I am talking about hunter-gatherers and small villages. Before urban living. I agree with you, I am just saying "survival of the fittest" is hardly an argument for an 80 hour work week since clearly it worked for our ancestors working much less. My main argument is that 40 hours is a more than reasonable to expect a living wage.
Still, if you look at the 100k jobs its pretty sparse in comparison to the sub 60k ones. I think we are not using the same criteria for what a programmer is perhaps. That being said, I know plenty of CS students that are gods at programming pretty complicated things. These are the ones that actually bothered to do their own side projects and took time to take extra courses in things that weren't required of them. You can't say ALL CS grads are not good programmers, as it depends on how much effort they put into it, and which university they went to. I work with "programmers" that have never taken university classes in programming, are mostly self-taught, and many times they don't understand how a computer actually works on the inside, or mathematics concepts related to computer science that come in helpful at times. For example, I understand pointers aren't necessarily being used anymore, but I know people that get paid more than I do who don't understand them at all.
Actually, there is evidence to support the fact that the builders of the pyramids were a class of people who were treated quite well. Food, rudimentary health care by our standards, etc. Furthermore, Im talking about the fact that hunter-gatherers, including Native Americans and primitive man worked much less than we do simply because it took them less time to get food. This guy's argument about working 80 hours is "survival of the fittest" is a joke, since we survived tens of thousands of years without working that long.
Yes, you can make that much. Its not that common, since you are listing 20 jobs, of which possibly only have 1-2 positions open. Also, most of those jobs are in the financial/banking/insurance industry in SENIOR roles, meaning the lead person supervising lower level programmers. A CS graduate will probably make closer to 50-70k, and perhaps over ten years get up to that level if they manage.
You are an outlier, and I bet its because you have some specialty that is in high demand. The problem is that people considering CS degrees get delusions of grandeur and think they will all make that much simply by finishing out a college degree doing the basics a degree offers. It is not true. Look at the statistics.
Irrelevant argument. You cannot say that 80 hour work weeks will extend our life expectancy. The argument was that there is no correlation between how many hours you work and how fit you are to survive since we've been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years.
Update to my post, here is a place to start looking at salaries. The expectation is that CS professionals make the big bucks, and they typically make more than many other disciplines, but you need to specialize in something that is high demand. You can't just get a CS degree and expect to make 100k.
I beg to differ. Those 100k jobs are on the outskirts of the range. You are talking about specific positions, with specific skill sets AND with experience. A typical CS graduate will not make this much unless they specialize in a high demand field, and also have experience that lets them take senior level positions. This type of expectation leaves many disappointed, and also leads many to get CS degrees thinking they will be making the big bucks when they wont.
I'm merely saying that his appeal to survival of the fittest is bullshit. We already did that working much less.40 hours is more than reasonable to expect a living wage. Humans were so good at spearing things they survived tens of thousands of years working less than 20 hour weeks. If you got in shape for it and learned how im sure you could do it.
You seem to forget that human beings used to be hunter-gatherers, and then living in small farming villages, asshole. Once we shifted to urban living we pretty much took up the longer work week. Someone needs to give you a god damn history lesson.
I had a job like that. I wouldn't be able to "Get in the zone" when coding because a meeting was scheduled every couple hours. We suffered from a manager that had to micro-manage people so much and was so afraid of the group not meeting deadlines that he actually demanded that we put in additional hours after hours to complete projects, even though he wasted our time several times a day.
At my work, they pay us competitively, give us profit sharing, buy us lunch once a month, and pay for us to go on monthly excursions like massages and stuff. They also pay for us to go to a different city and work once a year for a week, and pay for a company vacation once a year for a weekend at a resort or ranch without expecting any of that bullshit team-building exercise stuff. We just hang out and get sloshed. I still make about average wage for a US household, but I do notice this sort of treatment makes all of us there work pretty hard during the week.
Sometimes there is simply nothing to do. When our help-desk queue is empty, I don't have much I can do so I typically spend some time trying to figure something out, then I give up and go do something else around the house while monitoring my PC. This happens periodically, but most days I telecommute I work the entire day.
I don't see how that works at all. Every hour you work at a company makes them more money than they pay you, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay you and continue to operate. Then, your work hours also have to pay management and upper management, all the way to the CEO. So, a CEO making 20 million a year is effectively stealing that from their lower level employees. Why not just pay them less and hire more people? They can't possibly work 100 times harder than the average employee.
I had a job where there were so many god damn meetings I actually couldn't get work done, so I would typically just telecommute and relax while working. I was a coder for a research group at a University so sitting there with a beer (yeah, after noon that is), listening to music and coding was pretty relaxing for me.
