I agree, especially about not placing him into "Alternative Education". Unless that alternative education is to build/distribute new maps (I'm getting bored with most of my game maps).
Some of the numbers here don't jive with the Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Stats and given the choice, I trust them more than an industry group interested in making its industry look good.
The article claims the average is $75,500; however, if you look up at Occupation: Computer Programmers (SOC code 151021) in the BLS, the average and median salary is $63,420 and average is $67,400. $10k / year on average is a substantial difference. If you want to broaden "hi-tech" degrees to the broader field of: Occupation: Computer and Mathematical Occupations (SOC code 150000) the mean/median appear similarly 10k / year lower than the article.
The Job outlook description for Computer programmers says to expect slower than average growth. Maybe things are looking up for Web2.0 but its not definite, and definitely not the trend across programming jobs, just one type.
To further muddy the waters: some multi-national companies don't technically outsource, they just have their internal employees in other countries do work for them. I used to work in upstate NY running programs on a mainframe in the UK until my job got "moved" to a team located in Bangalore. Since the mainframe was in the UK, what did it matter who ran the programs? The Bangalor employees made roughly 1/20th of what I made, and I came straight from college and made WAY less than the averages quoted above.
Lastly, the claim that companies hire for anything other than a skill set is a complete lie. If this is the case, then why are there job descriptions? Every job has a specific function requiring a specific skill. Once that skill is no longer needed then you are laid off. You will notice the phrase "ROI hiring" at the end of the article. If i'm a veteran employee and I make $80,000/year, at what point does it become cheaper to lay me off (provide a few months severance) and replace me with someone straight from college making $20,000-$30,000? How about with someone in another country who has similar qualification and because of the exchange rate, they cost $2,000-5,000 / year. Remember, ROI, If I get 10 projects done with a veteran @ 80,000/ year I have a lower ROI than 10 employees each doing 1 project @ $5,000 / year. Factor in that the veteran employee needs to be trained and the 10 rookies don't and you're compounding the difference in ROI.
Long story short, you're not safe from outsourcing, no one will train/retrain you so keep up with the industry and never stop learning! Challenge yourself and learn new languages and skills. There will be more tech jobs; but don't expect a second coming of the 2000 tech boom.
Actually "random" would be the opposite of "representative", as long as statistics are concerned
Right track, wrong train:
Actually random does not mean the opposite of representative. Representative samples may or may not be selected randomly. Random samples may or may not be representative.
A classic example:
If I want to test the average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs; I would not go to GE and simply randomly test how long until light bulbs burn out. Reasoning being, this is random; but not representative. This wouldn't study all light bulbs, just GE light bulbs. Maybe other companies don't last as long (or maybe they last longer than GE). Our sample wouldn't be representative of all incandescent light bulbs and our study would be invalidated.
The sample would be random and representative if I was to randomly select from all models/manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs. This same approach would fail if I were comparing it to all light bulbs (merc-vapor, compact florescent, led etc..)
In the case of the article the question of representative is: does a random sample of alexa users look like a random sample of all internet users. Are they are any special behaviors that alexa users do/do not do that all other internet users do that would create a bias. My guess is that there is probably a bias; but we'd need a study to find that out!
I think you had the right idea; except the "opposite" part
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, especially about not placing him into "Alternative Education". Unless that alternative education is to build/distribute new maps (I'm getting bored with most of my game maps).
Some of the numbers here don't jive with the Occupational Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Stats and given the choice, I trust them more than an industry group interested in making its industry look good.
The article claims the average is $75,500; however, if you look up at Occupation: Computer Programmers (SOC code 151021) in the BLS, the average and median salary is $63,420 and average is $67,400. $10k / year on average is a substantial difference. If you want to broaden "hi-tech" degrees to the broader field of: Occupation: Computer and Mathematical Occupations (SOC code 150000) the mean/median appear similarly 10k / year lower than the article.
The Job outlook description for Computer programmers says to expect slower than average growth. Maybe things are looking up for Web2.0 but its not definite, and definitely not the trend across programming jobs, just one type.
To further muddy the waters: some multi-national companies don't technically outsource, they just have their internal employees in other countries do work for them. I used to work in upstate NY running programs on a mainframe in the UK until my job got "moved" to a team located in Bangalore. Since the mainframe was in the UK, what did it matter who ran the programs? The Bangalor employees made roughly 1/20th of what I made, and I came straight from college and made WAY less than the averages quoted above.
Lastly, the claim that companies hire for anything other than a skill set is a complete lie. If this is the case, then why are there job descriptions? Every job has a specific function requiring a specific skill. Once that skill is no longer needed then you are laid off. You will notice the phrase "ROI hiring" at the end of the article. If i'm a veteran employee and I make $80,000/year, at what point does it become cheaper to lay me off (provide a few months severance) and replace me with someone straight from college making $20,000-$30,000? How about with someone in another country who has similar qualification and because of the exchange rate, they cost $2,000-5,000 / year. Remember, ROI, If I get 10 projects done with a veteran @ 80,000/ year I have a lower ROI than 10 employees each doing 1 project @ $5,000 / year. Factor in that the veteran employee needs to be trained and the 10 rookies don't and you're compounding the difference in ROI.
Long story short, you're not safe from outsourcing, no one will train/retrain you so keep up with the industry and never stop learning! Challenge yourself and learn new languages and skills. There will be more tech jobs; but don't expect a second coming of the 2000 tech boom.
Actually "random" would be the opposite of "representative", as long as statistics are concerned
Right track, wrong train:
Actually random does not mean the opposite of representative. Representative samples may or may not be selected randomly. Random samples may or may not be representative.
A classic example:
If I want to test the average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs; I would not go to GE and simply randomly test how long until light bulbs burn out. Reasoning being, this is random; but not representative. This wouldn't study all light bulbs, just GE light bulbs. Maybe other companies don't last as long (or maybe they last longer than GE). Our sample wouldn't be representative of all incandescent light bulbs and our study would be invalidated.
The sample would be random and representative if I was to randomly select from all models/manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs. This same approach would fail if I were comparing it to all light bulbs (merc-vapor, compact florescent, led etc..)
In the case of the article the question of representative is: does a random sample of alexa users look like a random sample of all internet users. Are they are any special behaviors that alexa users do/do not do that all other internet users do that would create a bias. My guess is that there is probably a bias; but we'd need a study to find that out!
I think you had the right idea; except the "opposite" part