional complexity and tooling on top of what was previously necessary.

        The point I'm trying to make is that I suspect nowadays there's more prerequisite knowledge for most jobs than before.

        > But Google is planning on spending a billion dollars anyway, so here's another way they could do that. A way that I think would be more effective.

        That's a really good point. I imagine even if it takes a very long time to train people, with a billion dollars you have the time to do that..

        The optimistic side of me wants to say it's because handling the logistics for that would be a nightmare and it's really outside of our core expertise.

        The realistic side of me thinks that it probably is too expensive to give the same benefits to those employees that we give to current full time employees.

        The pessimistic side of me also thinks that there's a certain level of prestige associated with working at Google that has been, at least to some level, successfully marketed both inwards and outwards, and hiring people who don't meet whatever "bar" would undermine that.

        > Congrats on getting what sounds like a great job.


      • goialoq a year ago

        Training people on-the-job from scratch to be professional engineers is extreme.

        A more reasonable path is HelpDesk / Hardware Tech -> operations software / SysOp -> software engineering

    • ehsankia a year ago

      But Google and maybe a few other really big tech companies are exceptions since they are so big they have their own internal tooling for everything. In general though, it's probably more useful teaching people the generic solutions that are used in most medium sized companies, rather than Google's specialized tooling. And generally a lot of the workflows are transferable.

  • briholt a year ago

    Another major glaring problem that no one wants to admit is that lots of tech work requires (at the very least) college-level-IQ, which excludes the majority of the population. And the lower-IQ jobs are quickly being automated away.

    • Gargoyle a year ago

      The vast, vast majority of tech work doesn't require any exceptional intelligence. It just requires a system of thinking, one which can be...trained.

      • ThrustVectoring a year ago

        ... and the ability to be trained into learning arbitrary skills is IQ. Higher IQ means its easier to train yourself into being able to use a new system of thinking.

        Like, being a soldier doesn't require any sort of exceptional intelligence either. It doesn't even require average intelligence. What it requires is an IQ of 85 - below that point, and the US army cannot effectively train you to become a soldier. Despite having every incentive in the world, the US army still rejects about 15% of the population.

        • nerpderp83 a year ago

          15% of the population doesn't apply to join the Army. And those that do self select. Using the Army rejection rates for determining the IQ level of the population isn't a good method.

          • smhost a year ago

            It's the definition of IQ. 15 points is 1 standard deviation, so about 15% of the population has an IQ of 85 or below by definition.

            • kazinator a year ago

              Just following up to add that these two 15's are unrelated, in case any readers get the wrong idea.

              The area under the normal distribution curve from minus infinity to -1 (one standard deviation left of centre) is about 0.1586 or about 15-16%.

              The 15 points = 1 stddev property of IQ is arbitrarily established.

    • vilmosi a year ago

      IQ just means potential not capability. Given enought time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job.

      I don't think our brain suddenly evolved in 200 years from illiterate peasants to software engineers. We just have more school time these days.

      • sunir a year ago

        Since it is empirically obvious that 200 years ago the world was not entirely populated by illiterate peasants ...perhaps your population model of the distribution of IQ and causes thereof is inaccurate.

        • vilmosi a year ago

          Not entirely but the vast majority. It's empirically obvious writting existed 200 years ago therefore someone somewhere knew how to write.

          What do you think people did before the industrial revolution?

          • sunir a year ago

            A lot.

      • thaumasiotes a year ago

        > IQ just means potential not capability.

        Ok, you can say that.

        > Given enough[] time I believe most people can be trained to do almost any job.

        That's a statement about potential, not capability.

    • tdb7893 a year ago

      It probably helps but saying it's necessary seems a little far fetched to me. Also since pretty much everyone I knew growing up went to college I don't think "college-level" is really meaningful for much except wealth nowadays

      • blacksmith_tb a year ago

        That may say as much about you as it does about the population at large, right now about a third of adults in the US have a bachelor's degree[1].


        • tdb7893 a year ago

          I would guess the vast majority of people in my highschool were in the top fourth of income in America (including my family, we were well off but not super rich because my dad was in the military and then a commercial pilot and my mom was a teacher). I'm sure other people have different experiences but waaaayyyy more than the national average of people from my highschool went to college and I can tell you that while it was a decent school it was not filled with geniuses. It's why I think a large amount of the reason people go to college is cultural and that to many people college ends up being more of a symbol of status than a intellectual achievement.

    • BjoernKW a year ago

      That's not true. It's a common complaint among engineers that developing line-of-business or CRUD applications is tedious and not challenging enough as it doesn't require a lot of creative thinking.

      Truth of the matter is that most tech work doesn't involve AI, machine learning, self-driving cars or augmented reality but down-to-earth business applications. Developing those requires abstract thinking, empathy and problem-solving skills but it doesn't necessarily require a college-level IQ.

      In fact a high IQ could even be harmful in that situation because apart from getting bored quickly highly intelligent people can display a tendency to overthink problems (which is probably how many notorious enterprise frameworks came about ...).

      • briholt a year ago

        You've clearly never met a person who is unable to place a hanger inside of a shirt and hang it on a rack, or a person who can't sort 5 single-digit numbers mentally. What you are describing are 120+ IQ problems.

        • BjoernKW a year ago

          You make this sound like someone with an IQ less than 120 is mentally impaired.

          An IQ of 100 is defined as the median IQ level for a population. The range between 90 and 130 covers the whole gamut of human intelligence that's commonly considered normal.

          Much of the day-to-day work in IT often doesn't need original thinking but merely skillful application of known methods and patterns, which in turn doesn't require a college education.

          • briholt a year ago

            Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/etc. with an IQ of 90. Remembering basic equations, keeping long sequences of functions sorted in your head, even understanding FTP/Git/CL instructions require this level cognitive ability. When you deal with people who can't hang shirts you'll start to understand this. There are just under 200 million Americans with IQs between "can't hang shirts" and "productive programmer."

            • BjoernKW a year ago

              > Find one successful programmer at Google/Apple/Facebook/Cisco/

              Point proven, eh? I'm not talking about these people (though I surmise there are quite a few in these companies as well who don't have that level of intelligence and simply tag along ...) but about the vast majority of IT workers working on some supposedly 'boring' database application.

              Google and Apple in particular have been known for hiring highly qualified engineers only to then have them maintain some run-of-the-mill administrative software they're vastly overqualified to work on.

      • FLUX-YOU a year ago

        >doesn't require a lot of creative thinking

        It doesn't, but you still need "higher level" developers to cover security and concurrent/parallel/distributed problems and maybe architecture.

        It's not that someone can't also learn that stuff, but exposing a product publicly without some experience in those areas is asking for trouble.

        IMO, Software is resisting division of labor and work by collapsing roles into "Full stack devs" or "DevOps Engineers".

        • BjoernKW a year ago

          I agree there have to be different skill levels but I think that distinction has to occur within denominations like 'full stack' and 'DevOps'. These labels simply determine what you do not how skilled you're at it.

          In my opinion, full stack and DevOps is the normal, sane way of approaching software development. Artificially dividing up roles into labels such as 'front-end', 'back-end', 'database programmer', 'system administrator' only leads to more silos, less collaboration and sometimes even downright hostility between these roles.

    • scythe a year ago

      IQ is standardized to a population distribution. As such someone with an IQ of 120 is not 50% smarter than someone with an IQ of 80; rather, they simply have a 50% higher "score". But there is no standard zero-point on the IQ scale; the "IQ of a rock" could be anywhere from -5000 to +50 or so. That doesn't mean IQ is meaningless -- it correlates with a variety of positive outcomes -- but that low-IQ people are not "proportionally" less intelligent as measured by the IQ. Rather the IQ scale is set up to have a seemingly normal distribution relative to the observed distribution of fluid reasoning in the human population. The standard deviation of IQs is arbitrarily set at 15, and the mean is set at 100. We could easily reform the IQ scale to have a mean of 1000 and a sigma of 1, or a mean of zero and a sigma of 100. The number, itself, is meaningless without context.

      There is no evidence that a person with low IQ cannot accomplish the the tasks involved in e.g. software engineering, although they would probably do so more slowly than a person with high IQ. From Wiki:

      "The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. "

      Also, going to college has no effect on IQ, so "college-level IQ" is meaningless gobbledygook.

