Slashdot Mirror
Gen Y Tech Savvy, But Not Interested in a Career
jcatcw writes "Young people aren't choosing computer science majors because they take technology for granted — it's something to use not something to make a career. "By and large, this generation is very fluent with technology and with a networked world," according to James Ware, executive producer at The Work Design Collaborative LLC, a Berkeley, Calif., consortium exploring workplace values and the future of the workforce. That future may be in managing technology, which requires skills today's college students don't have: writing, critical thinking, hard work and just plain showing up. One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."
good. If this bears out then those of us out of college can charge more and more to keep everything running.
If it's too difficult, I can't understand it !
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yep, seems like pretty much every "new" generation gets the slam from the ones who came before. Us Gen X'ers were cast off as a bunch of slackers IIRC. In ten years we'll have some snotty Gen Y writer blasting the lazy post-college Gen Z's and ranting how the greedy Gen X'ers will consume the last remaining Social Security resources. Definitely nothing new to see here.
I work with Generation Y'ers and they aren't so "fluent with technology" that they don't need to get a CS education. Most of them still don't know the difference between RAM and a HD. They don't even know the units used to calculate the amount of RAM or the speed of a computer. Obviously, there are exceptions, but it's been my experience in a middle-class community of Gen Y kids that they don't know jack about a computer. Can they use an IPod? sure... but so can my 60 year old mom, big deal. That's like saying my Grandma used to be "fluent with technology" because she could use a typewriter back in the day. Having the ability to use it and having the ability to make it are two totally different things.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Remember when people would go around saying "I work with computers" when asked what their job was?
Now that would sound like "I work with paper."
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Most of you will be too young to remember "computer literacy" classes which strove to teach students how to use computers. The idea was that if you could use a word processor, spreadsheet, and touch type, then you'd be prepared for the careers of tomorrow.
It's all bullshit. God help us if "data processor" and "data entry clerk" are careers of the future. The ability to use a computer is about as important to "jobs of the future!" as knowing how to husk coconuts is to a Pacific Islander. If you haven't learned those skills in your everyday life, then you're screwed anyway.
The fact of the matter is that someone still needs to build all those cool things like Twitter and Facebook and Myspace and all the rest of the crap out there that these "technology fluent" kids are so good at using. As long as we consider them to be fluent, though, we are putting emphasis on the wrong thing.
I was technologicaly fluent at using a pencil. It wasn't my ability to use a pencil that made me the right guy for my job.
These stories simply reflect the fact that, for any value of N, people in generation N-1 generally do not understand technology that became available during the childhood of generation N. This does not make generation N more technically savvy than generation N-1; by the time generation N+1 comes around, generation N will not understand the stuff they have. This was just as true for the baby boomers using remote controls and VCRs that their parents couldn't understand as it is for me using computers that the boomers have trouble with. It didn't mean that the boomers were geniuses because they could use a VCR.
Probably sort of like how my mom can't figure out the internet really well, which I think is rather simple; on the other hand, I can't understand the compulsion 'them darned kids' have for constantly text messaging each other.
Just because you can use mass-market electronic goods does not make one 'technically savvy'.
"One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."
Apparently Generation Taco lacks basic counting skills.
Of course, this idea is nothing new. Every generation goes through a very similar idealistic phase. Generation Y is now entering its early 20's, and it's likely that this is the phase they're beginning to go through right now. So it's hardly surprising that they're rejecting formal instruction in a field that they already feel very comfortable in (as self-taught learners). Just part of them "finding their way."
Just a thought.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
that makes all the more jobs for us, correct? Everyone wants a DVD player but they don't have to learn how to build one. Anyway its probably just the ones after a quick VC sponsored buck that have dropped out.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
I was on the bus the other day and there were some high school bimbos (let's not waste words here) and they were all a twitter about the goings on of their MySpace accounts. On and on they yammered about which boys they liked and who's on what list and then they started talking about CSS, that is to say Cascading Style Sheets.
There is a point in your life when you realize that the world has changed, that "nerdy" topics aren't so nerdy anymore, especially now that they are in the mainstream.
Generation Y (ugh!) is undeniably using the tools around them to get things done, just as my generation did a decade ago with more primitive technology. But suffice to say, the reason to get a job in the tech industry is not because you want to play with what you're already using but because you want to create something new. This is not for everyone and I think regardless of the "tech level" society seems to achieve there will always be a minority of tech-career oriented people.
crazy dynamite monkey
Unlike how we grew up....many of today's kids don't play outside much. They don't get out and meet and interact with the kids in the neighborhood, which teaches some good people skills. It also starts engendering a sense of independence. Parents cart the around to planned, and rigidly structured events...soccer practice, lessons of some kind, etc.
We've also sapped out the competitive spirit that kids once had. We played games...there were winners and losers. You had to learn both sides of the coin. Now...we give everyone a trophy because the just participated. We lower the standards in classrooms, 'cause we don't want to hurt little Billy/Susie's self esteem. We teach the wrong things here...the real world is NOT like that, it is not one big happy area where everyone is equal, and treated equal. That has to be quite a shock. We've let kids slide too far with respect to discipline. While I'm not talking specifically about corporal punishment (I don't think throwing that out the door was good either), but, personal discipline...responsibility for actions. If kids screw up, Mom and Dad cover for them....I've heard teachers saying when they had a child acting up, and could actually get a parent in for a conference, the teacher gets berrated over accusing little Johnny of wrongdoing, rather than trying to work together to correct his behavior. Of course later little Johnny expects he'll be covered/forgiven if he's late for work, or just doesn't show up a day for some reason.
Do kids even work these days in high school? As soon as I was 16...I got my first job washing dishes in a medium end restaurant...I worked my way up to head bus boy (even back then in my state you had to be 21 to serve alcohol)...I worked Fri-Sat. evenings....and usually 2 week nights. I saved my money, and when I was a senior, my folks added a little money to mine, and I bought my first car (datsun 280Z). I don't know of any of my friends whose kids actually work jobs....everything is given.
I'd say a lot of this is the past gen. or so's fault....and these kids are in for a shock when they hit the real world.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There is a video professor ad where a woman laughs that her four year old is often more comfortable with a computer than she is. A lot of older people just don't realize that **comfort** is not a particularly big deal. Yes, most middle and upper class people in Gen Y are "comfortable with a computer" and other gadgets. So what? When I was in college two years ago, it didn't stop many of them from making many of the same mistakes that their equally **computer illiterate** parents made like not updating their software and trusting everything that came into their inbox that didn't look automatically like spam.
So you can plug your iPod in and sync up your media collection with it. How is that a practical use of your computer, the sort of thing that drives the economy?
I have to wonder... were there ever articles like this talking about basic skills like driving? "Younger generation more comfortable with horseless carriage?" Being able to use a computer? BFD. Who cares. Being able to write software, integrate components and mess with hardware are the skills that stand out.
Or maybe, today's college students are wising up to the fact that most businesses work their tech staff to the bone dumbing down reports so their managers could understand them, following step-by-step instructions for an hour when they could fix it in 5 minutes if given the chance and if managers didn't call their IT staff on their vacations/weekends to help fix the e-mail server cause someone decided to change the settings without IT approval.
I've heard of far, far too many IT stories from my friends and on /. to even consider going into IT as a career. IT is not the dream job many people believe it to be. Anyone who runs a simply network for a friend(s)/family knows how annoying it can be to get a random phone call from someone asking for help to access their e-mail.
That is one of my primary concerns, and I am a Gen-X'r. I think more and more companies that are heavy into software development are starting to recognize that people want a flexible, comfortable workplace and an employer that realizes that adding perks, like flex-hours, casual dress code, telecommuting, more vacation, etc. can balance a crappy/mediocre salary and make up for other short-comings. In many instances adding perks can be a cheap way to attract(and keep existing) talent to your company without having to pony up huge salaries.
Familiarity with Facebook and Bittorrent is different than choosing a career as a programmer or network administrator. Familiarity is not maintenance and/or development. The number of people familiar with using automobiles is a little larger than the number who choose a career as a mechanic.
As a sysop, it was immensely frustrating to work with users who have no idea how computers work. They wanted somebody else to figure out what they had to do and if something unexpected happened they wouldn't think through it. As a mathematician, it's immensely frustrating to teach non-majors who strongly object to having to think (or understand) anything -- they want to be given algorithms they can apply (and don't realize that these algorithms only work for exam problems specifically engineered for their benefit). In ordinary life, it amazing to meet people who drive everyday but have no idea how their car works. My girlfriend just showed my an advert for a product lined with Gore-Tex which explains that the membrane is permeable to "water vapour" molecules (hence is breathable), but blocks the much larger "moisture" molecules (and thus waterproof).
The truth is that people simply don't care to think about anything around them. They don't stop to think "why does this work?" "what does it mean?" and similar questions. Since most people seem to do fine without being universally curious, I try to accept it even if it galls me every time. You can see this when people complain "gadget X doens't do what I want it to do". You rarely see people try to make the gadget behave to their desires. If offered a product that suits them, they're happy, but very few people feel the need to force the world to fit them rather than the other way around.
As a Generation Y kid working in the real world, I got my undergrad from the University of Illinois in Computer Science. It was great to learn, but overall, I retained nothing. I was burnt out as a developer after two years. I found my true calling after getting my MBA, and now I work in IT Management. The burn-out level of just being a code-monkey was just too much for me.
