Slashdot Mirror

Many programmers find that their employability starts to decline at about age 35

Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills -- such as the latest programming-language fad -- or “not suitable for entry level.” In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it? Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40.

More than a decade ago, Congress commissioned a National Research Council study of the age issue in the profession. The council found that it took 23.4 percent longer for the over-40 workers to find work after losing their jobs, and that they had to take an average pay cut of 13.7 percent on the new job.

Finally, those high programmer salaries are actually low, because the same talents (analytical and problem-solving ability, attention to detail) command much more money in other fields, such as law and finance. A large technology company might typically pay new law-school graduates and MBAs salaries and compensation approaching double what they give new master’s degree grads in computer science.

Regardless of index fund performances, Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue of his businesses; other money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

Trump's businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

From "How Donald Trump held save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House, he was New York's most important and bravest real-estate developer. Whatever you think about his political views or crazy campaign, Trump doesn't get enough credit for being a transformative planner who is in love with the city. No matter how many times they watch "Taxi Driver", younger New Yorkers and older one who arrived recently have no idea of what the city was actually like in the mid-1970s throughout the mid-'90s. Notwithstanding Studio 54 and a short-lived Wall Street boom, the metropolis was reeling. Rampant street crime, AIDS, corporate flight and physical decay brought confidence to an all time low. Trump waded into a landscape of empty Fifth Avenue storefronts, the dust-bowl mugging ground that was Central Park and a Wall Street area seemingly on its last legs as companies moved out. Except in Battery Park City, which was then as remote as an offshore island, few other developers built anything but plan-vanilla office and apartment buildings. Trump -- almost by force of will - rode to the rescue. Expressing rare faith in the future, he was instrumental in kick-starting the generation of neighborhoods and landmarks almost give up for dead. Many of his brainstorms were ahead of their time. Some -- like his struggle beginning in the early 1970s to build what's now called Riverside South -- were so far ahead, it can be hard to connect the dots between Trump's works and the neighborhood transformations they spawned and inspired years later. A more enlightened yardstick would measure what Trump created and how the projects lifted all boats around them.

Now just imagine if everybody with a lot of money took the attitude of throwing money in an S&P tracking index fund and sitting back. Just imagine that the founders and managers of the stocks in the S&P would just quit their jobs and sit back and do nothing. The S&P would shrivel in value in no time flat because everybody would be expecting "somebody else" to be taking risks and generating money....and there would be NO "somebody else".

This is the story of four people: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done.
Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it.
But Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done,

The article "Should Trump have indexed?" by Matt Levine ( (BA Harvard, law degree from Yale), September 3, 2015 at http://www.bloombergv

This little nugget is false, but people love to repeat it. If it weren't for people like Trump there would be no S&P.

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

The Energiewende has put a lot of renewable energy generation in the hands of the people. I consider that a good thing.
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

And the already electrically-frugal population has been reducing consumption by 1% annually for a decade.
There are problems but they are largely the result of stubborn energy companies resisting change and now having to eat the losses.

Lots of analysis debunking this claim. Here is one of them. http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

Great points. Here's a good discussion about "Why can't America have what Europe has?". It's about health care rather than college, but the realities aren't too vastly different. Also there's some honest discussion, so Trigger Warning for credulous people who believe the stories politicians tell them.

Medicare for all has a 2.2% income tax applicable to everyone currently paying income tax. From his site: "The 2.2% income tax applies to taxable income as currently defined. In calculating taxable incomefor a married couple with two children, it has been assumed that they use the $12,600 standard deduction and a personal exemption of $4,050 per family member for a total of $28,800. The 2.2% tax is applied to the remainder."

But that's not all. It's based on a ridiculously underestimated cost of the plan. Effictively, it's wishful thinking. Mega McArdle lays it out better than I could, but the basic point is that it asserts magical unexplained savings. Further, it promises to eliminate co-pays, deductibles, and refusal to cover various treaments.