      • andrewwharton a year ago

        Re. college level IQ, I think they were referring to the level of IQ required to be able to successfully complete a college degree, ie. keep up with courses (which requires quick acquisition of knowledge), rather than the level of IQ 'acquired' after completing a college degree.

    • jas_far a year ago

      What exactly is a college-level IQ? Does everybody who goes to college have a college-level IQ?

    • SamReidHughes a year ago

      A college-level IQ these days means something low like 100 -- you're probably thinking of a more stringent standard.

      • learc83 a year ago

        An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the mean score of the general population.

        The average IQ of someone with a college degree is a good bit higher than that. From a quick Google search it looks like it's around 115, which is a standard deviation higher than the general population.

        • SamReidHughes a year ago

          I was referring to more of a minimum than an average.

      • ivl a year ago

        I was under the impression among people with undergraduate degrees it was closer to 110-115.

    • nerpderp83 a year ago

      The vast majority of the population already has a "college-level-iq" for whatever definition of. Tech work is not a geniuses' only game.

    • mlloyd a year ago

      Maybe - or maybe it just requires a specific way of thinking about things i.e. Problem Solving and Time/Task Management? As well as the ability to learn the task of course.

      • umanwizard a year ago

        What's the difference between "problem solving" and "IQ" ? They seem like almost the same thing.

        • jaibot a year ago

          "IQ" is a scalar semi-objectice well-defined metric that predicts some things about the much more complicated and less-well-defined concept of problem solving.

        • madamelic a year ago

          Problem-solving: the ability to deconstruct a problem into atomic pieces and construct solutions

          IQ: How fast you do it.

          tl;dr: Problem-solving is software, IQ is hardware

        • goialoq a year ago

          "IQ" measures something called "G", which is pattern-recognition ability (coincidentally the cutting edge of today's ML neural nets). The scientific theory of IQ is that that if you are good at pattern recognition, then you will be good at a wide range of cognitive tasks.

    • jas_far a year ago

      What is it about tech work that requires such a high intelligence, as you state? Because I'm a tech employee and would argue that your claim is completely unfounded. There's nothing special about learning how to code—it's a very trainable skill. Takes a lot of time and dedication, sure, but trainable nonetheless.

      • SamReidHughes a year ago

        You can't even teach calculus to some people to the point where they can pass a class. Some people in programming classes can't even submit homework that compiles.

        • jas_far a year ago

          Calculus and programming are in two different leagues of complexity, and most programming doesn't require a knowledge of calculus.

          Like any other skill, programming comes more easily to some than others, but with the right approach can be acquired by anyone.

          • SamReidHughes a year ago

            Calculus classes are more passable than programming classes, and the claim you're making is just pulled out of your hat, made in such a way that you could never be found wrong, because no matter what you could just say you're not taking the right approach.

  • dyarosla a year ago

    What criteria determines who should get a position then? What salary should those positions command? Sounds pretty handwavy.

    Edit: responders to this comment seem to miss that the parent comment is suggesting Google hire new individuals and train them, not find talent in their workforce and do training there. Thats the unrealistic part- creating a secondary application process for individuals without the skills -- when they already reject a ridiculous number of people with many of the skills.

    • blackguardx a year ago

      On the job training was pretty standard in the tech industry in the past. I worked with a guy at an HP (oldest high-tech co. in CA) spinoff that was the head embedded software architect and worked his way up from the machine shop in the '70s. He started out manning a drill press and learned to program when they started using NC (numeric control) machine tools.

      Do you think Google lets anyone to work their way up from front desk admin or barista?

      • was_boring a year ago

        This is basically how my mother was trained as a programmer. She got a job, was literally handed a stack of books and reference material and started figuring shit out.

        She changed careers before I can really remember her at that job, but I too am self-taught in this field (but I trained myself at home).

        The whole idea of companies not investing in their people is relatively new.

        • vanilla_nut a year ago

          To be fair, employees are no longer particularly faithful to employers-- after all, it's considered completely normal to spend only 2-5 years at a job, then move to the next one. This definitely complicates the benefits of on-the-job training: why waste 3-12 months training somebody to basic competence when they might leave a few months after that? Some of this is obviously due to employees fighting back against stagnant wages/lack of promotions, but it makes me wonder: who started the faithlessness first, employers or employees?

          • bradleyjg a year ago

            I don't know about started, it's been back and forth forever, but in recent history a big epochal change was the hostile takeover movement of the 80s. Many companies, including those that had had a reputation for loyalty to their employees, were bought out by corporate raiders who often took actions that lead to huge number of layoffs.

      • aikinai a year ago

        Yes, actually Google does have programs to let people work their way up on the inside. Barista is a bit extreme and not really internal since they're vendors, but admins, help desk, etc. do have avenues to move into other roles.

        • blackguardx a year ago

          That's good to hear. Carly Fiorina worked her way up from Admin to CEO. Though, that is a bad example because it didn't work work out too well for HP.

          I don't think being a barista is much different than my example, though. Maybe they should make them internal hires.

    • bogomipz a year ago

      >"What criteria determines who should get a position then?

      A basic aptitude for the role or transferable skills maybe?

      >"What salary should those positions command?"

      Whatever the company wants to pay. Why does that matter at all? Employment is still an agreement between the two parties.

      >"Sounds pretty handwavy."

      Not at all, "on the job training" has a history stretching from Medieval Ages and the guild system, to the industrial revolution, powering the war-time workforce etc:

    • alistairSH a year ago

      I don't have solid answers, but that's exactly how my father-in-law got into the computer field back in the early 60s. He was working an administrative job at a bank, someone IDed him as having potential, and the bank put him through internal training in programming and computer science-y stuff. It worked out, he spent some time programming, and eventually moved into management.

    • drharby a year ago

      Who determines who should get a training slot? What kind of subsistence shouls that training command?

      The commitment of capital to tanglible jobs that lead towards ojt is not handwavy at all. That said, i bet the tax breaks from the schooling is substantial

  • jimmaswell a year ago

    I'm thankful I found a company like that after graduating. Seemingly the only such specimen in America today. It's a giant international consultancy company that seemingly has a questionable reputation online but it was all I could get that paid anything remotely respectable and they even do paid training. It's seems to be one of a rapidly dwindling handful of paths for new grads who are graduating and finding out the online hype like "it's easy to get a job in CS if you do [some combination of good side projects, internships, good gpa, etc]" is an outright falsehood at this point in time - it's very hard unless an opportunity approaches you like what eventually happened to me amd it turned out all that applying and trying was a waste of time.

    In my case I had no choice but to do a draining unpaid internship in college, their return offer was only $15/hr, nowhere I applied to for months (likely hundreds of applications) would take me even though I did all those things in the list and continually put my resume through those resume threads on reddit, except one offer for 30k. 15/hr and 30k are abysmal insults to the amount of time money and effort put into programming since middle school, getting a BS CS degree, volunteering on big online projects since high school, etc. I'm not in the middle of nowhere either, this was NY/NJ.

    These experiences signal to me that the tech field is hightly oversaturated for new grads and it's a matter of time before people realize the bubble popped. Someone in my position should not be getting offered what amount to poverty wages taking into account student loans, the high price of car insurance for a driver of my age range, etc. Programs like what google is doing are just going to make this problem even worse as companies feel further emboldened to require increasingly more experience out of junior programmers and offer them salaries further approaching minimum wage.

    • was_boring a year ago

      Was this Accenture? They used to have a 3-week java training program for those entering as new grads, but I believe that's been reduced in scope now.

      • jimmaswell a year ago

        Tata. Is Accenture one of those ones with clauses that you have to pay a fine if you quit within a few years like Revature?

    • southphillyman a year ago

      Yup, companies like Accenture have been doing new hire "training" programs for well over a decade. It's a great way for young college grads who didn't go to one of the elite schools that the Googles of SV recruit from to get over the "Jr. Engineer with 3 years experience" hurdle.

      • jimmaswell a year ago

        Yeah, it's frustrating how the narrative is that where you got your degree doesn't matter when it absolutely does.

    • heroprotagonist a year ago

      > continually put my resume through those resume threads on reddit

      From curiosity, and certainly not to offend.. you _did_ place your resume elsewhere as well, right?

      • jimmaswell a year ago

        I meant resume critique/improvement threads. I put the resume on sites like Monster as well as sending it to specific postings, usually customized for that posting.