Good. I hate to sound elitist, and god knows that I'm hardly the hottest stuff on the block (I work with a ton of people smarter than I am), but am I the only one who remembers when the CS field was flooded by people whose chief qualifications were Microsoft Word and HTML?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look, kids, I'm what they call a "boomer". They call us that because fireworks and guns were legal when we were kids. What? Speak up, I can't hear you! We were also known as "goddamned potsmoking hippies".
The next generation was called "generation X" or alternately "Goddamned cocaine-soaked Yuppies".
The next generation was Generation Y. They're also known as "Goddamn punks", "Sales Clerks", "fry cooks", "outsourced and unemployed" and "crackheads".
So your nomenclature is a bit off. These kids would be known as "Generation Z" IINM. Also known as "GODDAMNED KIDS GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!"
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's not like there's an abundance of CS jobs available (unless you're willing to work for peanuts and you're in a third world country). Consider this job "security".
They seem to be using fluent in the "so far behind they think they're head" mode of thinking. I can drive a car, wash it, change the oil, and fill the tires; does that mean I'm fluent in automobiles? These kids aren't fluent in technology, they're fluent in using technology. I must be fluent in pastry because I get to eat a lot of donuts, cakes, and croissants where I work. Personally, I'd say it's the opposite. Generation Y lacks a fascination for technology and science because they don't know much about it.
New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
I reverse engineer everthing. I've dissambled TVs, radios, computers, ICs (designed them too), cellphones, computer programs, file formats, whatever. Being superficially familar with technology for any age group doesnt cut it. That is the nature of true technical nerdness.
it's not because someone knows how to use technology that they understand everything about it and particularly those savvy users
I have people using Iphones and Blackberry and Instant messaging but they dont know jack shit about the rest and how it works in the background so i'm not too afraid of losing my job to those people.
i have seen people boasting about their understanding of the internet and all those nifty gadget they speak about ya know,,,E-mule, Kazzaa, Bit torrent, Messenger and they are the same that usually get hacked and or get loaded with viruses.
technology users do not rhyme with safe usage of it.
And that girl they talk about well, you cant turn your geek switch off when you like computers, you either like it or you dont, learning out of necessity does not make you the hottest tech around and will not assure you a nice place but again that depends on where you want to be, most of the Bosses i had, had half the knowledge i possess but that did not prevent them from making decision for IT but in some case it can be a hindrance when the person over you does not know the implication of what she or he is talking about.
...who got yelled at for being lazy hippies are yelling at their own kids for being lazy techno-hippies.
Sounds like The Curse (When you have kids, they'll be just like you were) is continuing to work just fine.
* benbean trembles in fear
It's a Unix system - I know this.
this articles tags are the win.
sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
This group of people is the same that think that they don't need us in IT because they know how to turn on the computer, use Word and browse the net. They don't realize that software needs to be written and hardware needs to be designed, and that it is a hard job.
Most people i met in college went to study computer science "because they liked using computers" and when they found out about coding, moved out instantly.
Nothing new to see here, move along.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Wow! What do I get?! More money! Please... If companies can't hire enough techies, it is hard for me to feel bad.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
...of the human machine interface.
With this in mind, Computer Science is just as much about understanding people as it is about understanding technology.
Sometimes we seem to forget that Computer Science is actually a blend of the humanities and the sciences.
Hedghog
From my perspective as a mid-twentysomething, I agree with this entirely. I went away to college and quickly lost interest in pursuing CS or CE, Math, Physics, or any of the hard sciences, really. The kicker for me was the lack of a solid career path, and the way the folks that studied these subjects were treated in terms of on-campus recruiting, job fairs, etc. Meanwhile, business majors had no problems finding work, especially those who had some technical skills on the side. So I joined them, sort of, and ended up with a business degree in economics.
Coming out and looking for work, I was basically doing applied statistics, writing code for models and such, but would not even have been interviewed without the business degree. The bottom line is that someone with a stats degree could've done the work as specified, but they wanted to hire people who could write the models based on the business problem at hand (interpret it into a regression model basically, find out how to source the data to run it, write it, interpret the findings for management, etc). And I've done this for two different companies, so there's a chance it's not a unique hiring thing.
So I wonder, are people of my generation rejecting the idea of CS and other sciences, but using the concepts they learned from a few courses they took in that department in a business setting? If that's the case, like myself, I'd argue that the change is an emphasis on the application of these skills to business, not an abandonment in their education.
I'm really happy doing what I do, and while I probably lack the theoretical knowledge that a PhD in Statistics would have, my analysis in the business context is what's really being sought -- and I'm strong in that. I'm finishing up a law degree at night now, so I really can't wait to see how the technical skills apply in that profession. Lawyers are largely so tech/scientifically averse that they don't even consider the application of those skills in hiring, I've found. But the lawyers I've worked with here who have the tech or science background are tons better at their job. So what's it gonna be?
When I think of technology and peoples' understanding of it, I have two schools of thought:
A) The Star Trek school -
In this world, technology is embraced and understood. It is studied and has zero mysticism about it. It works and we know how it works, and we use that knowledge to build greater machines.
B) The Star Wars school -
Sure, Star Wars was very high tech, but throughout the whole series, the understanding of how characters of the technology seems cursory at best. "It works when I do this" kind of mentality, instead of "It works because of this."
Let me finish this post with this, those are similes, so be creative with your interpretation.
I didn't RTFA but from the resume a can see myself... I wanted to go into Physics (last year) to do research in physics because I thought CS was a tool... Turned out I didn't like Physics that much to go up to a PhD but my CS+PHYS class we're a blast (at least for me)... So now I'm in CS and hopefully that's the right career path for me!
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Corporations are to be blamed. "Flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance" is something all companies should be able to provide. This is something so trivial there is no excuse. What benefit is 9 to 5?? None whatso ever. I should be able to come in at 4 pm in hte afternoon unquestioned. OTOH how the bloodyass does the management execs justify deserving 10x the salary of the normal employee.
Also...I thought Gen Y was the one before this one? Oh, I give up...However, you know you are a "real Gen Xer" if the two generations after yours also call themselves GenXers and the generations before you calls itself the Baby Boomers. All 5523 of us: we're a true dead spot on the generation spectum. Can't even keep name the recognition.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
If the above is true of today's students, they are smarter than most of Slashdot.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Just as with any maturing technology, focus eventually turns to usage, rather than development of the core technology. Is it any surprise that more people are interested in how best to use a wheel, rather than reinventing it?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I know somebody is going to say that he has a great job, and they can never get rid of him, yada yada. But, that doesn't mean anyting.
What about people just entering the field? What about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now?
Who want's to spend $80K on a college education, and work their ass off. Then, toil for entry level wages for another 5 years, only to train their $5/hour replacements in the Ukraine, or whatever? Great "career" right?
Most IT work is tedious, and unimporant. The pay, at best, is nothing special. And employers seem to have an never-ending list of requirements, even for an "entry level" job.
I think it's safe to say that there are better career choices.
Fjear my four-digit UID.
;)
Fear my two digit IQ!
-mcgrew
PS- how'd you get it back? I'd love to post as simply "mcgrew" again!
(oh hell, I'm logged in and I'm still getting cowboyed! Whoda thunk that bein' able to read fast would be penalized at a nerd site?)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Right at the moment, people that work in IT aren't exactly a majority of the populous. As a percentage of the whole workforce, I'd be willing to bet that people keeping these systems running and designing new ones are a small fraction of the population. People that now, and have always been interested in the 'nuts and bolts' side of technology are always going to be around in the same relative quantities as they were before.
After the dotcom implosion, a flood of 'highly-trained' prima-donnas entered the workforce, many of them with A+ Certification or an MCSE and an expectation that they should be running the joint within 5 years. On top of that, wages dropped. Why would I want to slave for 12 hours a day in a data centre when I can leverage the skills I learned as a techie to improve the job I do in other departments? Computers ARE just tools, and the idea that a career in computers should be something to aspire to, is like saying a career in waste management is something to aspire to. People should aspire to a career that they will enjoy, not necessarily a career that someone expects you to be interested in.
Me? I dropped IT given my first opportunity and have yet to look back.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
people these days are fluent in pushing buttons and understanding the interfaces that were designed to be easy to understand in the first place. Lets not give people 'extra' credit for being able to install software on their notebook.
Call me a troll or this post flamebait, but it will be true.
Look at IT objectively - it's infrastructure. You do the jobs that make the background stuff work. Mechanics, machinists, equipment opertors, assemblers, all do this stuff. They diagnose problems and fix them. They assemble components built and designed primarily by others into a useful working product, often based on the experience of others.
Of course gen Y doesn't want any part of that. It takes effort and requires getting your hands dirty. Most kids out of school (in any generation, I might add) are looking for which CEO position will give them the best golden parachute. Nevermind that that's not how the real world works - their perceptions are based on seeing smart people (like them) on TV shows get to the top without effort. Some will eventually realize they have to make money, and they'll be IT ditchdiggers. Others will find their niche in retail sales, or construction, or some white collar paper-pushing position.