Before you claim other countries single payer plans prove we could save money and provide universal care, the plan avoids any mention of cutting the pay of healthcare professionals. Doctors here make more than twice as much as doctors elsewhere.

doubtful
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

Any time that someone links to a Google search as evidence of anything you know that what they are saying is most likely going to be wrong. I don't know what results were coming up in other regions for that search, but for me I get a first result that says that says that only the industrial goods-producing sector of the Chinese economy is in recession, and that "the domestic-oriented service sector is likely to keep growing at low, double-digit rates -- and that should result in real GDP growth of 4 percent to 5 percent". A growth of GDP means that they are not currently in recession.

The next result speculates on a future recession in China, and that "Fears of a sharp slowdown in China's economy ... has rattled global markets in recent months". It later says "while a global recession is not yet reflected in Citi's benchmark forecasts for global or Chinese growth in 2016, it is a view that has gained ground within Citi's global economics team". Once again, speculation and fears of what will happen in the future is not evidence that they are in recession now, and it is not even an immediate prediction that there will be one.

For a more up-to-date quote from the same person at Citigroup, the "in the news" part of the search results had this new article that said "Citi held its growth outlook for China in 2016, but cut it by 0.2 percentage points to 6.0 percent in 2017". That is a forecast of two years of positive growth, a far cry from the technical indicator of a recession of two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

China's rate of growth is definitely declining, that is not the same as saying that their growth is actually negative. They may be heading for it at some stage, but not yet. If their economy is moving from a goods producing industry to service providing one then that will have a positive impact on their greenhouse gas emissions. That does not mean that this reduction of emissions is unsustainable, nor that there is any need to "call you later".

I think that you are still looking for excuses to ignore this report so that you can still rely on the old "China pollutes so we shouldn't have to cut our GHG emissions" line.

I get a real kick out of all these minimum wage financial wizards. They will do better at investing by... drum roll... putting it in the market i.e. letting other people invest for them. Brilliant plan! You truly have all the makings of business mogul.

Please educate yourself: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-

Like pretty much all of the rest of you, my family saw “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” over Christmas week. I emerged from the screening into a lively Internet debate over whether Rey, the main hero, was or was not a “Mary Sue”: an author’s wish-fulfillment character, perfect in every way, beloved by children, dogs and everyone around her. Plotwise, this character is improbably central to everything — the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral. . . .

The answer is that of course Rey is a Mary Sue, though not in this case for the author; she is a stand-in for every 10-year-old who imagined themselves into the Star Wars universe, and particularly the women who wanted to be Luke, not Princess Leia. J.J. Abrams has taken all the skills of the main characters of the first “Star Wars” cast and rolled them into one: She is a pilot as good as Han Solo, also a mechanic; she is apparently fluent in multiple languages; she is a terrific hand-to-hand fighter, a good shot and, oh, she knows how to use a lightsaber the first time she picks one up. Also, mid-movie, she discovers that she can do Jedi mind tricks without having any reason to know that they even exist — apparently not content to make her Luke, Abrams also had to make her her own Obi-Wan Kenobi.

What Abrams left out is twofold: first, the sense that these are skills that have to be trained and developed, not simply inborn traits one has, like blue eyes. Second, and more important, he’s omitted the weaknesses that made the original characters so appealing: the genuine streak of nasty self-interest in Han Solo, Leia’s bullheaded arrogance, Kenobi’s wistful sense of being past his prime, Luke’s needy, whining sense of entitlement to greater things than he has gotten from the universe so true to actual teenage boys. . . .

I also tend to believe that this undercuts the longevity of the films. Kids will like it, because kids love action-packed CGI stuff. But how many people who watched this movie as a kid will keep coming back to it as an adult, the way my generation has with the original? The movie is fine for what it is, but what it is is, as my friend Terry Teachout noted, “an homage to an homage,” missing much of the charm that made the original so enduring. If the three prequels had not been so downright terrible, people would be being much harder on “The Force Awakens.” The fawning critical reaction is mostly just a vast outpouring of relief that George Lucas hasn’t been allowed to inflict more damage on his own creation.