        • heroprotagonist a year ago

          Oh, good, that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for my confusion.

  • ptero a year ago

    I doubt that hiring average talent and training it is best for Google business. They believe that it is better to try hiring only the very best, and do it even if employees do not match a specific position they ostensibly interviewed for (e.g., train for skills or find new positions, but after a very high entry bar).

    I think retraining programs primarily help sharp, energetic folks who somehow got into a bad state (useless major, bad school, rough childhood, etc.); maybe even social connections and stability are more important than the skills they end up getting. However, those programs are IMO worthless for folks who lost a stable job and hope that Yet Another Certification Class will put them into a pipeline for a similar one. I am not sure how to help the second type.

    • grtrans a year ago

      Google hasn’t hired “the very best” for at least five to seven years now; there are plenty “average talent” employees who do their job adequately.

      Mind you they do hire some of the best, but the idea that google engineers are “the best” is a myth.

      • ptero a year ago

        I never said google engineers are "the best". I said that this is what Google tries to do. IMO it did this pretty well 10 years ago, but as a company gets big this gets much harder.

        I heard though they are still trying to do this, even being aware of the lower success ratio.

  • grigjd3 a year ago

    These companies do on-the-job training. The problem is that a college degree in computer science or software engineering doesn't actually prepare you to work at these companies. It makes you effectively literate, so that you are feasibly trainable.

  • BjoernKW a year ago

    Usually I'd agree that on-the-job training is more beneficial than untethered training programs.

    However, just today I listened to the most recent Freakonomics Radio episode, which was about how Germany managed to become the economic powerhouse it is today. Most economists that were asked agreed that an essential ingredient of Germany's economic success is its unique concept of vocational training, which combines on-the-job training with school education and general - as opposed to employer-specific - job training.

    Perhaps a system that's essentially a combination of both on-the-job training and more formal training programs would be conducive in this case as well.

    • soperj a year ago

      Yeah, it's also helpful that German tertiary education is free.

wavefunction a year ago

I am glad to see Google doing something like this.

All of humanity growing together towards a brighter future for everyone is truly our highest calling.

thewhitetulip a year ago

But nobody wants to address the mounting student loan problem!!

Degrees don't come for free, technical graduates don't come for free, students have to go to college for that and in US you need a LOT of money for that.

This is the chicken and egg problem where nobody wants to address the real problem an everyone is going around giving superficial solutions.

  • ucaetano a year ago

    Student loans are only a problem to students doing one or more degrees in low-2nd and 3rd tier schools with few job market prospects.

    The rate of student loan defaults is actually inversely proportional to the amount owed.

    • thewhitetulip a year ago

      I don't say that student loans aren't getting refunded, I am saying that you need to take a loan to study. That's the problem.

0xFFC a year ago

What they mean by high tech specifically ? Android dev, web dev, etc qualifies as high tech job?

perpetualcrayon a year ago

I think not only do we need to be thinking about getting people "prepared" with new skills, but also about smooth lateral movement across industries.

In a lot of cases these are probably viewed as the same thing but, for example, I would ask: When was the last time a Senior Java Developer was a candidate for a Senior FrontEnd Web Developer position?

I think the future is going to be a lot less about being hired for "jobs" with "companies". Instead it's going to be substantially more about "projects" being done by "groups / organizations". The groups / organizations being assembled / disassembled with high frequency.

Chiba-City a year ago

Start with basic observations. Tool acquisition is not tool mastery. Tool mastery does not mean jobs for or at Google. Janitors are not getting IPO payouts for lives of leisure. Cold war coastal higher education, city living and corporate trading prowess have drained many interior communities of their best brains throughout decades of deindustrialization and deskilling.

Some better nerds here can hardly imagine perfectly smart people who cannot yet touch type or turn a spreadsheet into a group calendar. Our miraculous simple decision support tools are still opaque to majorities of Americans. Only Americans far outside Google will create value to create jobs. That takes planning for any possible sweat equity or financial investment. We have generations of people to train with tools. The boy genius prizes for ever new tooling are not really separate concerns. Cultivating and harvest new boy geniuses from the field is expensive. They don't exactly grow on trees.

Google like Apple or Microsoft had to discover and rediscover their own relevance. They cultivate their markets now with intensive growth. This is a good move.

swendoog a year ago

Everyone hates a cynic so bring on the downvotes:

I'm going to warn everyone of what's coming.

Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030.

The HUGE push from government, and private business, to fill the PERCEIVED lack of engineers, will come to fruition around that time.

Make no mistake about it - there is NOT a lack of skilled engineers right now. There is a disinterest among business to pay higher, and higher salaries.

If you are a SWE right now, save your money, and invest your time into improving YOURSELF. Have a backup plan, because I promise you, the good times are coming to an end sooner than you think.

  • olavgg a year ago

    I disagree, I see people fail learning programming over and over again. Even after three years completing a computer engineering degree, they struggle with how a for loop works, (No this is not a joke in Europe).

    Learning to program takes a lot of dedication and focus. Which a lot of people have no interest in, it is just too much work and too difficult. Every student that takes a engineering degree here, have to have a class with introduction to coding. And everyone, except those few who enjoys computer science, says that class was the hardest class to pass by far compared to the rest.

    So I believe the opposite will happen. The demand for software developers will grow beyond our imagination.

    • swendoog a year ago

      I just can't share that optimism. I taught myself to code using youtube videos and books. There are 14 year olds on YouTube coding iOS video games in a matter of weeks.

      Combine that with the fact that big companies (like Google) release SDKs that make application development trivial, and you've got a recipe for the skill cap lowering along with wages.

      • zjaffee a year ago

        Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in depth understanding of how threads work? How different hardware components work together at scale? Most people with CS degrees never acquire the skillset to do such work, why should I believe that those who are trained via job training programs will be able to do so. I'd be more afraid of potential retraining of other highly skilled workers who want to switch careers than anything else.

        The skillset of building a personal website, or even a website for your small business should be something anyone can do, and will in no way impact the overall salary of software engineers in the future.

        Major companies will always need people who understand the computational sciences, as scale and complexity follow some of the same rules as entropy, in that they are always increasing.

        Additionally, the reason for high salaries is not a lack of engineers, it is that top companies have decided that it is in their best interest to outbid each other for top talent. In parts of the midwest, where there is less competition, engineers are already paid 50k a year.

        • colemannugent a year ago

          >Do those apps that 14 year olds work on require an in depth understanding of how threads work?

          I am constantly surprised that when other CS students in my classes have zero idea how anything beyond the particular language we're learning works. Even in higher skill-level classes that require a fair amount of proficiency with the language if you asked what the length of the pointer they just properly used was all you would get is blank stares.

          • xfer a year ago

            > "how anything beyond the particular language we're learning works. "


            > "if you asked what the length of the pointer they just properly used was all you would get is blank stares"

            So what is it?

            It's a computer science program, not learn a dozen language's quirks and implementation detail that you use for a single class to understand some concept.

        • grigjd3 a year ago

          It's not that bad in the midwest. Salaries in the 70-80K range are common enough.

      • socialist_coder a year ago

        Maybe you are both right?

        The new class of programmers that governments and Google want to train up from your average worker will not be as skilled or intelligent as the current generation of programmers. But, there are still opportunities for them in software development. They will take jobs that pay 40-60k a year, while the higher skilled and more intelligent programmers will be architects or leads who command much higher salaries.

      • nrhk a year ago

        Having more code technicans is great. I'd love to have more people to help maintain shit, write documentation, do small bug fixes etc...

        There will be a differentiation between Engineers and Coders soon. Hooking up to a few different APIs, doing some JS and HTML does not count as engineering.

      • empath75 a year ago

        Making it easier to do some things we do with code today doesn’t mean there won’t be new hard problems to solve tomorrow.

    • patorjk a year ago

      I've not only seen the same, I've seen people who actually work as developers who struggle with basic for-loops. I used to get worried when people rang alarm bells about jobs going overseas or there being an influx of developers into the market, but a large portion of the population seems to either just not be able to wrap their head around programming, or just not find it that interesting.

  • cromwellian a year ago

    "PERCEIVED lack"? Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point? Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher? Because demand for SWEs is outstripping supply.