Nobody aspires to grow up and be a plumber, but the world still needs them. And, in case you haven't looked lately, plumbers can make decent money.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Being able to open a web browser or download songs from itunes doesn't make one "fluent with technology". Being able to do some basic productivity tasks just doesn't count either. There's nothing wrong with having that level of ability but it's not going to keep anyone at the forefront of the technology curve.
Kids aren't going into technology fields because:
A) There is a (wrong) perception that all the jobs are going to China/India
B) There has always been a finite talent pool of people genuinely interested in technology
C) Schools (in the US) do a piss poor job in general of educating students about technology
D) There are easier ways to get through school.
I support a gaggle of Gen-Y'ers and would like to point out that using technology is not the same thing as understanding technology. Even the graphic designers who use Photoshop at the expert level five days a week don't know simple things like how to burn a data CD. It's possible for someone to own a Smartphone, digital video camera, home network, etc. and have not the slightest idea how they work or how to solve even the most minor of problems.
This is not a slam, just a clarification. I don't see ANY generation having more tech skills than any other, and that includes the current teenagers who were born surrounded by technology.
P.S. I am an X'er
...Only serve to prove your point, IMO. I just read through quite a few people that disagreed with your post, but the essence of what you were saying is intact. Regardless of whether it's the 60s,70s,80s,90s, it's clear that people often have a bias towards past music. It is nigh-impossible to say what bands of today will be revered in the future as trendsetters for music that's not yet written. But it is undeniable that history will eventually decide.
And by the same token, people forget that although there is good music in ever decade, there was an awful lot of crap that came out back in the 60s or whenever too. Confirmation bias and all that. I thought of several counter-examples to the bands others in this thread listed that were contemporaries to several of the "crap" music that was offered as an example.
Why worry about what decade has the best music? Just listen to what you like and don't worry about other people. Good music will always be around. And everyone has a different definition of what's good.
Between knowing how to use a blog or search for stuff with Google (or creating crap with Microsoft ShitPoint), and knowing how to install, configure, or manage a blog system, a search engine, webserver farm, or a corporate network/server platform.
'Knowing how to use blogs' and how to IM people to find information does not equate to 'up to the minute' technology skills
Compare:
Knowing how to use a dishwasher or a microwave oven doesnt qualify you to design and build either of those appliances, let alone even open the cover of one.
Knowing how to turn on the lights or plug in a TV or VCR doesnt qualify you to install electrical wiring in a house or build or repair AV equipment (or even program the clock in a VCR, usually)
Basically, this generation is adept at being users, but (in general) has neither the qualifications or desire to be the sysadmin-behind-the-scenes.
"One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."
I wonder if this will change once they start getting their real jobs. "Flexible schedule" is being able to come in whenever they tell you to come in, and "healthy work/life balance" means never taking a sick day.
Yes, they are tech savvy but they don't have a clue how the hell is the damn thing working. I expect that very soon people will talk about "ghosts inside the cell phone", although they won't call then ghosts. The only good thing is that they won't be afraid of those 'ghosts'.
No sig today.
Ya, come in whenever you want. Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If a serious problem arises, and your manager isn't there, it'll have to wait too. Nevermind that things may grind to a halt.
The benefit to 9-5 generally comes when you need information from someone that doesn't operate within your same schedule.
Where I work we have pretty flexible hours. I get into work at about 6 in the morning, and I'm out by 2:30-3:00. I have a family I like to spend time with in the evening. Say you're working on a piece of a project that we are working on, and you've written some code that absolutely confounds me, but I think I may need to extend it to handle something else. I decide after spending some time trying to work out what's going on, that it's too much for me to bite off at the moment and I need to go straight to the source and see if you can give me a hand understanding what you're trying to do.
If you were in at a sane time, I could send you an im, email, or walk over and bounce a couple questions off of you. Since you don't get in until 4, I have to settle for sending an email or leaving a note explaining the situation and hope that when I check my mail in the morning that you A) replied B) understood what I was asking and C) Answered my question sufficiently enough to allow me to go about my business. If none of the requirements are met, that's now time lost.
Tossing aside all arguments that I should be fired for incompetence (maybe I'm a junior programmer who needs guidance), there's a legitimate need for all employees to be at the same place at the same time if they are working on related projects. If you're flying solo on a project that doesn't impact anyone - then where do you work, and do they have any job openings?
There are three kinds of "technology "fluent": To use the old car analogy
1) Can drive a car, knows all about car companies and which models have leather seats and what "anti-skid brakes" do
2) can fix a car. Can figure out what part is broken and do a "remove and replace" repair
3) Can design a car. Knows how to design body sheet metal so that it absorbs energy in an impact. Can model flame propagation inside a combustion chamber,
With cars e have drivers, mechanics and engineers. With computers it is users, service techs and engineers. So what the article says is that even though many kids are computer users few want to become engineers. Well "good" the ratio of users to engineers should be about 100,000 to one or maybe 500K to 1. It only take 10 guys to set up a cool web site that a million people can use.
And yet, following regular 9-5 hours doesn't exactly seem to solve those problems.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
I read the first sentence of the summary and thought to myself "I hope my dad doesen't read this..."
How is this different from every generation before it? The technology sector has always been relatively small. Now we have people who are more adept at technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to want to make that their life.
*pulls out a car analogy*
There was a time when cars were new, fun, and accessible (or so I hear). There were a lot of 'gearheads' or 'grease monkeys' who thought this was great and would make their own, or rebuild ones they bought back to original quality (or better). And yet the world is not covered with car factories.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
"Children today are lazy, lack respect and have no faith" - Rough translation of Mesopotamian saying.
What really goads me lately is this massive latching on by the current mainstream press that Work/Life balance is some evil concept. It's as though striving to have a life outside your work simply isn't tolerable. Don't these tools who feed this party line when writing the articles want a life as well?
We are entering a time of extreme excess for the bulk of humanity in 1st world nations, it's okay if we all want to slow down some and enjoy this new world we have. Frankly if we all really worked as hard as people did thirty or fourty years ago we'd either run out of work or resources quickly. This is why we need to continue to push an information economy because its central resource is people something we still have plenty of (for now).
I'm amazed when talking to people on the East Coast and they mock West Coast things like Work/Life balance with derision and a wave of the hand. Unless you *really* enjoy your job above all else, what's wrong with wanting it to have less importance in your life? For most of us, work, is a means to an end. This is your only life, enjoy it! Take a vacation! Get drunk/high! Have sex! Do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't directly impede the joy of others.
--- I do not moderate.
As a home-schooled senior (I dropped out of pubic) I plan on becoming a nurse, where I can put my critical thinking skills and person skills to use in an instant gratification sort of style.
I DID spend 3 hours debugging a company website yesterday and while I have the necessary skills, I'll leave the tedious background work to the Indians if they prefer.
Gen Y might not 'grow up' in the manner you expect. Not owning a home allows one to be more moble and less dependent on an employer. Fewer kids (or none) means more free time.
Times they are a changin', I'll get off your lawn now.
Blar.
I don't think you guys really mean critical thinking in the way you think of critical thinking. Its not really the ability to construct bullet proof logic, but the ability to reasonably question ideas. Granted logic is a big part of that. This is a common academic understanding of critical thinking articulated by 46 experts from fields of philosophy and education: "We understand critical thinking to be a purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this idea. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society" (Walvoord, 19).
Roflcopter....The thought that scares me is that these so called "tech-savie" kids often jam their PCs with so much junk like Windows, Microsoft Office Products, and useless programs like Kodak Gallery and their ISP's browser. At the end of the day the experienced IT guy has to be called because they're parents are complaining that their computers are running slaggishly slow. The poor IT guy then arrives and partially "fixes" the problem. He installs Open Office, Mozilla Firefox, Thunder Bird, 7-zip, AVG Antispyware, VLC Player, and of course the latest version of Linux(one of the distros that will fit the family's needs). Then these "tech-savy" kids start complaining that their IT messed up their computer. When are these kids going to learn that just because they downloaded a file from kazaa or bearshare it doesn't mean that their computers are safe from the damn spyware. The solution is simple, it's a user error, simply replace the user. When are they ever going to learn. Oh, and about kids not choosing a career in the tech business; the reason why they don't want to be computer scientists is because it requires hard work and brains. Plus, why would they want to go into a career that is now being shifted to the middle east?
Several countries have already tried that with this generation. I guess being paid less than minimum wage to go off to foreign lands, get shot/blown up/psychologically destroyed, and then be discarded once you return doesn't appeal to people so much anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, but they've done a fabulous job of making themselves irrelevant in the modern era, largely because military service has gone from stepping stone to dead end. It used to be that you could join the $BRANCH_OF_SERVICE, spend a few years serving and come out with some useful job skills and/or access to higher education. Now, all you can do after getting out is go back to the same minimum wage job you left - assuming it hasn't been outsourced to China.
I suspect the problem with Gen Y and future generations isn't laziness so much as apathy. I also suspect that the same problem is behind the cultural changes in Japan and other similarly structured nations. It used to be that there was a reciprocal arrangement between you and your employer: loyalty for loyalty. You gave your hard work to the company, and in return the company took care of you. Now that the companies don't give two hoots for their employees, employees don't care about the company. (We in the Detroit area are seeing that on a massive scale with the fall of the Midsized Three.) If nothing you do is worth anything, everyone's expendable, there is no security and there is no way out, why bother?