Well, that’s a relief.

How do you incentivize enough CPU power & players into a "semi-private in operation" system? Why do established big players want to mess around with this when they're already getting pretty serious transactions fees doing it the old fashioned, closed everything way?

Securities clearing - the process of making sure that when you click the button to buy something, you get it, and the person who sold it to you no longer has it, without either of you having to care about each other's creditworthiness, nor even your respective brokers' respective creditworthinesses - is really, really, complicated. And slow (days, batch-processing taking place overnight.) And expensive. Its procedures date back almost a century, to the days when everything was done on physical share certificates with numbers on them and handwritten signatures.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-14/banks-forgot-who-was-supposed-to-own-dell-shares

And it still sometimes breaks.

LMAO Non paywalled link: Wade Hoyt, Toyota's spokesman in New York, who put the best corporate spin on the situation this week. "It is not our proudest product placement," he said. "But it shows that the Taliban are looking for the same qualities as any truck buyer: durability and reliability." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11... http://www.bloombergview.com/a... Top Gear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Politicians write these rules - they are legislators. Here is a a history of the tax inversion.

"About 51 U.S. companies have reincorporated in low-tax countries since 1982, including 20 since 2012. A lot of drug companies are doing it, and low-tax Ireland is a popular corporate home. They’re doing it despite a 2004 law that legislators had promised would end the practice, despite rule-tightening by the Obama administration to limit it, and despite two decades of efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to rein it in.

A change of address doesn’t necessarily mean a real move. Companies are free to keep their top executives in the U.S., and most of them do.

Most importantly, perhaps, companies that invert overseas can take advantage of the generous U.S. system of interest deductions for payments to their own affiliates abroad — benefits that are only available with a foreign parent company."

Gotta understand the decision-making process for politicians:

1) These companies are big donors.

2) 90% percent of the population has no idea about this, and fewer care.

3) Politicians get cash for looking the other way, and it has no impact on their electability.

I started following these kinds of shenanigans prior to the financial crisis. The blame is on the politicians - not for being self interested, but for actually undermining the society for cash and favors from big donors. The vast majority of the voting public doesn't understand this kind of inside baseball. And the incumbency rate hasn't really changed much as a result of these issues. So the boiling of the frog (this society) will continue until we become Brazil or we snap out of the torpor.

"A society cannot be both ignorant and free." -- Lady Gaga

Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking

Do you want to be a citizen of a high-end state with oversight, accountability, and the rule of law? Or do you want to be a citizen of a low-end state with thuggery, mob justice, and might equaling right?

Regrettably, some institutions of the US are degenerating into the low-end state model. Don't ask for more of it. You really don't want it.

[citation needed]

But actually, Ireland and Spain have seen higher economic growth after austerity measures.

By which you mean have finally stopped collapsing under the impact of austerity. As Krugman points out to make assertions of success for Spain or Ireland "you need to define success way, way down".

He goes on to say:

We see an awesome slump that leaves Spain far below its pre-crisis level of output, and even further below its pre-crisis trend, followed by an upturn that, even if it continues at the current pace, will take many years to recover the lost ground. This is a vindication of policy?

What's even funnier is, macroeconomics works the same way. See Mark Blyth: everyone who's done austerity has had their GDP collapse to where their debt percentage is higher than it was when they started.

[citation needed]

But actually, Ireland and Spain have seen higher economic growth after austerity measures. Iceland also implemented austerity measures in addition to letting banks collapse and prosecuting bank CEOs. Their austerity programs were different than the others, but they appear to have worked pretty well.

In short, austerity programs can work, if they're implemented intelligently; anti-austerity measures can also work. It mostly depends on the specifics of the programs themselves.

"All in all, then, what Paul is proposing is a big tax cut for high earners and businesses with almost no direct benefits for most Americans. It's the latest evidence that a flat tax that cuts most people's taxes while keeping revenue at a plausible level is just not possible" (Ramesh Ponnuru, 22Jun15, Rand Paul's Implausible Flat Tax). The flat tax may treat everyone fairly, but the added consumption tax negates any benefit that middle-income families would have received. And this is the latest version of Paul's plan.