    This to me looks like the same kind of privileged outlook that other professional guilds like the AMA desire. Do you want cheaper healthcare, or doctor compensation to keep going up? Hey, letting nurse practitioners take on some of the load is "flooding the market with n00bs"

    This just seems like protectionism by another name.

    Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?

    • vonmoltke a year ago

      > Doesn't the fact that salaries are sky rocketing essentially disprove your point?

      What's your definition of "skyrocketing"? Outside of, maybe, a dozen high-prestiege companies located in a couple specific areas I don't see salaries skyrocketing. Mine hasn't; not saying I'm not well compensated, just not as overpaid or in demand asbsone people make it sound.

      Further, my experience with the aforementioned high prestige companies is that they are picky as hell. That tells me that either there is no shortage of talent for them or they are choosing beggars.

    • rtuulik a year ago

      While it may appear that salaries are rising quickly, in reality, for the average tech employee, they have been standing still for quite a while.

      In 2003, the average salary in tech was $69,400.

      By 2017, the average salary had risen to $92,081.[1]

      While that might seem like a pretty large payrise, after adjusting it for inflation, you come to a clear conclusion that over the last 12 years, salaries have stood basically still. You can point to people getting $120k+ as a first year employee at Google, but salaries like that are massive outliers. Average developer in america earns much less.

      [1] Dice Tech Salary Survey 2017

      • cromwellian a year ago

        Storage and Networking != SWE, and these surveys cover a much wider ground than particular tech hub job markets, and do not adjust for purchasing power parity/cost of living.

    • vkou a year ago

      > Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?

      Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing?

      They are certainly spending their energy on fighting attempts to spread the economic pie around. We need solidarity, not shaming people for protecting their means to make a living.

      • WalterBright a year ago

        > Does our owner class have a natural god-given right to a 6% return on their investment every year, for doing nothing?

        You, too, can become an "owner class" by opening an online trading account and buying stocks. Commissions are often under $10 for a trade.

        • vkou a year ago

          Since I wasn't born into money, or won the lottery, I can't live off that 6% return for another two decades.

          Either way, even if I can, the guy who makes my morning coffee can't, and never will be.

          • WalterBright a year ago

            > for another two decades

            I.e. start investing and in 20 years you'll be financially independent. Sounds good to me to be living in the US.

            > the guy who makes my morning coffee can't

            I talked with a guy once who told me he "can't". He was driving a new car, and the payments, rent, etc., added up to more than his income. I suggested he sell the car, buy a car he can afford to pay cash for, and start investing.

            He partially did take my advice. He sold the car, bought one he could pay cash for, and then blew the extra income on some other luxuries. Of course, then he still was in "can't" territory.

            My current car I bought used 25 years ago and still drive every day. It costs me practically nothing.

        • s73ver_ a year ago

          You're forgetting the part about having enough money to make meaningful investments.

          • WalterBright a year ago

            If you'd invested $1000 in Boeing in the early 80's, it'd be worth $200,000 today. Sounds meaningful to me.

            • s73ver_ a year ago

              And if I was a fetus in the early 80s? Or if I got sick and needed to sell that stock early to pay for treatment?

              Your point still is predicated on the "already having money" part.

              • WalterBright a year ago

                Far and away most people are healthy 20-60 and are not sidelined by disastrous health problems.

                The point is invest early in your working life, and you'll have the needed results when you're ready to retire.

                $1,000 is not what people would consider "having money" is. $200,000 is. If you have a car, it surely cost far more than $1,000.

                • s73ver_ a year ago

                  A car is a necessity in most of America for getting around. Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around. And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

                  And depending on who you're talking to, having a spare $1,000 risk on investment is "having money".

                  • WalterBright a year ago

                    > Most people likely do not have a spare $1000 laying around.

                    True enough. Because they spend it, like the person who bought a new car. How much do they spend on beer/cigarettes/weed in a year?

                    > And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

                    That's true. Apparently investing is more than "doing nothing", and one is taking a risk. But it is within the means of the vast majority of adults.

                  • smileysteve a year ago

                    > And knowing what to invest in is another can of worms in itself.

                    For the record; knowing what to invest in is easy: a broad based low cost index fund. The research in "A Random Walk Down Wallstreet" statistically shows that actively choosing specific companies has a less than 50% success rate and often comes with higher fees. For the record, most public libraries have a copy of "A Random Walk" and its conclusions are well shared.

            • baursak a year ago

              What if I invested in Blockbuster instead of Boeing? How much would my $1000 be worth today?

              • WalterBright a year ago

                If you're not willing to invest because it's risky, that's fair, but if you're also going to complain that those who do are getting something for nothing, then it isn't so fair.

                • baursak a year ago

                  I wasn't the original commenter, but I don't think when they said "owner class" they meant passive minority shareholders with $200K portfolios or people with some money in their 401Ks.

                  While some of the richest are certainly entrepreneurs, the largest percentage of Forbes 400 are people who got there with OPM, other people's money, like hedge fund managers. Another chunk are heirs like Waltons or Kochs. Did Waltons get something for nothing without any risk? I would say yes, they did.

                  • WalterBright a year ago

                    Check this on Sam Walton before assuming he got something for nothing:


                    More accurately he made something from nothing.

                    You and anyone else could have made a little something, too, if you'd bought Walmart stock. Lots of people did.

                    Also, you could be a millionaire by retirement if you adhered to a regular investment program rather than only one investment of $1,000.

                    • baursak a year ago

                      Sam Walton is dead, I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about his children, they're in top 20 richest people or something like that. Each one.

                    • s73ver_ a year ago

                      And if I didn't have the money to buy that stock?

                      Also, the Walton kids most assuredly got something for nothing.

        • propogandist a year ago

          Stop paying $10, and use Robinhood which offers Free Trades.

          It has limitations, so you'd want a traditional broker also.

      • Apocryphon a year ago

        Sure. Solidarity to push back against the owner class to take a smaller piece of the pie, so the rest of the workers underneath - whether long-time veterans or recent entrants - may share it. In this, new workers shouldn't be seen as a threat, but an opportunity to create a bigger force to band together against the execs.

    • swendoog a year ago

      I continue to be thoroughly surprised by the people who are accusing me of things like "protectionism".

      If you re-read my original post you will notice that I did NOT advocate for artificially restricting worker supply, or any kind of protectionism.

      I merely warned that what we're seeing in tech WILL bring an end to the "high" salaries, and that those who wish to maintain their current state, should consider PERSONAL GROWTH and advancing their skillset as a means of protection.

      We can debate all day about whether its a "perceived" lack, or a real lack. I whole heartedly disagree that salaries are, as you put it, "sky rocketing", especially when you account for cost of living in the areas where the "skyrocketing" is happening.

      And oh, yes, how dare a doctor who spent upwards of $500,000 in medical training, and devoted years to internships, and residency, be worried about a lowered skill cap or regulatory protections (which they counted on) for entering their profession! How dare they!

      Please. Of all the examples of protectionism you could have given, you chose perhaps the most acceptable and understandable. Yes, people care about their livelihood and the ability to retain efforts and investments they have made, so would you.

      • cromwellian a year ago

        The difference is people saying "I got mine, and I'm going to vote against and oppose any thing that increases opportunities for other people to enter my industry and compete with me."

        To me, that's unfair and wrong.

    • s73ver_ a year ago

      "Yes, the good times for software engineering will come to an end. I'm a software engineer, this will affect me. But the question is, do I have a natural god given right to have a ballooning salary every year, while fighting attempts to increase labor supply that might cut that growth rate?"

      Does your employer have a natural, God given right to cheap labor?

      • cromwellian a year ago

        Do I have a right not to have competition from other people in my industry underbidding me? My employer's rights are not the issue, it's whether I have a right to restrain others from entering the market through means like trying to oppose training and educational opportunities.

        • s73ver_ a year ago

          Your employer's rights are very much the issue.

          • cromwellian a year ago

            Are we're talking about a minimum wage for SWEs now? I mean what, specifically, are you suggesting? Employers can't hire people who bid lower?

            Salary in the tech industry is a function of demand. Right now, for example, people with expertise in Machine Learning are in high demand. You can graduate with an MS or Phd in machine learning, form a startup with no product whatsoever, and get acqui-hired just because of the insane bidding war going on right now.

            When I moved to SV in the 90s, at the height of the dot-com boom, kids fresh out of college were getting insane signing bonuses worth $10k or more. I knew people who would switch jobs every few months, just to collect freebies.

            Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but here, tech workers are very highly privileged. Seeing people complain about a desk job that pays $100k+, weeks vacation, great healthcare and benefits, flexible working hours, compared to the utter suffering that's happening in the working class across this country just looks tone deaf to me.

            Before we worry about the poor suffering tech workers, in their gentrified neighborhoods, in swanky cafes, facing stagnating nominal wages, how bout we consider the masses of people who missed out on the tech-utopia for the upper 10%, people who would like to move up the value chain, and have a right to compete for your job.

            My mother worked as a cashier at Safeway before she died. Comparing my hourly wage as a SWE to hers is kind of obscene, and for the people I grew up with, seeing tech-bros complain about their current threatened position has got to look like people completely ignorant of how much privilege they have.

    • closeparen a year ago

      >Why are the salaries getting pushed higher and higher?

      Because Bay Area cost of living is getting pushed higher and higher. The median programmer already has roommates, a 2-hour roundtrip commute, and no hope of family-sized housing or (gasp) ownership; if standard of living falls any further, we'll all go do something else.

      Obviously many people have it worse, but we have alternatives.

  • Joeri a year ago


    The amount of programmers needed is rising across the globe. Every country is going to try to retain its IT talent. In a cut-throat globally competitive world you can't afford to be the country that lets its best minds leave to greener pastures.

    Also, programming isn't the sort of job where you can fake your way through. If new people are trained up to enter the field they'll need to skills to match. As a relative share to population size the number of people studying computer science has been falling, not rising. These bootcamps and training programs are trying to bridge the skills gap, and so far have not succeeded. If anything there's going to be a skills glut, with a corresponding rise in pay.

    Sure, employers always try to minimize pay. IT is not special, this is the case for all industries. Labor price is set through supply and demand, and programmer's wages are no different. Can you give a single example of an industry that used to have high wages but now has low wages? It would be exceedingly unlikely for IT to behave unlike every other industry.

    • hobofan a year ago

      > Also, programming isn't the sort of job where you can fake your way through.

      Not sure why you think programming would be special in that regard. In a lot of companies, you will be able to keep your badly done job for a really long time as long as you have a good bond with your higher-ups. This goes for programming the same as sales or any other profession.

      • humanrebar a year ago

        Yep. You need to move often enough to stay ahead of the technical debt you run up as you string your spaghetti code together. Or transition into a role where you talk about code much more than read or write it.

      • Joeri a year ago

        That’s true, but at some point someone has to actually do the work. The company will need to hire a certain level of skill to remain competitive.

  • psyc a year ago

    I'll believe there's a shortage or urgent demand when I notice a change in hiring standards and practices, and recruiting methods. As a former hiring person, yeah, it's kind of a pain in the ass to have to interview a lot of people before you find one who's any good. But if there was a genuine shortage + this alleged urgent demand, I have to believe that something about the tired, inefficient, and false-positive-allergic process would change in a newsworthy way.

  • Apocryphon a year ago

    The solution to lower wages created by more workers isn't to clamp down on the supply. The solution is to unionize and to ensure that labor has leverage through collective bargaining. Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers seems as wrongheaded as arguing against building more homes in a housing crisis.

    • humanrebar a year ago

      > Trying to play gatekeeper against bringing in more workers...

      Except many unions do exactly this through closed shops and other tactics.

      • Apocryphon a year ago

        Sure. 19th century unions in the U.S. were often racist and or nativist, seeing non-WASPs workers as a threat. But surely a unions formed by 21st century tech workers with over a century of historical wisdom and the modern day spirit of innovation should be able to do better, no?

        • arjie a year ago

          I sincerely cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The first order of business of any tech union will be to stall the H1-B program and then follow that up with strict gatekeeping rules. Just read HN, a supposedly enlightened class of programmers. It's all short term protectionism from people insecure of their ability.

          • HillaryBriss a year ago

            1. it seems to be more complex than that. i mean, if you look at, say, the SEIU's position on immigration, it does not oppose additional immigration to the US. if anything, the SEIU has taken a pro-immigration position:

            2. protectionism from people insecure of their ability describes both tech workers and tech companies. Google, Facebook, Apple et al have increased their political presence in recent years with additional lobbyists. corporations love an unfair playing field as much as anyone.

          • Apocryphon a year ago

            Surely an industry that prides itself on thinking different can figure out new and innovative solutions to seemingly impossible problems.

            • joshuamorton a year ago

              I think the point is that they don't want to.

    • HillaryBriss a year ago

      i partially agree. e.g. public sector labor unions in Los Angeles have succeeded at maintaining high wages and great benefits for themselves.

      but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument.

      clamping down on the supply is exactly what a public sector union does. union work rules and other union-favorable city regulations exclude or limit non-union workers who might otherwise be hired to carry out various city functions.

      working for the city or the department of water and power can be a very good deal for the worker, but city residents pay more in taxes and see less service as a result. merely unionizing the labor force helps some people but hurts others.

      indeed, a case can be made that, because police officers are so highly paid and benefitted, they are scarce. and because they are scarce, there's more property crime, and murder, than there would be otherwise. it seems quite plausible that some city residents pay a very high price because of this public sector unionization.

      in politics, this leads to a strategy wherein city residents who live in "electorally unimportant" areas (i.e. poor areas with lower voter turnout) receive lower levels of government service than city residents in areas that vote a lot.

      • s73ver_ a year ago

        "but when you say the solution "isn't to clamp down on the supply" i lose the thread of your argument."

        I've not seen an example of this. And I do not consider being a member of the union to be clamping down.

        • HillaryBriss a year ago

          here's an example: in LA a large number of electrical power poles are at end of life and need replacement. but the city is slowed by union rules in efforts to contract this work out to take advantage of the labor force at large:

          One key obstacle, officials say, is the contract with DWP’s largest union, IBEW Local 18. The agreement requires that managers negotiate with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers before hiring contractors. Initially, the department is supposed to attempt to fill any internal vacant positions, Howard said. The contract also obligates managers to offer IBEW workers overtime to fill some of the need.

          IBEW business manager Brian D’Arcy declined to be interviewed for this story.


    • swendoog a year ago

      Unions? How has that worked for every other craft industry in the US?

      Forgive my crass reply, but, I have only seen unions become weaker and weaker in the U.S. And even when they were "strong" they didn't protect labor interests against increases in labor supply. Globalization has wrecked a number of industries, which unions were powerless against. The strongest card in the hand of any laborer is their scarcity.

      Also, nobody (including myself) is advocating for "playing gatekeeper". I merely made a post warning people of what's coming. If you look closely my advice was to the individual - invest in yourself. Don't count on unions, or governments playing gatekeeper, to protect your current salary.

      • Apocryphon a year ago

        Doctors, actors, pro athletes. There are many types of guilds and professional associations beyond unions.

        Furthermore, if tech is about disrupting everything, including the nature of work itself (through on-demand) and even the nature of human relations itself (through social media), then surely some attempt could be made to better labor relations by inventing a better type of union. It's especially rich to hear "no, it can't happen, it's always failed in the past" comments wrt labor unions come from workers who work in an industry that's supposedly all about innovation.

        I wasn't trying to attack you for your original comment, in any case. You actually offer good advice. But my general sentiment is that we shouldn't try to restrict the labor market- it seems as wrongheaded as trying to fight gentrification by limiting house construction just because some of those units will be luxury condos instead of affordable housing- and that lowered wages could be fought by the presence of a tech union that protects tech workers.

  • southphillyman a year ago

    How does flooding the market with more developers who can't pass their interviews help them lower salaries?

    • humanrebar a year ago

      If you depress market rates aggressively, you can "increase" pay from 120% to 140% of market rate without giving raises to anyone.

  • runT1ME a year ago

    >software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030.

    There have always been 'blue collar' engineering jobs. When I started in the tech industry I was making $13 an hour writing HTML and a bit of SQL here and there.

    There are probably tens of thousands of "Software Engineers" putting together PHP sites, doing front end JS work at an entry level, hacking together some minor software customizations. I think you're right, this will become more prevalent. The world needs a lot more engineers to do this kind of work.

    >There is a disinterest among business to pay higher, and higher salaries.

    Evidence points to the contrary, salaries have skyrocketed in the last ten years... have you been paying attention?