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Here, here.
A large part of the problem of the school system is that the supply of cheap labor dried up some point in the 70's or 80's, once we reached the point where intelligent, college-educated women had career opportunities other than being a teacher.
I'll tell you another problem with teachers (speaking as someone who was engaged to one) - the staggering uniformity of professional opinions amongst graduates of education programs since the 70's or so.
Amongst any other educated professionals, there are usually controversial issues in the field. Some IT people are fans of Microsoft, some think that MS is the devil incarnate.
There doesn't appear to be that sort of ongoing, unresolved debate amongst grads of education programs. Everybody agrees about everything. Is social promotion a good idea? Of course it is, and everybody agrees. Same groupthink applies to other issues that you might think should be controversial, but aren't.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Indeed, children these days are clearly lacking in theology and geometry. Their lack of logic and materialistic endeavors casts doubt upon their very souls! I would regale you with some astute philosophical musings from Boethius, however Lady Fortuna's wheel has spun me downwards and my closed valve is causing me to bloat. To the lavatory I go to seek respite!
IDIOCRACY
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Considering what a pain it is these days just to get your foot in the door in this industry, who'd blame them? The new fad is to work for a company, located in India, that is accepting contracts from countries in the US. By the time the cash gets down to the actual developer, it's not even enough to skate by on. You literally have to latch on as an indentured slave, and there's only so many deferments one can take on student loans before you HAVE to start paying them back.
When I got into this field, half of the kids getting jobs were geeky high school grads that were getting their college degrees paid for by dot coms. Nowadays, most adequate paying contracts, let alone salaried positions, require a lot of experience doing very specialized things. And by and large, they don't count "playing around with a few things" at home "experience".
For me to achieve a degree of success in this industry, I had to take a salary that caused me to go into debt out of college, then I had to go through some pretty demeaning stuff...plenty of trips to the employment department...early on during the dot com bust. I didn't start making a good salary until I was almost 30. Contrast that with the legal or medical professions, and it's not a tough decision to make for a kid getting out of high school. You can do all the technical stuff you want as a hobby, but as a career, it's just not what it used to be.
Maybe Generation Y just isn't interested in 'career' as defined by a bunch of asshole babyboomers that pay young people shit wages and demand high hours with zero compensation while keeping the best jobs and promotions available for themselves. Hell.. that could explain why Google doesn't seem to have a problem hiring while IBM has to suck an egg.
As part of the Y generation.. I work my ass off. I have a career.. and after my 8 hours, I come home and work to better myself. I analyze stocks, I study the latest trends, I take on new ideas and pursue them..
I am just not near as interested in conforming to the 70's and 80's way of business when the people running businesses now will be obsolete soon. Is my job my only career now? NO.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I forgot to mention what the hard drive has; obviously the user in question was comparing decibel measurements as if they used a linear scale. My bad.
By the way, after hearing what +7 dB actually means he decided to go with a different hard drive instead.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
US tech jobs of many stripes have already seen heavy offshoring. Kids aren't dumb, they won't bother with a difficult career path that may be yanked from under them and sent to the other side of the globe at any time.
A doctor can't be offshored, a lawyer can't be offshored. An MBA can't spin marketing bullshit in IndiEnglish from a phone halfway around the world.
US tech jobs are a dying breed, following in machine-tool operators' footsteps. The subject is as interesting as it ever was, but the career is simply not that attractive anymore.
~
Other's have already pointed out the 9-5 situation (people being there when they need to interact together), but, there is a more general point I'd like to address. This sense of entitlement, that the world needs to adjust to 'my' lifestyle and needs. Unless you are going to own and run your own business, that ain't gonna happen. Maybe this attitude comes from parent who start themselves jumping through hoops anytime the kids wants something or has to be somewhere (all activities structured and scheduled). Parents quit saying "NO". Unless you can employ yourself, and control your destiny....your expected to meet the requirements of the place of employment you choose. The world is not out there to conform to your lifestyle. That pretty much is a thing of the past after you leave college. Hey, if you can find a job that allows shift work like you mentioned...choose that one, but, they are few between, and most I know of.....don't earn that much and are largely janitorial.
With age and work experience...and years of accomplishments, comes increased position and pay. I'm not saying it is always justified, there will always be jackasses that make it to the top, but, then again...I never say someone is overpaid. Obviously someone is willing to pay those people that much, and frankly, I want to be one of them. I really, really like the things money allows me to do....and rather than try to customize the system around my wants, I try to figure out how to use it to make my gains.
Unless you can either learn to work the system, or work for yourself....you're gonna be left behind, and while it may be sad, the world really doesn't care about it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are only about 26,000 "computer science" jobs in the United States. Not "information technology", not system administration, not tech support, but the jobs where people actually research and develop new technology.
If you're really good, there are openings in the operating systems groups for the iPhone and the Palm. There's good technical work to be done there, the pay is OK but not spectacular, you will have no life, you get no respect, and few will ever understand what you did. (If you take the iPhone job, you get to meet Steve Jobs and have him scream at you.)
The trouble is, if you're smart enough to do those jobs, you can probably do better doing something else. Two smart young people I know, with Stanford CS degrees, are running hedge funds.
And that's the top of the field. Further down, it's much worse, endlessly fixing systems that could have been designed not to fail, but for which the costs to do that would have been higher than fixing them.
I'm not complaining personally; I've done very well in computer science. But I can't recommend it as a career choice today.
Ah, a graduate of the Sarcasm Academy.
Think what you like -- that's the beauty of the system. But perhaps it is conceivable that we've let the finer liberal arts and sciences lose ground in school. I won't touch theology -- your religion is your own business. Does this mean teaching every child formal courses in Latin, Logic, and Elocution? No. However, what harm is there in trying to raise the standard a little bit at a time as opposed to watching slide into a morass of standardized test and canned answers. I think we owe it to kids to arm them with the tools they can use to succeed in life, and the better the tools, the more confidence they will gain and the greater strides they will make. If we continue to sink toward the lowest common denominator, there may come a time when we can no longer cope with even minor changes in our environment.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Or it could be the realization there we already have a war, and it's not helping.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You learned the difference between valid and invalid arguments, the classical logical fallacies, etc. In that sense, it can certainly be taught.
Like I said, you can teach logic but it may not be applied. People can be taught all the patterns, but application still comes from within. It's one thing to recognize a fallacy in a test full of them and another to pick out a fallacy from a stream of otherwise honest material.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
All it takes is an environment where the student is challenged. This is gonna piss said student off, but it's ok. Once they get through it, they will come back and be rational about it, realizing the gift they have been given.
... 400, then finally grok the idea that they are dealing with somebody wanting to keep it real. From there, it's all good.
(had a HS teacher do exactly that --a mentor at that time, do the same. I will never forget it.)
The problem we've got with building more critical thinkers comes down to preserving the status quo. If we pump out a bunch of free thinkers, they are gonna go off and do what free thinkers do; namely, change stuff!
This is good, but the current powers that be, don't want too many people to realize that.
Also, putting false choices in front of students, while at the same time limiting their understanding of their real choices, does a lot toward making semi-critical thinkers. They solve problems, largely within the current framework, and as such thinkers, are highly desired.
I can't tell you how many times I've been to the local school (and I like my local school), to deal with these false choices head on. They look at somebody, that actually asks ugly questions, like a complete freak. They employ control and co-opt 101, 102
Largely this problem is one of inhibition. Manage that properly, and that means lots of work on boundaries, and you will get a nice critical thinker, nearly every time. Fail to manage that properly, as in too many artificial inhibitions, and you get a problem solver. They are two different things, often confused.
Blogging because I can...
"writing, critical thinking, hard work and just plain showing up."
What college doesn't require writing emphasis courses, some kind of critical reasoning course, classes that demand more or less hard work, and don't have *some* kind of attendance policy??? I'd love to see the author of this article get into my school, let alone out of it, for *any* major, without all those things he says aren't required, and much more.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Young people are idiots, old people are idiots. They just tend to be idiots in different ways.
Young people tend to be "neverwillbes" basically, they look forward to an amazing future... That never will exist. They lack the knowledge and experience to understand that human nature really doesn't change. That's why you'll find many young people that support economic and political systems that more or less require everyone to be nice and share. They believe that can actually happen, they believe people as a whole can and will change in their lifetime to be different form how they've been for thousands of years. As such, they are neverwillbe idiots, looking forward to a future that can't exist.
Well most old people are way too learned to fall for that crap. They understand that humanity isn't going to magically get better. In fact they are damn sure it is getting, and will continue to get worse. They are idiots in the opposite direction, they are "neverwases". They look back on a past where everyone was smart and hard working, respected their elders, marriages lasted to death, and there was no crime. Of course, alas, this past never was. We have a tendency to remember the good more than the bad in life, just how we are wired. This is the same reason why you can look back with longing on a relationship years later that you were desperate to get out of at the time. As such they hearken back to glory days that didn't actually exist. Today's youth look like crap to them because they are comparing them with an idealized version.
These conditions, unfortunately, seem to be one of those things about people that just aren't going to change. They aren't universal, of course, you meet plenty of people of all ages that have a healthy amount of perspective, but you meet far more who don't and are neverwillbes when they are young, and neverwases when they are old.
