Slashdot Mirror
Is Programming a Dead End Job?
Embedded Geek asks: "There's an interesting opinion piece at Embedded Systems Magazine about [embedded] programming being a dead end job. The author cites burnout ('Pushing ones and zeroes around doesn't sound like a lot of work, but getting each and every one of a hundred million perfect is tremendously difficult.'), prestige, and skill obsolescence as big reasons for programmers to quit or to go 'over to the dark side' and join management or marketing positions. While the piece primarily addresses embedded programmers, the issue is rising for IT workers and other tech workers. When the age issue is combined with the export of jobs offshore, it makes me nervous just to be pushing 35..." Even though the market is going thru a rough patch, and the number of detrimental aspects to programming are increasing (ageism and so forth), I still do not feel that programming is a dead end job. Computers are going nowhere folks, and as long as they are around, programmers will be necessary. People who are in this career for the money or the prestige may not like it after a while, but the people who are in this for something else will tolerate quite a bit before deciding to opt out. The simple measure here: "as long as you love doing it, you'll keep doing it." Isn't this true for any career?
This of course is not true, at least not in small companies. I know several programmers who are the highest paid individuals in their respective companies except for the owner. It all depends on how much value a person can produce for a company. In a larger corporation I would expect this to be more the rule.
I know, first person observation isn't an accurate reflection of a marketplace, but still...
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
This doesn't solve the problem, of course, because there are few fellowship positions available and there are few who can really fill this niche role, but it's a start I think.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Wrong. It is _very_ difficult to find a job doing anything related to computers even now.
Not for lack of jobs, but rather for other silly reasons:
* the language you use in job postings (after applying for several hundred positions using the same language as yours, I assume you won't be interested in obvious qualifications due to an overabundance of applicants)
* the requirement to go through HR hiring-droids who can't even understand the dumbed-down version of what I do, and the associated reliance on resume scanners which eliminate human contact
* impossible prerequisites (10 years of Windows XP experience), and inflexibility in matching skills (I've used many free and commercial database systems, relational and non-relational, SQL and non-SQL, with various APIs, but I don't have experience with the exact version of Oracle you run to pull a few reports out of so no hire)
* and a general lack of _postings_ at all (most jobs are unadvertised but how can we get to know everyone who's hiring when simple information cold-calls get hung up on by rude HR people or receptionists)
I understand that there are lots of folks like you out there looking for employees, assuming your post isn't just another Slashdot troll, but when you hear "We can't find jobs" people are telling the truth. There are so many layers of outright deceptive communication between jobs _available_ and jobs _one can find out about_, it's ridiculous.
You can not claim to be a representative example if you're actually willing to solicit information one-on-one from potential candidates, and to discuss the job with them.
I've been looking for anything from behind-the-counter burger flipper to systems administrator for 15 months now, with a 10+-year background including UNIX systems administration, network design and administration, software prototyping, databases, and several kinds of programming, with great references, and even take interviewing classes to make sure I present myself well. Nobody is interested; anything short of senior admin positions, people consider me _over_qualified, but for senior admin positions people consider me _less qualified than the 50 other people in the queue_.
Even now, with recovery from a nonexistent constructed recession in progress, one needs experience to do even entry-level jobs.
Not to toot Bill's horn - but he did write an assembly language column (in Byte, I believe) back in '75-'76.
He (Gates) held a contest once to see who could write the smallest paper-tape boot strapper - his own submission won.
Check out Susan Lammer's book "Interviews with Programmers" - the appendix has a reprint of one of Gate's asm columns where he shows un-orthodox uses of condition codes...
The guy was no slouch, not by a long shot.
I think you missed a few.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
I agree that IEEE has some good points, especially in terms of discussion of technical issues. It also has some very glaring bad points with regards to professional issues other than increasing technical knowledge. Although a reform effort in IEEE and IEEE-USA would be helpful, reforming this century-old association is an enormous task, and associations like the Programmer's Guild can do a lot more in the meantime while that reform effort is underway.
h _s Ec2.5.1
Norm Matloff pinpoints the problem with IEEE so well in his excellent research paper "Debunking the Myth of a Software Labor Shortage" that I'll just excerpt from that:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html#tt
In 1998, the engineering professional organization IEEE-USA (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers-USA) had lobbied Congress strongly against the H-1B quota increase which was proposed that year. (It had been a major critic of the H-1B program in the past as well.) As an organization of over 200,000 members nationwide, it was a force to be reckoned with.
However, as a result, IEEE-USA then came under enormous pressure from corporate and academic interests in the parent organization IEEE to moderate its position. IEEE-USA then hired Paul Donnelly as a consultant, whose job was ``to help wean the organization from its outright opposition to immigration.'' (The New Republic, June 19, 2000.) Donnelly is the former staffer with the Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform described in Section 2.3.4.
Around the same time, IEEE-USA greatly toned down its Web site. It removed its ``Misfortune 500'' file, a compendium of 500 engineers, mainly older, who were having trouble finding engineering work in spite of the alleged high-tech boom. It also removed from the site its report on a 1998 Harris Poll which had shown that 82% of Americans opposed the H-1B increase.
Donnelly convinced IEEE-USA to support his proposal - similar to one formulated by Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform as mentioned above - under which industry could bring in foreign engineers and programmers on an expedited basis, giving them ``instant green cards'' and bypassing the H-1B stage. This new stance on IEEE-USA's part was counter to its previous view that industry should hire/retrain American programmers and engineers, but apparently the organization felt that its new position would relieve the pressure brought to bear on it by the parent organization.
However, Donnelly was up against his rival, Rick Swartz (again, see Section 2.3.4), and up against Swartz's allies representing the computer industry, who apparently wanted to retain the ``indentured servant'' nature of the H-1B workers. Those lobbyists dismissed Donnelly as ``anti-immigrant,'' in spite of his work as a consultant to immigrants and as a longtime advocate for relieving the greencard backlog for the spouses and children of immigrants. (Wired News, May 15, 2000.)
Meanwhile, Swartz had acquired a new client, the Immigrant Support Network, an organization of H-1Bs who were hoping to get Congress to alleviate the ``indentured servitude'' problem. (See Section 2.4.)
Donnelly still tried to get Microsoft to support the ``instant greencard'' proposal. However, Microsoft's counsel and lobbyist, Ira Rubinstein, simply stalled, saying that he may support the proposal in the future but now wished to concentrate on H-1Bs. Later Rubinstein tried other stall tactics as well. (Personal communication with Paul Donnelly, June 17, 2000.)
Personally I do not support the Donnelly proposal, because although it would fix the problem of H-1B ``indentured servitude,'' a worthy goal, it would not address the problems of age discrimination and so on which are being fueled by the influx of foreign programmers. Nevertheless, the industry's continuing rejection of the Donnelly proposal, which would bring in the workers they say are needed and would reduce paperwork and trouble for the employers, shows that they do indeed wish to retain the indentured-servant nature of the H-1B program. And the personal attacks on Donnelly are uncalled for.
Go read this paper by Philip Wadler. Particularly look at pages 6 and 8.
.sig below.
For the short form, take a look at my
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.