    • mljoe a year ago

      Agreed. I'll add that it is also worth noting current job openings don't mean "potential job openings". There is entire things we might not even be considering as a society simply because there is not enough people to consider it. I think this is the case in tech. So much of our society is lagging behind what current technical capability allows. I still have to fax paper forms sometimes. Why? The potential employment might be 10x, maybe even 100x what it is now. Just to keep entire industries even remotely up to date.

    • humanrebar a year ago

      > There have always been 'blue collar' engineering jobs.

      I think the industry is overdue for consolidating on some language around the various kinds of software jobs. Nurses, doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, PAs, medical technicians, orderlies, general practitioners, obstetricians, pediatricians, pharmacists, etc. could all be "medical engineers". But broadly understood names for the different roles clarify expectations for each.

  • closeparen a year ago

    >Software engineer jobs will be blue collar, $40-$60k a year jobs, by 2030.

    I'd be fine with that. $60k is a solid living. 1/4th of a pretty nice house. In Wisconsin.

    I'd take that salary today - in Wisconsin. But I'm not sure you could even get your own room for that in the Bay Area, where they'll inevitably require you to be to earn it.

  • ithilglin909 a year ago

    I don't think you're wrong; I could see certain kinds of engineering jobs becoming more blue collar. But at the risk of sounding pretentious, there's a bit of an intelligence restriction on certain kinds of engineering work. There will probably always be more of a demand than supply for people who are really good and useful.

  • Aunche a year ago

    Software engineer jobs will never be blue collar because it's not a blue collar job. Sure, anyone can make a tic tac toe go, but that's different from software engineering. A good software engineer can effectively do the work of several mediocre ones by making decisions that would benefit the company in the long run.

  • thatonechad a year ago

    I would agree with this but its not going to happen by 2030 thats for sure. Its going to take a lot longer.

  • walloning a year ago

    Alternatively, more software engineers means that the market for information technology can become more fierce and competitive in a good sense. Chinese workers have work not because there are only a few but because they are innumerous.

  • corporateslave3 a year ago

    Personally, I think you are wrong. If you are an average engineer, you should be very afraid. But if you are exceptional, you will see your comp shoot through the roof in the coming years.

    • twoquestions a year ago

      Average developer here, and I am scared. I'm worried that programming is going to have a similar winner-take-everything compensation scheme not unlike music or art, where only the very best make any money at all.

s73ver_ a year ago

How many of these grants are going outside of already tech heavy areas? How many of them are going to coal country, or to the Rust Belt?

It's great that they're doing this, but unless they're going to be doing it in the places that are hurting, not much is going to change.

twoquestions a year ago

Stated differently, "Google commits $1B to flood the market with newbie tech workers, and to grow future client businesses".

The cynic in me can clearly see their interest in the effects of this grant, but thinking on it more that interest might serve us better in the long run. I just hope the community gains from that money before it makes it's way back to Google.

  • dontreact a year ago

    Even if it's self interest, at least good to see a company thinking in very long term self interest. This aligns incentives much better with the common good.

  • Apocryphon a year ago

    For a long time the anti-H1B segment has been critical of Big Tech for trying to undercut American tech workers instead in investing in citizens. So now they're investing in the wrong citizens?

    • UncleMeat a year ago

      I swear, many of the HN crowd seems like they'd be happiest if they were the only developer on the planet.

      • vkou a year ago

        You should ask taxi drivers about how they feel about millions of people getting paid peanuts to drive for Lift and Uber.

        Or lawyers about how they feel about millions of people with law degrees unable to find work as lawyers.

        Or Physics PHDs about how they feel driving a cab^wUber.

        Or musicians, who live off selling t-shirts.

        Why do you think supply and demand does not apply to the IT labour market?

        • UncleMeat a year ago

          Because labor generates additional demand. There isn't fixed demand for software engineers that persists across all time. The demand for engineers has grown over the last fifty years.

      • klipt a year ago

        Well obviously, think of how well I'd be paid! /s

    • nova22033 a year ago

      There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about their own jobs. They see any move like this as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects.

      Training kids to code? Yup..threat to their own job.

      • crdoconnor a year ago

        >There are a LOT of people in tech who are really insecure about their own jobs.

        If the rest of the job market looked like it did in the 1950s, sure - no problem. I don't see any reason to feel particularly secure when this is what's going on outside of tech though:

        >They see any move like this as a plot by bigcorp to undermine their job prospects.

        Either tech bigcorp is concerned about their bottom line or they aren't. If they are, then wouldn't it be economically rational to try and reduce their largest expense - developer wages?

        I wonder sometimes if people are really naive enough to think that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to "reform immigration" or "get CS taught in primary schools" out of the goodness of his heart.

        • nova22033 a year ago

          What does the plight of adjunct professors have to do with the job market for software professionals?

          >I wonder sometimes if people are really naive enough to think that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to "reform immigration" or "get CS taught in primary schools" out of the goodness of his heart.

          First a non sequitur and now a strawman? I don't think Zuckeberg lets me use facebook out of the goodness of his heart either...

          • crdoconnor a year ago

            >What does the plight of adjunct professors have to do with the job market for software professionals?

            I see tens of thousands of (often desperate) people trying to get in to the profession because that's what it's like on the outside.

            So far demand has outstripped supply, but I can see demand collapsing if/when VC dries up and demand remaining the same while people continue to flood in to the profession.

            That is, over time, I expect the job market for software professionals to end up more like the job market for adjunct professors than vice versa.

            >First a non sequitur and now a strawman? I don't think Zuckeberg lets me use facebook out of the goodness of his heart either...

            Right. So you think Facebook is run for advertising dollars and his other "charitable" ventures (e.g. to reform immigration) are run as an attempt to undermine developer wages?

    • twoquestions a year ago

      Hardly, especially if they execute aggressively on the "grow future client businesses" bit.

      I'll admit that part of my suspicion is rooted in self-interest, but if demand for my labor grows faster than other people can supply it I'll still win out (along with many others).

      • zzzcpan a year ago

        Abundance of cheap labor allows to "grow future client businesses", not the other way around. Cheap labor is key here, no matter where it comes from.

  • bkeroack a year ago

    ...which will depress the wages of everyone on HN reading these words. Especially entry level engineers or those without CS degrees.

    "Coding bootcamps" are the new DeVry IT program of the 2010s.

    • jasonlotito a year ago

      What people tend to forget is that Google and others were involved in anti-poaching deals that kept the wages of workers down. What people don't realize is that this affected you whether you worked for Google or some company competing with Google. After all, if they could match Google's artificially lower salary, or get near it, they were good. Those actions hurt everyone in the industry.

      While it's great they are working to train workers, it's not hard to imagine them having a conversation about this regarding lowered salaries.

      • bkeroack a year ago

        Exactly. Instead of colluding to artificially depress wages, flood the market with trainees to naturally and legally accomplish the same end.

    • merpnderp a year ago

      It seems like the more IT workers we have the more IT workers we need. When I started in IT, a starting programmer made about the top scale of a teacher. Now a starting programmer makes about 175% of a top scale teacher. At least in the Mid-West.

  • panarky a year ago

    I understand your instant skepticism, but I think it's misplaced here.

    This is a billion dollars going to nonprofits to help people level up their skills.

    While Google should benefit indirectly from this, their investment will also help countless other enterprises and individuals.

    This is badly needed, so I'm going to suppress my reflex to twist the story against Google and celebrate the fact that they're taking concrete action.

    Show me another company doing anything similar.

    • walshemj a year ago

      But will google employ any of these employees or is it just presentism

  • ransom1538 a year ago

    They could instead pay taxes instead of stashing cash overseas.

  • jbob2000 a year ago

    I saw it totally differently. The recent election showed me that there are huge amounts of untapped labour across the US, but they lack to capital to elevate themselves. To me, this was google saying "hey, we don't need to import people for tech, we can just home grow them"

wehere1 a year ago

always remember: the industry's involvement in CS education has less to do with philanthropy and goodwill than it does with lowering the cost of labor over the long term

  • tptacek a year ago

    You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply while making integer multiples of the median US household income building up an industry premised on automating away everyone else's jobs.

    Stop worrying about your wages! Your job will eventually be automated away. A basic income is sure to protect you.

    • TheAdamAndChe a year ago

      There are already places that require tons of experience to even get an IT job. Complete automation and centralization of IT jobs isn't required to strongly impact American lives.