So it is something that will probably continue for all time or at least for a very long time. To the extent fundamental human nature changes, it does not do so quickly. People will continue to see their past through rose coloured glasses and find that the present doesn't match that hazy, idealized memory and thus bemoan the present.
...and I find it interesting how none of the posters have mentioned that. Look if its true that Generation Y wants a better work/life balance and flexible hours, this is a good thing. It also says nothing about their ability to compete or not. One of the things slashdotters complain about all the time are bad working evironments, and being a slave to servers and or pagers. Do you think after almost twenty years of this Generation Yers don't see this? A lack of critical thinking has been a problem in North American education systems for a long time now. It appears to me to be better in Europe, but thats just from what I hear. That said, I've noticed that many, many people I work with that are in IT would have come to where they were by themselves anyways. They had curiosity, then read stuff, they hacked and BBSed and whatever else, and then they made themselves the way they were. In most cases this is not going to change. Smart kids will continue to be smart *inspite* of the education system. As for the rest, they will probably fall along their appropriate place on the bell curve. And there is nothing wrong with that.
With this in mind, how many people, especially after 35 in IT start thinking of ways of getting our or changing careers. This might actually make a good slashdot post. How many 55 year old C++ programmers do you know working in your shops? Even if you argue that C++ wasn't around when a 50 year old programmer started, he should have been able to just gone from cobol or fortran to C++. But are there really that many? A few? How many lawyers do you see that are still in their 50s and working. Or doctors?
The point being if we give the message that IT is first of all not a sustainable career, and also that other careers are more fun and rewarding, it should be no surprise to us that those looking forward to us from a younger age would not be swayed by what they see. I don't think we should lay all the blame on the "generation".
No, I'm eligible to retire in a few years. If the economy collapses as it looks like it's going to (see Today's newspaper) I'll be living better than I am now! I'll go visit the Canyon with you.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Questioning entitlement works both ways. Why should a company be entitled to request something from me that is not necessary? In my company, I come to work in t-shirt and jeans. Because it's not required to come in a suit (unless we're in a meeting with a customer, then it's a given). But to sit in the office? What for?
Yes, work should cater to the needs of the worker wherever it does not cut into the productivity. Why? Because a satisfied and content worker is a productive worker. Yes, you can pour me into a suit and force me to wear it, and you will see my productivity sink. I hate those things. They cramp my style and I sweat like a pig in one. Don't know why, even if it's cold, I sweat my glands off in one. And that of course does not really add to my comfort. Now, while work needn't be comfortable, it certainly increases my productivity if I work in an environment I'm comfortable in.
And yes, I come to work around noon. No problem there either. When there's a meeting, I'm there, of course, no matter when, but I prefer to sleep in. I'm also more productive when there's no constant buzz around me from coworkers and their music, not to mention that I can hardly think coherently (let's not talk about writing meaningful code) before noon. And that way, our phones get picked up way past 8pm, because I'm still here for the odd customer call around those hours. So everyone's happy.
Can you show me any benefit my boss would derive from requiring me to wear a suit or that I must be in the office around certain hours?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They didn't like that answer and while they continue to promote technical careers at the high school level, they also lobby heavily for expanded H1-B visa quotas and press the State Department and DoD to relax restrictions on sending work overseas.
Kids are too smart these days. Whatever they do, they are increasingly interested in maintaining control of the market for their skills, rather than selling themselves off to a large corporation. Scott Adams had a Dilbert strip where he coined the term 'technological savant'. This is an individual who can solve the most sophisticated technical problems in his/her field, but is too stupid to compare paychecks between professions.
Have gnu, will travel.
I haven't had the same email address in years, how do I convince them I'm me?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
As someone who's spent a bit more than a decade dumbing down user interfaces(among other things) I can attest that being tech savvy doesn't imply any talents at all
That's funny, I do run my own business. I like to call it Me, Inc. I provide a service (my time and skills) to the highest bidder the market. Currently, the highest bidder is my employer and part of the price they pay for my services is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon balance between my time spent with them and the time I spend elsewhere.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right? And labor is another market. Regulated, like most markets, but still a market, nonetheless. I have seen many business people who tout free market economics when it benefits them and then with straight faces denounce the workings of the labor market when it swings in favor of the worker.
Yes, Gen Y are greedy, selfish bastards who want their fun now, don't care about tomorrow and are the true "no future" generation. Why? Because they're told to be!
Government and ads tell them to be greedy, sefish and irresponsible. You're only valuable if you have the latest tech gadgets, buy whatever crap they advertise and spend, spend, spend. When should they put kids into this world? Into this world, while we're at it? With terrorists blowing you up any second now and ecological armageddon right 'round the corner? Where you don't have a job, and if you do it gets you barely enough money to pay your bills? Not to mention that you simply NEED that new cellphone and this ringtone. And you have to have them, or your friends won't be your friends anymore.
You are what you have. Not necessarily own, buy it now, pay later! Of course, this gets you so deeply into debt that you simply can't pay anymore, then you need to slave away in that dead end job 'til death finally comes as your escape from it all.
Of course those kids don't want a career. Yes, they know a lot about technology. Mostly how to mod XBoxes and how to use computers to get stuff for free (because they have to have it, according to every ad that blitzes them, but can't afford due to their jobs being somewhere in China or Taiwan). Not to mention that some of them already start into their life with a few thousand bucks short because, well, they had to spend, spend, spend. Why bother with a career if you're working for someone else 'til you're 50?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Employees demanding more is hardly new. People wanting more is what drives a capitalistic world. Just because the most recent generation value certain things (freedom of lifestyle) and demand those from employers does not make it any less of a demand than, say, demanding a higher salary or benefits for family members, etc.
This idea that people are "entitled" is nonsense. Everyone wants as much as they can have and more. Employers want hard-working employees for cheap. Employees want to work less for more pay (or other types of compensation). A compromise is reached. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Attitudes like "be grateful for what they give you" only cause one side to gain an advantage and speaks of a subservient mentality.
All humans suck shit. There - that was easy eh? I should do this for a fucking living.
Everyone wants to own, but the real estate issues are making it harder and harder for people to get into houses. Prices are up, and lenders are being much more picky. If you can't buy healthcare for yourself, how will you afford the children?
I'm Gen-X and I own my house outright so suck it you angry little bitch.
Blar.
Life is way to short (and you only have 1) to slave yourself to a job with no say as to how to run your life. Considering you spend a very significant portion of your life at work I would say it is crucial to find a job that fits your life and not fit your life to your job. There are many tech jobs out there that allow you to choose your hours, provided you work hard, get your work done, and actually work a full 40 hour week. Every place I have ever worked has allowed this. In fact, it is one of the things that I demand from an employer before I agree to work anywhere. I have friends at other companies that routinely come in at 4pm. Me I like the evenings so I come in about 11 pm but I could come in much later if I wanted. It is this old school, lemming type mindset such as yours that allows upper management at some companies to still perpetrate the ridiculous 9 - 5 workday. If you are much better then average at what you do you will find employers will give you flexibility. So lemmings of the 9 - 5, grow some balls.
Thankfully, in America the people decide how our system runs. We can adjust the world to our lifestyle. We can impose it on the business world, should we so choose. Europe does--maybe they've gone too far, but I think a few steps in their direction would be a good thing, and if enough other people do too, then business will no longer be "entitled" to dictate quite as many terms of employment as they were before.
It's not even so much a matter of reducing choice, as changing the available choices. Few people here can get 4+ weeks of vacation, long and flexible lunch hours, etc., even if they want them, without taking a disproportionately large drop in pay and giving up promotions to the go-getter with no life outside of work, so for many it's just not a real option. In Europe, you may not be able to work over X hours, but that's been traded for the ability to do things that most people in the U.S. are not free to do. Should America decide to make such a trade, we can and will.
Actually more a of graduate of the Satire Academy, drawing from the works of John Kennedy Toole.
You posted "burn in hell" and you do not consider that flamebait? - JOKE!! [1]
Come on my friend, calm down, it was a slashdot modding, nothing to get worked up about. I get modded down regularly by Microsoft minions and it is nothing that a small tactical nuclear warhead would not fix.
[1] Hell, flames, get it?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And I agree with the rest of what you said, I just hate that platitude.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Why is this a surprise? It seems kinda obvious that there is a lack of interest in a "career", as envisioned by the average corporate office, that involves pressuring you to work 60 hours a week for the price of 40 in the form of a salary just so you can be a "professional with a career". Companies have *NO* loyalty to their employess and will sell them out and work them to the bone for an extra quarter of a percent on their stock price. Things are reciprocal, if you don't respect me and treat me like a human instead of a number, why the fuck should I care about you or your bottom line?
The saying: "I'm not a slave to a world that doesn't give a shit", applies here.
You underestimate the US military and the industries that circle around it by leaps and bounds. We'll gladly give you a shining, warming, and a Grand Canyon right at home.
Closest I can find to your 26,000 figure is "Computer and Information Scientists, Research" (27,650). The iPhone and Palm jobs you mention wouldn't fall under that, they'd most likely fall under "Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software" (employment of 329,060). Then there's the 472,520 jobs in "Computer Software Engineers, Applications". And the 396,020 "Computer Programmers". There's also 446,460 "Computer Systems Analysts".