Not that I would consider her malicious. Beyond putting her personal income beyond the needs of HP and all the employees that got laid off, I would say most of what happened under her reign was just due to incompetence.

Not that I would consider her malicious. Beyond putting her personal income beyond the needs of HP and all the employees that got laid off, I would say most of what happened under her reign was just due to incompetence.

Malicious no. Machiavellian, in the sense that she doesn't care how her actions affect other people, as long as they cause good things for Carly.

The saddest thing is the way that she is redefining her record. She is even going around saying she is the woman that saved HP. Her campaign paid for a full page ad in the NYT where Tom Perkins says it was a big mistake for the board to fire her.

Bloomberg published this little thing claiming to show she wasn't all that bad. Chart that shows Carly was not a bad CEO

I tried to get a story up here on that, I don't know why they rejected it.

These all indicate that she wasn't the terrible CEO that her detractors would like you to believe. But, she wasn't great either.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/...
http://time.com/money/4042662/...
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

But I guess they aren't the government... if the government does it, it's fine.. (???)

That's the entire premise of government, dude - they're people with extra rights once they put on their funny costumes. The market rules of reason, logic, and justice don't apply - only vaguely expressed intentions and platitudes (see any recent Supreme Court decision). And if you disagree, there's a SWAT team with AR-15's to change (or eradicate) your mind.

OK, now you can skip day one of law school.

I don't understand how Uber is a taxi service. They don't take street fares. At best Uber is a car service.

This. The ability to be hailed from the street (and in some places, use special lanes/stands at public transportation hubs) is what makes a taxi, what requires a medallion, etc. Uber, Lyft, and friends cannot be hailed from the street, so they are not taxis in the strict sense--they are a car service that utilizes personal-use vehicles.

Although for the purposes of some /.er outrage, there is no practical difference. For instance, the need for adequate insurance applies to both taxis and car services. I'm all about consumer protection, so I have no problem with requiring the corporation to insure at commercial liability levels (which they do, but the different coverage permutations could definitely use more clarity). This also makes me a big fan of the driver pictures and ride tracking Uber employs.

Licensing I'm on the fence about. I'd like to see some data on accidents per mile driven by ridesharing drivers vs taxi and car service drivers. My personal, anecdotal experience is that taxi drivers have been more reckless and less knowledgable; YMMV. If the data were to consistently show that Uber had fewer accidents and other incidents, what's the point in making all those people get CDLs? It would just be a barrier to entry without demonstrable safety benefit. If it went the other way, or even if it was lower but not low enough, I'd be in favor of some sort of class or cert (akin to a defensive driving course).

I'm even less inclined to buy in to non-safety related regulations, which are largely relics of a bygone era or straight buttering the biscuits for the taxi lobby. IIRC the major traffic engineering burdens in this arena are from street hailable taxis (even when they aren't intentionally shutting down a city), but if there are studies showing RS is a major independent contributor, I'm all ears.

As for other regs, metering is even less reliable than the fare estimates given before RS rides. RS may already be better serving underserved areas. I am in favor of requiring more handicapped-accessible vehicles, and Uber has the resources to make sure there is an appropriate ratio if there aren't enough.

In my lifetime I will get to see Asia run out of cheap labor and the great manufacturing migration to Africa will start to happen. I won't probably get to see the end of it but it will be interesting to see at least the beginning of the change. In fact, it's already begun: http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

Yeah, not so much. You're welcome to keep that tinfoil hat on, and keep buying gold though.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...
http://azizonomics.com/2013/06...
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

You might think that, but you see the beauty of this thing called the "internets" allows you to easily research it and find out that you probably are wrong :

link
link
link

Amazing how that works right? You can actually educate yourself instead of simply spouting off your own biases and 'gut' feel!

Like the "mass murderer" who brought us universal healthcare, drastically improving and saving countless American's lives?

You're thinking of the wrong school. Mass murderers have daddy buy their way into being a C student at Yale.