      Not everyone lives in a tech hub of the country.

    • ra1n85 a year ago

      >"A basic income is sure to protect you."

      An unplanned, unsustainable, and uncommitted allowance provided to you by a group of people that seek power and do not share your interests will meet all of your future needs.

      • tptacek a year ago

        It's like when the threat is to our own profession it finally starts to sink in.

    • s73ver_ a year ago

      "You'd need a scanning electron microscope to detect the tiny violin playing for people complaining about labor oversupply while making integer multiples of the median US household income building up an industry premised on automating away everyone else's jobs."

      So what is the exact dollar amount one has to make before they no longer are allowed to worry about whether or not they'll have a job?

      "A basic income is sure to protect you."

      Given the current political climate in the US, I can only say bullshit.

  • cm2187 a year ago

    High labor cost just because of skill shortage may be gratifying and lucrative for the happy few but is not an efficient allocation of resources for the wider society. Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do.

    Replace "developer" with any other profession to convince yourself.

    • Y7ZCQtNo39 a year ago

      Nah, because I'm going to put my self-interest first. Just like Google is. So I should naturally oppose this as a developer. I benefit from a low supply of people with my skill set. Do you think google cares about "efficient allocation of resources for the wide society?" Tech companies embody the complete opposite of that mindset. The tech firms most in this forum work at bring in billions, but only require a few thousand workers. And most of the cash ends up overseas, doing nothing. It's not an efficient allocation of capital at all.

    • baursak a year ago

      The only people who care about efficient allocation of resources for the society are socialists and academics. Certainly CEOs with multi-million dollar annual compensations don't think they're contributing to allocation inefficiencies by negotiating their compensations. Neither do doctors and AMA, who we all love and respect. Neither do military leaders or politicians, who demand half the country's budget for military expenditures. Etc, etc.

      Increasing the skill supply is the right thing to do if you're Google stakeholder, or broadly speaking, a capitalist. It's much more questionable if you're in the labor force.

      • sounds a year ago

        Or, more bluntly:

        Google should pay high salaries. The market will supply the skilled workers when the salaries are high enough to attract more workers.

        (Google does pay high salaries. If they want more skilled workers, raising their salaries is the most efficient way to get that outcome.)

        • s73ver_ a year ago

          Well, it's more than just pure salary. I'm sure if they changed things so that one did not have to work crazy hours while there, they could get away with paying less.

          • orangecat a year ago

            You don't have to work crazy hours at Google. At least at the teams I was on; there were occasional reports of lousy conditions in some groups (e.g. Nest), but they were very much the exception.

        • TeMPOraL a year ago

          They're likely betting that investing in training programs will be even more effective.

      • stale2002 a year ago

        Uhh, I do NOT love the AMA.

        The AMA is responsible for maximum doctor quotas that drive up the cost of healthcare.

        The AMAs decision to artificially increase the cost of Healthcare literally kills people.

    • SapphireSun a year ago

      You'd think that, but then you'd remember that if the population isn't making money capitalism doesn't work. People need money to buy things. The big picture is that labor is being defeated everywhere and money is accruing at the top. The whole system will break down if something isn't done.

      • stevenwoo a year ago

        I remember talking with a friend of mine in the 90's about this and he thought we would have a revolution in this country if things didn't change vis a vis inequality. What's happening so far is the rats at the bottom of the ship are blaming the slightly different rats in the same situation for making the problem worse.

    • jasonlotito a year ago

      If Google hadn't been involved with a scheme that helped keep the salaries of employees artificially lower (and by extension, affecting the rest of the industry), you might have a point. But as it stands, Google's own actions means it's imperative we question their motives. After all, if Google and others hadn't done what they did with the anti-poaching scheme, would the resulting salaries be higher for all involved?

    • alexanderstears a year ago

      It's not as if the skill shortage reflects some barriers to entry (like the Doctor's union deciding how many people get to go to medical school). The skill shortage reflects the difficulty of acquiring the skills, the high salaries are critical to ensuring that skilled people develop their technical skills.

      I don't know how much a piano teacher costs, but I know it's the right amount because that's the equilibrium.

      A more efficient allocation of resources would look like getting rid of 'too big to fail' banks and decreasing the rent that the finance industry extracts.

    • 8note a year ago

      Yes, that's why we have labour unions. The cost should be high because we demand it to be so, not because of a shortage.

    • s73ver_ a year ago

      Neither are these companies getting lots of cheap labor and keeping the difference for themselves and their shareholders.

      And, more importantly, why should I care if it's an "efficient allocation of resources" when the alternative is that I no longer get a decent wage?

    • notyourday a year ago

      Oh how quick we forget that we bitch about $35k/year H1Bs

  • dqpb a year ago

    This sounds like fixed pie logic to me.

    My intuition is that the Pareto optional solution is one where nearly everyone is proficient in engineering. I see engineering as the new reading/writing. I think an engineering literate society would be more valuable and stable than our current society is.

  • merpnderp a year ago

    Programming is sufficiently hard enough, wages will always be higher than most other professions. If I could make this money just about any other way, I'd likely give it a go. But either be a PA, a doctor, or one of the lucky few who graduate law school and make good money (and I think PA's make less than most programmers I know).

    Otherwise be a programmer.

    • notyourday a year ago

      $35k/year developer on H1B

      • Y7ZCQtNo39 a year ago

        Most developers aren't on H1B. There's what, tens of thousands on H1B, and hundreds of thousands of tech workers. While it's true some developers are underpaid, they are few in number and presumably of little significance on the prevailing developer wage.

        • notyourday a year ago

          This stuff is funny to read. There are two cases:

          1. H1Bs in "tech" do not affect salaries of those not on H1B so it is irrelevant that there are those who come to the US on H1B and make $35-50k/year in tech because it does not affect the market for $80k-250k/year jobs i.e. Old Navy, Gap and Banana Republic are totally different markets, Old Navy's $10 t-shirts and $25 jeans does not move upmarket and cannibalize GAP's $30 T-shirt and $80 jeans which in turn does not cannibalize BR's $120 T-shirts and $200 jeans - ask whoever shops for clothes in your family.

          If that's the case, we should applaud Google generating more $35-50k/year tech workers and we all should be baffled by those complaining about H1B tech imports (the number of them is rather low compared to the number of 35k-50k workers training programs would generate so if we need those workers before we train ours we should lift the caps on H1Bs)

          2. H1Bs in "tech" does affect salaries of those not on H1B because it eats into the market market for $80k-250k/year jobs. In which case having a flood of $35k-50k/year workers is a problem regardless if they are coming in on H1B or from ITT Tech/GoogleJobsTrainingSchool.

          I would suggest we should really pick one and be consistent.

  • zjaffee a year ago

    Or maybe, Google just wants to train people to work on their platforms rather than moving to a competitors. I doubt google has the intention of hiring the people that graduate from these programs, they just want people to learn google apis so that they use their products over competitors.

    This can be seen through how companies sponsor hackathons, the courses they create on websites like udacity and so on.

  • Apocryphon a year ago

    Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing? Sure they could stand to raise wages for existing workers across the board (and they should) but that doesn't solve the labor supply issue.

    Maybe some of these grants can go towards retraining existing engineers who need to acquire new skills.

    • baursak a year ago

      > Then what are they supposed to do, stop growing?

      I never understood growth for the sake of growth mentality. Isn't that what's killing the planet, broadly speaking?

      • Apocryphon a year ago

        Certainly unrestrained resource extraction and financialization of the entire economy- generating wealth for a select few with complex financial instruments that has no real purpose for the general public- are bad. But surely much of tech does provide some benefit to society. What happened to software is eating the world?

        • s73ver_ a year ago

          But is Google doing that? And does it have to be Google?

          • Apocryphon a year ago

            I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. I'm not praising Google in this story- I think they're doing this strictly for business reasons- but I still think it's a positive action even if it's motivated by the bottom line. But it's inevitable that them, just like most other giant companies in the black, are going to expand sooner or later, and they will need more workers. So there's not much you can do about that. If it's not Google or Apple hiring, it's going to be Tesla or SpaceX or Kiva or these guys (

            My main point is trying to stem the demand for more workers, whether H1Bs or American citizens, is futile. And even if somehow American firms stopped demanding more tech workers, firms abroad will be as well. So why not try to train more people to become workers?