Running hedge funds takes an entirely different skillset. There's probably a lot of people with both, I've known a few programmers who went into finance also. But I think the part of the iPhone job most closely related to that is the "getting yelled at by Jobs", not the technical problems.
Does that 26,000 include software development type jobs? Those aren't "computer science" jobs in the strict sense, but in practice lots of people with Computer Science educational backgrounds work in software, do develop new technology and they're not all academics or working in fundamental research units of large companies.
May the Maths Be with you!
Few people here can get 4+ weeks of vacation, long and flexible lunch hours, etc., even if they want them, without taking a disproportionately large drop in pay and giving up promotions to the go-getter with no life outside of work, so for many it's just not a real option.
Which of those types of employees do you think is more valuable to the employer?
Duh.
He who has the gold, makes the rules. And, as you would expect, the employers ALSO have certain goals in mind that they want to incent. (ie: higher level of productivity, better quality, etc.)
They pay him more and give him more promotions because of one simple reason: he's more valuable to them. He'll take 1 week vacation and be happy. You need 4 to be happy. If you want to understand things better, then look at the world through the eyes of owners. Because they are the ones making the rules. Quite simply, you work for them. And if you don't like that, then please step aside because there are 10 more people, right behind you, who will take it in an instant.
A different perspective changes things a bit, don't you think?
Easy...because they are paying you to come in, follow their rules and do their work.
Remember the golden rule: "He who owns the gold, makes the rules".
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Building a car from scratch is pretty straightforward given any sort of engine, and building an engine from scratch isn't that hard to figure out either. The basic technology is quite simple, cars are complex because we demand incredible refinements to that basic technology: extremely low emissions, extremely high reliability, remarkable safety.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Please re-read my post. I said UNLESS you can work for yourself....etc. I too work for myself, I happen to like what my company's rules and regs say.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There are no careers in computer science anymore.
There are only jobs.
The only people with careers are those who were trained in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.
You can give any company your time and effort. They will turn around and fire you to hire the young new talent for the next project.
There is no loyalty from companies. There is no guarantee of a career for those who enter the computer science field.
They're using their grammar skills there.
If he's not breeding, where will the next wave of contented employees come from?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, there is a way to do this, and ensure that your contracts are valid, and not so one sided. You can do what I've done. Incorporate yourself, I chose an "S" corporation. I work for myself. This way, you are negotiating on a business level, and the field is therefore much more level....company to company rather than company to employee, which is always going to be a lopsided one.
As an "S" corp and sole employee of such...I negotiate my salary...my hours...etc. I NEVER get asked to work for free (salary), I am free to take tax deductions, make my own (and more profitable) retirement investment decisions, and decide when to take breaks and for how long.
What you want is already available....but, you need to adjust the vehicle through which you negotiate and contract so that you ARE on a level playing field. Give it a look, it sounds right up your alley from you post.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you can find choices like these, then I'd guess it is a good thing. I'm quite happy for you. I'd guess, though, as you grow a bit further in life, if you insist on this type schedule, you're gonna find your choices limited in the future...if you want to move, change jobs....possibly just to advance in your current job. The business world runs on a certain daylight hour timeframe for the most part. And if you get married and have a family....well, that's gonna take some compromise and change from you I'd guess. If you have kids...they go to school...that is usually during 'normal' business work hours. Will you be at work always when the kids are home? What about your wife? Will she also be the working night owl that you are too? If not...ya'll aren't gonna see much of each other (which in fact may take care of the children problem of itself).
Life is full of compromises....if you aren't willing to make some, you may find yourself limited for growing in the future both financially and personally.
There are practical reasons why much of the business world works on a similar time schedule.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
120 grand a year for a divorce lawyer? What, did he only take 5 cases? ;)
Anyone is *entitled* to *request* anything from anyone. Well, within some reasonable legal restrictions, of course.
They can request that you work 9-5. They can request that you wear a big gold sombrero. They can request that you submit all your status reports in iambic pentameter.
What you are *entitled* to, is not complying with their requests, and not working for them. You're not *entitled* to a job with any specific employer.
Marriage and kids are completely besides the point when talking about employers giving flexibility and choice to their employers. After all, with that flexibility you could very well choose to come in at 9 - 5 if that suits your wife and kids, but why force that on others because it suits you? I know guys with a wife and kids that come in later because they actually find it useful to getting their kids off in the morning. Someone a couple of posts up made the point of increased productivity on a flexible workday system. You can't deny that people are more productive when they can choose to work at the hours their mind is the most alert. In that respect it is in the employers best interest to allow flexible hours since in the end they will end up getting more value from their employees.
That sounds rather cool to me (being interested in startups and things anyway). How do you do it?
Re your question "Can you show me any benefit my boss would derive from requiring me to wear a suit or that I must be in the office around certain hours?"
I can, actually, but not about the suit part. Even though I'm not your boss, I do manage a half-dozen engineers on my team... and I could care less about what they wear, btw.
What it comes down to for me is that (if you're an experienced, senior engineer) there's more than just tasking involved in your tenure. People from many parts of the organization have probably come to depend on your insight and experience to make effective decisions, keep themselves out of trouble, ensure that things are being done right, etc. Those people are usually not the senior folks (though they could be), and might include other managers & directors outside of your group or department. A lot of these are walk-up questions, or phonecall-on-the-spur-of-the-moment questions. When you're not there, they'll have to go to someone else, perhaps someone else they trust less, or perhaps someone else that doesn't know the topic as well as you. Then, when you slide into your chair after lunchtime, the damage of bad information or poor knowledge has already been done and you'll spend the next few hours of your valuable time correcting the issue or hunting down the wicked to get them to correct it. For your manager, it's a net loss of your productivity. As for the rationale of "I'm here to answer questions after normal office hours." Well, that's nice and everything, but it's better to have nobody around to answer off-hours calls so that the regular daytime coverage can be used and that the customer doesn't get the feel like the stated hours for support coverage are meaningless. Once a customer gets the idea that the hours of availability are not as stated, they'll ask for a lot more that isn't stated in the long run.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
You had posted saying that expecting a business to cater to you reflects a sense of entitlement and that the only way to get what you want is to run your own business. That simply isn't true - employees often seek perks (contractual and not) and if they deliver a desired value to the company, they get them. There are plenty of benefits to negotiating such things rather than being a contractor. My friends at Google get some quite nice benefits, for example, but it they approached Google as an S-Corp of one they would not get the job.
If you're good enough (and can demonstrate and prove your worth), you can get almost any benefit/perk as either an employee or contractor. If your demands are greater than your benefit to the company or there is someone of similar capability but less cost, you can't get them, no matter how you approach it. The problem with the sense of entitlement is not that employees want flex hours (or whatever) but when they don't have the capabilities to make themselves worth it to the company
Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
Look at the US auto and airline industries to get a view into the consequences of implementing a union.
Yea let's look at airlines. A union agrees to cuts in benefit so the airline won't do bankrupt but then the airline executives give themselves hugh bonuses. While pilots for American Airlines took a 23.5 percent cut in pay in 2003 the executives gave themselves bonuses of about $250 million.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Easy...because they are paying you to come in, follow their rules and do their work.
And you are doing work for them.
Both sides in the contract are entitled to make their demands. It may work, it may not. But your OP suggested that there was something inherently wrong about the individual wanting particular things in a job.
(Also, if more people were bothered about things like flexible hours, people would be in more of a position to get it, as there'd be less competition from those who aren't bothered.)
Talking about "entitlement" smells like a strawman - no one is claiming this is some Human Rights issue, it is just about what they would like in a job.
Just reading the crude generalizations, myopic thinking and lazy analysis in this article made my skin crawl. As has been pointed out in many responses previous, someone who has a blog does not necessarily know anything about assembly programming or page tables. IT was appealing in the past because no one knew much about it and now everyone is a computer expert? Give me a break. When journalists usually say 'computer savvy' they're implying that the person in question can use a keyboard. Yeah, the newest generation is so incompetent/lazy/spoiled/unappreciative/whatever. Just like the one before it... and the one before that... and...
And for the record, I don't think anyone gets a technical degree to become a "Tech support jockey." And everything is the fault of text-messaging, right? I graduated from the same program as Mr. Dodge, and his response pretty much disproves everything the article has to say about that point.
I read an article in a business magazine a few months back that said something similar to this article's 'The new generation is also far bolder in asking for entitlements.' This is just a disgusting statement. First, it presumes that there is something novel about moving up in the world and second, presumes that previous generations were content to be overworked and underpaid. Please, no one of any generation has appreciated that, ever.
What an awful piece of journalism.
"Flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance" is something all companies should be able to provide.
For some positions flexible tyme, and telecommuting, is possible but not for many others. Now, if more people who can do so were able to schedule flexible work tymes or to telecommute it would affect things like rush hour traffic. so even if a person couldn't have flexible work hours they would still benefit.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Do a little Googling around for "S" corporations. There are forms you need....and it varies a bit by state to state, so you might start with contacting your States dept of labor.
I paid a lawyer $350 and gave him a company name. He filed all the paperwork, and in a couple weeks, I was a company. I have a friend that did it himself, dunno what all hoops he had to jump through.