Has he had a drone strike today, or caused another country to collapse yet ?

I will give him this his policy in the middle east is so bad, and has made the U.S. look so useless he has Israel and Saudi Arabia working together

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

All this misleading and conclusory claim (on what basis do you deem any particular number "high," by the way?) demonstrates is your own lack of attention to this issue.

I consider about half to be high. It's definitely not a super majority but I suppose that could be reached if the income constraints were altered. I don't consider $20,000/year a very comfortable living, not to mention $10,000 but that depends on the area.

And save your moralizing about diverse perspectives (omg some women want to give birth and others don't? WHAAAT?!) for your weekly anti-choice circlejerk. That "women," just like regular people(!), are not some kind of emotional monolith surprises no actual grown-ups.

What are you going on about? I don't have any dogs in this race. Guttmacher is just one of the sites that came up when I did a search for some numbers, Bloomberg references them in this article. I was specifically looking for a breakdown by race and area. Besides your selective quotes and emotional language you also curiously use counties instead of states so you can get a sensational figure, with emphasis added no less. It might be more significant if each state had an even distribution of counties, which they don't, skewing things for example is Texas which has 254 counties. As of 2008 all states have abortion clinics, since you have an affinity for percentages, that's 100%. This issue overwhelmingly involves young women and poverty. US teen pregnancy is highest in the developed world. Apparently abortions aren't convenient enough?

If you really believe that a minimum wage can increase the welfare of poor people, why not raise it to $500/hour? Then we can all be rich!

Silly lad.

That's like saying that if the minimum wage is too high, and it hurts employers, we should just not pay anyone anything at all. and we'd all be wealthy

But let's get back to reality for a second. One of th ebaxtoipnzs of right thinking, God fearing economic rightness, Walmart (genuflect) Who just happens to be the largest employer in the country http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/c...

looky who's on medicaid!

While we are at it: http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

Which is all to say, that if you support keeping th eminimum wage at present levels, you are an avbid and enthusiastic promoter of our tax dollars allowing them to pay that minimum wage.

Highly socialistic there, Tovaritsch. Are you going to the communist party meeting tonight, Comrade?

Ah, here's an opinion piece - also from Bloomberg:

Is Yahoo’s Business Worth Less Than Nothing?

However I shouldn't have been so cavalier about all this, since Yahoo's potential failure affects a lot of real people with real families and obligations. If you're one of them, I apologize.

false rape claims are between 2 and 40% depending on who you listen to, personally I think its around 10% despite no real conclusive research done on it. Given the castrate and murder then check facts mentality America has degenerated into (thinking of rolling stone here) its a serious concern for males everywhere (at least in the us)

there is no such thing as an unemployed attorney or CPA

What a fucking stupid thing to say.

Doesnt mean you did not commit ip theft.

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/...

You committed massive IP theft during the industrial revolution, now china is doing the exact same thing you did..

Pot, meet kettle...

Totally unlike the US who engaged in wholesale IP theft as well...

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

In other words, the U.S. government’s message to China and other nations today is “Do as I say, not as I did.”

No insider trading there.... It was a coincidence that the stock price tanked...

I already commented elsewhere that Tandy had become little more than the football in a game of derivatives, credit default swaps, et al.

It's clear that no-one involved on either side of that cares about the business itself, beyond it being a means to an end. Nor would they have any qualms about tanking it if they were on the side that stood to benefit from such a move. Whether this would result from what would technically be called "insider trading" is relevant only in a legal sense; it's clear that a market which operates in such a way is inherently rotten, regardless.

Another article which basically explains that Radio Shack's primary function is now ultimately as little more than the ball itself in a game of derivatives and credit default swaps that- as often happens- has veered far from any legitimate use of them, or having much to do with the company per se, and into borderline legalised gambling of the type that hit the fan in 2008.