    • s73ver_ a year ago

      Why do they need to continue growing? They're already what, 80% of online ads?

      • Apocryphon a year ago

        Google will just continue to move into more markets and moonshot projects until either the shareholders revolt or the government applies antitrust. But if not them, some other organization will need tech workers, and are you going to ask them to stop growing? See this:

  • pmorici a year ago

    Hey, better than supporting H1B exploitation.

  • bkovacev a year ago

    Well put. In my eyes this is simple math,they're investing now and are eliminating fees and adjustments for inflation in the future. The pool of workers will be bigger and all of the workers will be of somewhat same skill level which will eliminate the need for higher salaries + larger equity shares in order to get a high skilled worker. Their shares in the future will certainly be more valuable then 1B now, and this incentive will allow them to dictate the market.

Top19 a year ago

As much as something like this is appreciated, the history of job retraining programs are filled with over promises, under-commitments, and disaster, stretching back to the 1970’s.

There is no need to train more CS people. There is a need for recovering the “grand bargain” between employers and employees that began in the 1940’s and was slowly unwound beginning in the mid 1970’s.

The reason that business schools exist on university campuses in the first place is because they were supposed to train business leaders to aspire to the same ideals as a university: knowledge, development of character, the search for truth to create a better word, etc.

If people knew how much harder they work today for fractions of a chance at a reward that is now 3x expensive, gestures like this would be seen for what they are, a band-aid in place of a tourniquet.

BTW if you’re upper-middle class, know life is now pretty good, but your economic base is being slowly eroded as well and there will be a time when your economic fall will come.

*- - - -

EDIT: Keep in mind, this is the same company whose head of HR (Laszlo Bock) literally says he does not believe training helps at all develop people. This sounds like I am taking him out of context but I kid you not. I wish I was at home so I could find the physical page numbers, but he says it in his book “Work Rules!” from a couple of years ago. It’s at the beginning of the chapter where he talks about the New York Yankees.

  • whack a year ago

    Is the following what you're referring to? If so, he's specifically referring to training programs for existing googlers. Not educational training for full-time students, and someone looking to make a career switch. The latter clearly has a much bigger impact than the former.

    Regarding your larger point, I agree that we need more support for the lower middle class, but that's no reason to abandon training programs that provide better job opportunities to those who need it. On the margin, training a thousand janitors into productive web developers, would be a net positive for the economy and society as a whole.

    "Did you know that within 1 hour of training an employee, they have forgotten 50% of what they were taught. Within 24 hours they have forgotten 70%, and within a week they have forgotten 90%.

    There is mostly because people truly learn from constant repetitive actions, yet companies cannot afford to have people learning 5 days a week instead of working 5 days a week - which makes 90% of training and development programmes a waste of money. Money which Google invest in recruiting instead.

    Laszlo Bock says that because we learn on the job, the very best people not only have learnt more than you can teach them already, but they seek learning themselves in everything they do and naturally grow without you needing to spend a fortune on training."

  • aswanson a year ago

    That "grand bargain" is over, and never returning. The economy is global, cutthroat and changes on a dime. Every man/woman is in a mercenary situation today, whether they're aware of this fact or not.

    • TheAdamAndChe a year ago

      If this was the case, then why wouldn't Google just tap this global labor reserve instead of training people? Why is the federal reserve expecting inflation to rise as unemployment continues to be low?

      • aswanson a year ago

        "If the sky is so clear and the sun is shining, how could there possibly be a hurricane approaching...?"

        • dv_dt a year ago

          Those of us who depend upon exchanging our labor to survive are in a mercenary situation (some in better situations than others). But I think it's a stretch to equate it to a physical source of scarcity, but maybe I'm taking your analogy too far...

  • huac a year ago

    > business schools exist on university campuses in the first place is because they were supposed to train business leaders to aspire to the same ideals as a university

    Harvard Business School was founded to promote Taylorism and fight back against unions and organized labor.

SadWebDeveloper a year ago

So this means there are new open positions for foreigners/H1B at Google?

  • walshemj a year ago

    No its about training US workers - they have seen the anger / nativisam stirred up by the last election and are trying to improve their pr

    • SadWebDeveloper a year ago

      And implied that US workers aren't on par with the rest of the world, therefore it will help them get better _in the future_ but meanwhile, while the next generation of tech-savvy US workers appear they will need skilled foreigners working at google for at least the next 10 years. If my predictions are correct, seems a good time to apply for Google at this moment.

paxy a year ago

Prediction – people will still bitch and whine, as always.

  • craftyguy a year ago

    Wow, literally a self-fulfilling prediction!

ehudla a year ago

Someone cares to try to put this story in political perspective?

slosh a year ago

How about a billion to high tech trains

nerpderp83 a year ago

This is absolutely lovely news.

Animats a year ago

Actually spending $10 million. Talking about $1 billion over 5 years.

Mc_Big_G a year ago

Before you go patting Google on the back, consider this. They stole money from engineers by colluding with the other big players to keep engineering salaries artificially low and now want to use some of that money to train more workers to create more supply which lowers salaries even further.

ovrdrv3 a year ago

mkdir plan

git add $1B

git commit -am "train US workers for high tech jobs"

git push

(please PR for a better git joke)

leggomylibro a year ago

Great, it's about time that these companies stepped up to bring more people into their workforce. It's ridiculous to complain to legislatures about skills shortages without stepping up to bring your own resources to bear on the issue.

Still, as nice as giving money to other organizations is, it would even better to see them actually training people from a diverse variety of backgrounds. They're not exactly taking any responsibility here.

  • praxulus a year ago

    >It's ridiculous to complain to legislatures about skills shortages without stepping up to bring your own resources to bear on the issue.

    Do you hold people who want to fight climate to the same standard? Is it ridiculous for an individual to support a carbon tax without voluntarily buying carbon credits on their own?

    • leggomylibro a year ago

      Well it depends on the means of the individual, but basically yeah. I'd expect someone with a decent amount of disposable income to purchase renewable energy from their utilities company or a 3rd party. It's not crazy expensive compared to other discretionary expenses, and it's a pretty clear ethical obligation in the current times.

      Maybe Yellowstone will erupt in 80 years and it won't matter, but on balance, it's a no-brainer.

    • 0xbear a year ago

      Carbon credits don’t really do anything for the environment. Giving up a car, picking a smaller house, not traveling, and not having kids would be meaningful steps, but that’s not really an option even for people who make their livelihood from environmental advocacy, such as Al Gore who lives in a mansion, has 4 kids, and flies everywhere in a private jet.

  • yahna a year ago

    It's ridiculous to whine about skill shortages while simultaneously having a strange amount of pride in your overwrought false-negative prone hiring process.

2close4comfort a year ago

They just want cheap labor! There is nothing altruistic about Google and their commitment to their fellow man. They merely want children (teach a kid scratch so they can be enslaved for a lifetime!) and people in lower income countries to take up where the people here need more inorder to live here. And if Google were to be honest they need people who want to live in the bay area and are willing to enslave themselves to do it! And now that the flow of new blood was cut off now Google again needs fresh they are coming for anyone who can type, and wants to move the CA and live in their Hooverville.

  • perpetualcrayon a year ago

    I say let them attempt to improve peoples' lives.

    I doubt it will make you feel any better, but I don't think there will be a place in the world for a private company the size of Google (comparatively speaking).

    Imagine a world where individuals will be starting up companies in their garage with a scale equivalent to Fortune 50 companies of today.

salpalpable a year ago

Hey, I'm looking for that career change, I got some diversity points. How do we get in on this?

throwawaymanbot a year ago

Has this anything to do with the DOJ investigating tech worker visas?

gaius a year ago

Great! They won't need to offshore any more work! Or rely on exploiting H1B's!

  • cletus a year ago

    There is exploitation of H1B workers but it's not at the hands of the tech giants. Pretty much all the abuse of foreign workers on visas I've seen is at the hands of these Indian bodyshops that, given the long wait for green cards for those born in India, such jobs are tantamount to indentured servitude.

    Speaking as a Xoogler who was on a visa and got a green card sponsored by Google, from my own experience I and others in my position were treated very well.

  • vkou a year ago

    As an H1B at Google, I do not feel at all exploited. I am treated... Just like my American co-workers.

    Nothing like the horror stories I read about non-SV tech companies.