Do some research....many people try to get you to do a LLC...but, I liked the S corp since you can use that to save on how much Self Employment tax you have to pay on income (FICA, Medicare). Let's say for example, I bring in $100+ K annually. Now as an employee of the S corp, I pay myself a 'reasonable' salary (defined by the IRS) of let's say, $35K. Now all I have to pay the FICA and medicare on, is that amount plus income taxes....not on the remaining $65K+ .....that extra income falls through at the end of the year to my personal taxes...and you just pay normal income taxes on it. I think with sole proprietorships, and LLC's and the like, you have to pay that SE tax on ALL income...so, you can save tax $$ doing it the S corp way.
Take a look at this site to read up and get some ideas too. It appears they are redoing their site, but, look for the link for "original" site and read on it from there...good info.
Good luck....it is quite exciting, and you really start to learn about how things work with finance, tax, and the govt.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Anyone is *entitled* to *request* anything from anyone. What you are *entitled* to, is not complying with their requests, and not working for them. You're not *entitled* to a job with any specific employer.
And similarly, people are entitled to request what they want from a job, and companies aren't entitled to have any specific person working for them.
The only one who brought up "entitlement" was the person arguing against it - a strawman. No one is saying they have some right to have it.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
This is easier said than done. Anyone who consults, freelances, or starts their own business has to wear more than one hat. The person also has to manage a business, do the accounting including billings and accounts payable, customer relations, and finding contracts. Unless the person either partners with someone else, or hires someone to do it for them, they have to wear 4 or 5 hats. I'd rather work for myself, being on disability I don't work at all now, but most people can't juggle the different responsibilities. My sister started her business with some friends of hers and I bet she puts in 70 plus hours a week, some of that she can do from home, but it seems she lives to work not work to live.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As long as Google survives, we're all set. There isn't much I ~can't~ do after about 15 minutes w/ Google.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
"That sounds rather cool to me (being interested in startups and things anyway). How do you do it?"
Do a little Googling around for "S" corporations. There are forms you need....and it varies a bit by state to state, so you might start with contacting your States dept of labor.
A person could go the S corporation route however an LLC or Limited Liability Company may be a better route. Whoever wants to start a business of their own really needs to investigate what sort of structure the business will be, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation (C or S), or LLC. Usually they should start with their local government, where the business will be located.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, but the rate of our employment is more than the money used to pay your salary (although most people consider it the only variable). The control of having you at a certain place at a certain time is more important to more employers than your ability to work (unless you are phenomenally good at what you do, but then you probably are living your life like in the free market as you describe, but due to reputation).
Most jobs are not that hard. Employers want the skill levels to complete a job to be the minimum required to complete the task, since this reduces risk to them by allowing them to plug a new person into your position and keep the corporate machine going. Managers are the SysOps of the business world, and when the market swings over to support the worker (due to lack lf supply generally), the manager would rather look to increase the supply of the limited resource rather than pay for the increased cost over the long term). Hence the move to higher level languages in programming; they're easier to write with and hardware is cheaper than people. Hence a reduction of programming 'stars' or 'gurus' and enter a flock of cheap workers capable of 'doing the job' (although generally not as well as the people they replaced) for a cheaper price that are much easier to replace.
They're also looking to move up in their social position through a better job and higher pay, and thus, are more willing to work under the conditions they are used, which could is generally described as 'wage slavery'. They are used to standing in line and doing what they are told to the best of the abilities they have; not everyone gets 90%+ in their school and studies yet the world seems to keeps turning and it hasn't come to an end yet. They come in, take the job with *less* restrictions than the one they had before (try working a minimum wage job and see how free you are at your place of employment) and are happy to take the work of the person that is demanding a fair 'work/life' balance and 'flexible hours', usually for a lower price as well since they are used to getting paid far less with more control. Think of moving up in jobs as a voluntary Indentured Servitude, and there's always someone there to take your position if decide that the restrictions of your new found 'freedoms' are too much for you now.
Hence, the market works, just not in your favour.
The reduction in the employment of exceptional people is inevitable for tasks which once required them, mostly in part to the exceptional people developing tools for themselves to make their jobs easier. It eventually reaches a point that non-exceptionals can do it to. We have written ourselves out of our jobs, at least in the field of programing. Whether this is good or not is left to be decided, but that's how the managers want it and they control the dollars. Free markets don't always work, especially when they're being controlled by people with selfish interests.
Listen to my music.
I wanted to voice my concern over this research, though it may be too late after posting for most here to read it. I recently graduated from university and I'm a Gen X'er. But at the end of the curve - so I'm almost a Gen Y.
The problem is in North America and Europe at least that with baby boomers retiring, there is a huge need for people to continue working permanent employment to sustain the economy and keep "the system" working.
If the idea is sent of this research is that Gen X or Y don't want to work - its not true. Employers in some ways have been limiting factors. There is less permanent employment, less opportunities for advancement from starting jobs and less on-the job training. There are more temp agencies being used. If the demand for future employment needs to be met in the private sector, employers really need to get working on filling the gaps with younger, driven workers that are willing to train, educate and work hard on the job. Much like previous generation.
Seriously. I hope if an HR person or executive is reading this, they take this seriously. Give us new grad Gen X's and Y's a chance. I'm willing to bet most of us are willing to work hard. I don't consider my employer to be Club Med.
>>With age and work experience...and years of accomplishments, comes increased position and pay.
In IT, "age and work experience...and years of accomplishments" often mean that you can expect to be the next to laid off. A lot of people consider a developer to be washed up at 35. Besides, why should a company "increased position and pay" when they can just hire somebody offshore for 1/10th the cost?
I'm sorry, but I think you have IT confused with a real career field.
treat workers. burn them out young, work them to the bone, then fire them when they get a little older and more expensive for a younger fresh model. sounds great right? during the bubble people hoped to get rich on options and such so they tolerated the drudgery. now? why would you choose to suffer as a disposable worker. all the work, no glory. sure there are exceptions like google but google skims the cream of the crop of the work force, so it can afford to do this. the rest? not so much.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
... no more than 10 hours a day, weekends are fine, and complete absences of work should at least be announced).
You can. Negotiate for it. But don't expect to get paid as much as someone willing to dedicate their 9-5 to the company in question. In general, there are more employees than employers. So yes, the employer has the upper hand. Deal with it.
In my line of work, the popular thing is flex time. The rule is '80 over 2', that is, 80 hours over 2 weeks. They don't care how you do it (within reason
I didn't say you said it was easy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Their minds work in fundamentally different ways than rational humans. A lawyer will easily argue both a) you were never at the crime scene and b) the damage you caused at the crime scene was purely accidental, therefore you should receive both an acquittal and a reduced sentence!
This cognitive dissonance is clearly not a problem for them. The entire mechanism for detecting dissonance is either turned off or missing in most legal professionals. This is why justice is no longer about facts but who you know, how much you have, and well, if chewbacca lives on endor.
You've got to have a bit of sympathy. How hard must it be to train your mind into this particular mode of failure just to have a career? How hard is it to live in a naturally rational world if you think gravity operates the way it does because of precedent!?
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
action
That might be Neo-liberalism but it is NOT Liberalism, Classical Liberalism!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Historically speaking, common law is rooted in traditional practices and procedures - and statutory law scarcely exists.
The Revolutionary generation believed that judge-made law was easily manipulated and dangerously whimsical.
That is why in the American system there is this extraordinary insistence on written constitutions, legislation, administrative rules, and so on. Laws may have common law roots, but that is not how they are presented to a court.
An American judge does not think in terms of natural law, he is not a judge in the common law tradition as a Brit would understand it.
He does not think like a European academic who builds abstract theories of what the law is or should be, rather, he tries to give a contemporary meaning to the law as it is written.
Actually, as you go back you see the model was completely different. Think Little house on the prairie. A teacher taught a small community of children from 5 to ~16 years of age. The teacher would basically teach the older children more advanced topics and those teens would teach the next younger group slightly less advanced topics that they had learned from the last group of teens. The teaching "trickled" down to the youngest children. So not only did you learn the material you also got to learn how to teach the material. It also had the side effect of promoting communication and a sense of community.
That's how my Second grade teacher was in a way, and she had just graduated from college. What she did was that in some subjects such as math, reading, and vocabulary she had a lot of learning aids, flash cards and such. She let us use them and learn on our own, then she encouraged the students who were ahead of the class to help those who were behind. By the end of the year two friends and I were at the 6th grade level on those subject that were self-paced. Unfortunately the following year we were stuck back in regular classes with regular teachers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Dilbert's killed more IT careerists than outsourcing ever will!
It's not the *customers* who don't want to know how a computer works--its the manufacturers themselves who have a vested interest in keeping them ignorant of the details. Want to replace your HD? Bring it over to our "specialized professional" and we'll fix it for you. Oh, and if you open that new laptop of yours, you'll void the warranty; we all know you're too stupid to replace the fan yourself. Bring it to our professional. Oh, and we'll install Windows Vista too--it's the new best thing. Paradoxically, it's the large amount of purposefully ignorant people that offer hope for IT as a non-suck career (at least, IT in India)
There is, of course, Ron Paul who has Jefferson's insight and yet pounds it with Hemingway's simple clarity.
Ron Paul is the first, and only, person who came to my mind.
FalconShould there be a Law?