As I said, Radio Shack is the ball in this; nominally the raison d'etre, but really just a means to an end of little importance in itself, like a £50 football being used in a game between Manchester United and Chelsea, players costing millions competing on behalf of clubs worth the better part of a billion each.

say you interview as a graduating college senior at Facebook Inc. You may find, to your initial delight, that the place looks just like a fun-loving dorm -- and the adults seem to be missing. But that is a sign of how the profession has devolved in recent years to one lacking in longevity. Many programmers find that their employability starts to decline at about age 35.

Gone by 40

Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills -- such as the latest programming-language fad -- or "not suitable for entry level." In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it? Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40.

Employers have admitted this in unguarded moments. Craig Barrett, a former chief executive officer of Intel Corp., famously remarked that "the half-life of an engineer, software or hardware, is only a few years," while Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has blurted out that young programmers are superior.

Vivek Wadhwa, a former technology executive and now a business writer and Duke University researcher, wrote that in 2008 David Vaskevitch, then the chief technology officer at Microsoft Corp., acknowledged that "the vast majority of new Microsoft employees are young, but said that this is so because older workers tend to go into more senior jobs and there are fewer of those positions to begin with."

Doesn't matter if you're the best programmer in the world once you hit 40 - it's up or out, and there aren't that many "up" jobs.

Well, maybe it would be easier if we retained more programmers in the first place. By 40, most programmers have left the industry. - Norman Matloff, professor of computer science, University of California, Davis.

You might want to check out Software engineers will work one day for english majors, written by Norman Matloff, professor of computer science, University of California, Davis

Summary:

Finally, those high programmer salaries are actually low, because the same talents (analytical and problem-solving ability, attention to detail) command much more money in other fields, such as law and finance. A large technology company might typically pay new law-school graduates and MBAs salaries and compensation approaching double what they give new master’s degree grads in computer science.

"Canadian jobs"? Do Canadians own those jobs?

The rules are clear - companies are supposed to look at the local talent pool to see if a Canadian can do the job before looking elsewhere -- and this deal blows yet another hole in that regulation.

The federal government has granted an exemption to Microsoft Canada that will allow the company to bring in an unspecified number of temporary foreign workers to British Columbia as trainees without first looking for Canadians to fill the jobs.

And when you write:

(CS workers as the proletariat, ha!)

Times have changed. Ageism is battling with misogamy as THE issue in IT. You may want to read this

Software Engineers Will Work One Day for English Majors
41 Apr 22, 2012 6:00 PM EDT

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Which of the following describes careers in software engineering?

A. Intellectually stimulating and gratifying.
B. Excellent pay for new bachelor’s degree grads.
C. A career dead-end.

The correct answer (with a “your mileage may vary” disclaimer) is: D. All of the above.

...

Many programmers find that their employability starts to decline at about age 35.

Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills -- such as the latest programming-language fad -- or "not suitable for entry level." In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it?

Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40.

This article pretty much sums it up for the general situation.

Which of the following describes careers in software engineering?

A. Intellectually stimulating and gratifying.
B. Excellent pay for new bachelor’s degree grads.
C. A career dead-end.
The correct answer (with a “your mileage may vary” disclaimer) is: D. All of the above.

... and ...

Many programmers find that their employability starts to decline at about age 35.

Employers dismiss them as either lacking in up-to-date technical skills -- such as the latest programming-language fad -- or "not suitable for entry level." In other words, either underqualified or overqualified. That doesn’t leave much, does it? Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40.

IT today is a toxic environment.

Good article on Bloomberg View about this. It's not the panacea some think it is.

It's also very difficult to know how much Democrats are getting from billionaires like George Soros, most of his money flows through 527 groups that are designed to hide where the money comes from.

By continue their "own" path you mean take our tax money and spend it on shit we don't care about?

I know. All those fuckers wasting American tax dollars.when we could be spending them on important things.

The government shouldn't use force based on the pretense it will somehow make things fair. The answer to injustice caused by happenstance isn't another unnecessary, purposefully-committed injustice. Save government force for use against murderers and rapists rather than calling out the stormtroopers when your Netflix is fuzzy.