However, like great music of other eras, its greatness won't be recognized until the creator is long dead.
Some great music now is being recognized. I don't listen to music much anymore but one performer I love is Norah Jones, who has performed with Willie Nelson and others. She released her debut album in 2002. In 2007 she released her third album, "Not Too Late" "which debuted at number one on the world charts."
FalconShould there be a Law?
you are either a student yourself or employed in some non-vital manner.
Nope, I have a well paid job in something I enjoy (and I mean an office computer programming job - not something random). With flexible working hours. Try again.
But still, if your happy with your lot, then fine, but you seem to have your head in the sand when it comes to what other people can have, believing that I must have have no job or an unimportant job! That's fine for you, but please don't put down those who aspire to achieve and get something more with their lives.
indeed, the world will leave your 11am friend in the dust.
Funny, I'm doing fine.
smaller rush hours would form
By "smaller rush hour", you mean "normal traffic", i.e., not a rush hour by definition.
And people who want to car pool would still do so - flexible hours doesn't mean forcing ppl to come in at different times.
Have you ever heard of a small to mid sized business that is NOT open 24x7? If a business has under 200 people total, there is a good chance that the business does NOT necessarily allow people to set their own hours. There may be allowances for personal issues and to adjust a schedule, but there are additional costs involved when you allow employees to work on their schedule.
Those who work late into the night require that many things be in place for their security. You may NEED to have security available for example, which costs a good amount(which wouldn't be needed if employees arrived and left at approximately the same time), you have electric costs, you might need things like heat/air conditioning to run at those odd times(to avoid potential lawsuits), etc....
Some jobs may lend themselves to being able to do things at odd times, but most jobs require interaction with others, and those people will NOT want to make YOUR schedule theirs. Keep that in mind.
Oh, the idea of 9 to 5 is that those are the times when most people EXPECT a business to be open and for office staff to be available. Some service based businesses may offer extended hours, but if there are enough incoming calls at 9am, there should be enough people showing up at 9am to handle the call volume. Allowing employees to show up when THEY want, without regard for the needs of the company is how a company runs into trouble.
As for you wanting to come in at 4pm, what is it that YOU expect to provide at 4pm? If people need a password reset and it's a part of your job, you need to be around when other people are. If you can't understand that, then your ego is going to be a problem at any job you have. Also, if your manager has a problem talking to you because you decide to set a schedule, that will also be a problem because you need to be able to interact when it comes to discussions about various things.
No. All they pay me for is to do their work. We have a contract. I get money, they get my workforce. In theory this contract could contain me coming at certain times, wear golden hotpants (though I doubt anyone would REALLY want that... and if I'd REALLY suggest some professional help) and sing the company anthem every morning.
If they do, I won't sign the contract. Period.
It does help to have special knowledge and knowing that it's quite hard to replace me with someone else. Yes, I'm aware that few people are in that fortunate position and that many companies can get away with forcing you to do ridiculous things because "they pay you for it". Bullshit. They pay me to be productive. If they're paying me to follow ridiculous rules and deem them more important than my output, I leave. The company won't exist for long in this world (unless they got some cushy government contracts that allow you to be as inefficient and clumsy as you want).
Remember the golden rule of the market: Nobody cares what people think of you or what reputation you have. What matters is your balance sheet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Everyone in the company has my cell number. My work phone is redirected to my cell, and with VPN it's trivial for me to connect to the office in a minute to address any problem that could arise. My answers may be a bit incoherent if you call me before 8am, but give me those 5 minutes to shake off that dream of ... noneofyourbiz and get some caffeine into my bloodstream and you have your answer.
You will even be able to get these informations from me during my vacation, my cell's with me and I go on vacation to places where I have internet access. I even time my flights so that they don't cut into normal office hours, so I can be reached at any moment. So I doubt that anyone could ever claim he can't reach me with a question.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Have you ever tried any of that on a modern, post '00, vehicle. Components are so specialised, manufacturer specific and awkwardly placed that only the changing of the tire can be regarded as a fairly doable task anymore. Anything else, anything, will require a trip to some specialised automobile shop, a fairly long chat with a sales assistant, and the purchase of at least three items, "just in case" the others don't fit. Even a tire change can be an ordeal with some cars essentially requiring a power tool to remove their bolts.
I'd like to be able to do minor maintenance on a car, but it isn't straightforward DIY anymore, if it ever was. It takes a lot of preparation, time and effort, and as fascinating as it might be, time is one commodity many of us lack nowadays. On top of that, the local garageman can be fairly reasonably priced.
May the Maths Be with you!
But, as an employee, do you REALLY have a contract? I don't think so in the same sense that I do as a contractor. Everything I do is spelled out...time/money...requirements, etc.
As an employee, you sign on to work, and obey their rules and guidelines....which are subject to change without having to renegotiate with you.
Most states are 'at will' for work too. If you really do sign an 'employment contract'...it certainly isn't a good deal...for you.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
To quote an old song, this is not America.
Changes in my contract are subject to a month advance warning, in case they are to my disadvantage I have the right to quit with the same benefits as if I had been laid off (there's a considerable difference in severance benefits depending on who cuts the contract).
So yes, I'd say I do have a contract.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm the youngest guy by far in my ham radio club and I'm 34. Many of the radio guys I know aren't all that into the nuts and bolts of computing. In fact many hams resist change and that includes the introduction of digital transmission modes and the integration of RF and the Internet when it comes to ham digital networks and repeaters. You hams know what I'm talking about.
On the other hand many older hams know electronics theory cold and I'm a dabbler there at best. I'm much more adept at the digital stuff, being a programmer I'm much more comfortable playing around with packet, Winlink, Echolink, etc. Integrating software and RF hardware is fun. I still blow Joe Average away in terms of RF and electronics know-how.
I also enjoy working on my car, seems like automotive tech is another area where people look at it as a black box. That goes for many IT people, no one I work with bothers with their own car maintenance. I picked up auto repair from my father-in-law, that generation seems to be the last that really took the time to deal with fixing their own cars. Of course cars used to be easier for the driveway mechanic to deal with.
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
Yes, I've done all of this on my 2004 Toyota Corolla.
And on the flip-side, my mom has seriously said, on at least a couple occasions, "stop playing with your Nintendo", when I was surfing the internet.
Then again, I actually do want to be a professional codemonkey. I'm one of the weird ones.
1) Change the Oil
Get under the car, find the oil drain plug. (Make sure it's not the transmission drain plug) Your manual can help here if it was written well. Find a ratchet and match the right sized socket.
I've rebuilt car engines, disassembled it all the way down to the engine block then reassembled it. The only thing I couldn't do was bore out the cylinders so I took it down to a machine shop. I've rebuilt transmissions and replaced the braking system as well. However when I wanted to change the oil in my Saturn I found out it required a special tool which cost an arm and a leg and only had one use. I wouldn't even try to tuneup my Saturn now.
Should there be a Law?
It makes you wonder if we are all teletype operators. In the distant past there used to be a profession all about just operating teletype machines.
In the really distant past (like ancient Egypt past) reading and writing with a pen all day was high tech and you could make a living on just being able to write. They called it a scribe. Today that's just not a viable way to make a living.
So maybe many of the jobs professional IT geeks work at now are going the way of the scribe and the teletype operator. Maybe that's a good thing. Today there are still people who make a living from writing. So maybe there will still be people who make a living from technology. But the living you make from writing today is very different from the living you made from writing for the Pharaoh. The IT of tomorrow will probably be likewise different.
[signature]
I'm going to start using them, because frankly I find that the law interferes with the direction I want to take with my life. I will definitely give serious thought to each of them, because you don't lightly set aside the recommendations of the legislature, but sometimes the unitary executive (in this case, me) has implied powers that frankly supercede other concerns. As laudable as I consider the law, both in letter and intent, sometimes it imposes inefficiencies and limitations that would place an undue burden on my planning and execution.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Those things happen with much less frequency that if you just let people come and go as they please. Sick might happen a few days a year, whereas "any hours you want" would be an everyday occurance.
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Who is limiting this to just office jobs? I didn't see that anywhere. AT any rate, YOU just can't say that even most jobs would be fine if people did as they pleased. You have no evidence to back that up.
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
That's not what the OP said. Flex hours are nothing new, and they almost certainly have limits. I had flex hours at a few places, but at the very latest they expected you in by 9 or 9:30.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
So would people living closer to their jobs, or allowing them to work at home if possible. Again, I'm not sure you really would see those benefits either. For example, the PA turnpikes blue route and NE extension are ALWAYS busy, no matter what time of day or night. Ditto for the roads actually in the city.
100% agree that the people (who are, in reality, the same as the govt) can change the rules to their liking and make things more balanced. Corporations only exist because we (the people/govt) allow them to exist.
France, for example, required it's businesses to make a 35 hr work week instead of the standard 40 hour. Why? Because they wanted to employ more people. So businesses had to comply.
Having said that, however, here in the states, workers are currently at a major disadvantage. OUR people and govt has shown very little interest in restricting what companies can and can't do with respect to employees. It's pretty much hire and fire at will.
The whole arrangement reminds me of a saying, "the upper class owns things, the middle class are the workers, and the poor are there to keep the middle class working". Harsh....but true to a certain extent.
Since when is writing an important skill for an IT person?