It doesn't work anyway. Regulatory capture is common. The regulators end up working hand-in-hand with the people they're supposed to be regulating, big companies and lawyers benefit while the public suffers. Look no further than Uber vs. the taxi companies and their government friends.

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

In short, California is able to report a balanced budget only by ignoring more than $6 billion in costs, cutting services to the state’s most defenseless people, and imposing temporary taxes that will go away when Brown leaves office in 2018 (assuming he is re-elected). No core issue has been solved. But cash-based budgeting obscures those realities.

Well, there you go.

I will point to this Slashdot article: http://politics.slashdot.org/s...

Read the rules closely and you can figure out it bans opening a BitCoin bank in NY. Basically, if you take deposits it needs to 100% back by BitCoins, so no fractional reserve banking.

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

Note, I think BitCoins are an interesting experiment in currency but would make loosely money. BitCoin, with a fixed number of coins, is a hard currency. Using a hard currency makes fractional reserve banking hard to do, which makes banking hard to do, which impairs its ability to be money.

The Constitution does not say this. It states that the Federal Goverment can issue and regulate money but not that it has a moneopoly. In fact, for the majority of US history private money was very common. i.e. Bank notes issued by private banks.

with predictably disastrous results:

There were significant problems with this system, in which money often wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. In theory, a bank note derived its value from its ability to be redeemed for gold or silver at the issuing bank, but what banks could live up to that promise? Those that were poorly capitalized went to great lengths to ensure that their notes weren't redeemed. For example, the Union Bank of Tennessee issued notes only redeemable in New Orleans.

In this unpredictable environment, spending a dollar required some serious thinking. A wallet might have three, five or a dozen different bank notes -- a bull's head staring back at you from a Bull's Head Bank note, or a Marine Bank bill illustrated with ships -- not to mention foreign coins from around the world and personal checks, which also circulated as money. Most bank notes traded at a discount based on the reputation of the bank and how far the note was from where it originated.

A shop owner had even more variables to consider. When a consumer opened his wallet to pay, the proprietor turned to his local edition of ''Bicknellâ(TM)s Counterfeit Detector and Bank Note Reporter,'' or to ''Van Court's Counterfeit Detector and Bank Note List.''

Thumbing through a counterfeit detector, the store owner would try to assess the value of the bank notes at hand. He took a hard look at the person handing over the bills, judging value based on the person's race, class, dress, comportment and reputation.

Counterfeiters exploited this feature of the system, and passed themselves in addition to their notes, dressing and acting as proper ladies and gentlemen. And with so many bank notes from so many banks, counterfeiters flourished. Some simply invented whole banks. Others erased the name of a failed bank and replaced it with that of a reputable one.

Of course, as 19th-century observers frequently noted, a poorly capitalized bank that printed notes it couldn't redeem was, in the end, little different from a counterfeiting operation.

When Banks Were Able to Print Their Own Money, Literally

Also a factor but..

http://www.gobankingrates.com/...
But it wasnâ(TM)t until the International Labor Organization held its first conference in Oct. 1919 that âoeHours of Workâ convention established an 8- or 9-hour work day, which constituted a max of 48 hours worked per week.

Just as the work week seemed to settle, the Great Depression hit. In an effort to avoid layoffs, President Herbert Hoover proposed a bill that would reduce the work week to 30 hours. It passed in Senate; however, it didnâ(TM)t make it through the House.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office, he tried to push again for shorter hours, but they were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1936 passed, which required the federal government to pay its contractors overtime wages after eight hours of work in a day. And then the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 passed, which established the five-day, 40-hour work week for everyone, a standard we observe today.

a little more here

http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

----
Without the great depression we'd have had longer work weeks all along. The exempt status used to be much more limited as well. Very few employees qualified for exempt status. Specific laws were passed to sell computer programmers and engineers down the river and make them exempt even tho they were not management.

You know what also reduces crimes? You will find a significant better correlation between wealth disparity and crimes. If you want to fight crime, you should focus on getting people off the street and humane living conditions. But you know, that would be evil and socialist...