Give me a break. Human beings survived thousands of years only working 15-20 hour weeks. Its only since modern society developed that people are required to work 40-80 hour weeks to survive. Its precisely the fact that there are so many god damn people on Earth that you have to work so hard. So many mouths to feed so you can't subsist on your own anymore, or you work that hard providing food for these people. There is no way a human can be productive the whole 80 hours, it is physically impossible. You may be able to last that long, but if you weren't perpetually exhausted you could probably put in twice the effort in 40 hours.
Most people are productive in the morning then it dies off in the afternoon anyway, with many an afternoon spent playing solitaire or browsing the web. My guess is those that telecommute and only spend an hour working every day are telecommuting for a job that doesn't require more than an hour of work anyway, and its pretty much managements fault for having positions like this open rather than offloading several such people's jobs onto one person. Having worked at a University on the administration side for their IT dept. I saw many people doing nothing a lot of the day when they weren't in meetings. I also worked on the research side at a University, and we had so many required meetings I couldn't get work done AT ALL if I didn't telecommute. There obviously is a happy medium. Currently, I telecommute weekends for a different job and its quite demanding of my time since I have to clear out help-desk tickets otherwise when I come in on Monday the early-birds and management are pissed they were bombed with weekend tickets. Some days are slow, and on those days I am waiting for tickets I am not ashamed to say I may go off and watch TV or do chores around the house with my laptop nearby waiting for something to do.
Tea Partiers co-opted Libertarianism to maintain the status-quo of wealthy people controlling the poor. Then slap religion on top and you have control over the not-poor as well.
Oddly enough, the Tea Partiers are the loudest in this regard. Yet they statistically have more college educated people than the rest of the Republican party. How the hell does that work? Must not be science majors.
I showed up to jury duty twice, and they dismissed me even though I had every interest in serving. Keep in mind I didn't do anything to try to get dismissed. In fact, I was civil, tried to participate, and did nothing to appear biased or impartial. Fact is, lawyers don't want impartial people and will make up any excuse in the book to get rid of you if you are. I have a shaved head, and Im a large white man. In both cases the defendant was black and around my age. Coincidence? Possibly, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be considered an impartial peer of the defendants.
Slashdot Mirror
I am talking about hunter-gatherers and small villages. Before urban living. I agree with you, I am just saying "survival of the fittest" is hardly an argument for an 80 hour work week since clearly it worked for our ancestors working much less. My main argument is that 40 hours is a more than reasonable to expect a living wage.
Reminds me of Soylent Green. A pleasant experience followed by death, then your body is liquified and turned into green crackers.
Still, if you look at the 100k jobs its pretty sparse in comparison to the sub 60k ones. I think we are not using the same criteria for what a programmer is perhaps. That being said, I know plenty of CS students that are gods at programming pretty complicated things. These are the ones that actually bothered to do their own side projects and took time to take extra courses in things that weren't required of them. You can't say ALL CS grads are not good programmers, as it depends on how much effort they put into it, and which university they went to. I work with "programmers" that have never taken university classes in programming, are mostly self-taught, and many times they don't understand how a computer actually works on the inside, or mathematics concepts related to computer science that come in helpful at times. For example, I understand pointers aren't necessarily being used anymore, but I know people that get paid more than I do who don't understand them at all.
Actually, there is evidence to support the fact that the builders of the pyramids were a class of people who were treated quite well. Food, rudimentary health care by our standards, etc. Furthermore, Im talking about the fact that hunter-gatherers, including Native Americans and primitive man worked much less than we do simply because it took them less time to get food. This guy's argument about working 80 hours is "survival of the fittest" is a joke, since we survived tens of thousands of years without working that long.
230,763 Salaries: 21–40 of 17,909 Job Titles
Yes, you can make that much. Its not that common, since you are listing 20 jobs, of which possibly only have 1-2 positions open. Also, most of those jobs are in the financial/banking/insurance industry in SENIOR roles, meaning the lead person supervising lower level programmers. A CS graduate will probably make closer to 50-70k, and perhaps over ten years get up to that level if they manage.
You are an outlier, and I bet its because you have some specialty that is in high demand. The problem is that people considering CS degrees get delusions of grandeur and think they will all make that much simply by finishing out a college degree doing the basics a degree offers. It is not true. Look at the statistics.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/programmer-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm
Irrelevant argument. You cannot say that 80 hour work weeks will extend our life expectancy. The argument was that there is no correlation between how many hours you work and how fit you are to survive since we've been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years.
Update to my post, here is a place to start looking at salaries. The expectation is that CS professionals make the big bucks, and they typically make more than many other disciplines, but you need to specialize in something that is high demand. You can't just get a CS degree and expect to make 100k.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/programmer-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/programmer-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm
I just think you meant software engineering. I know programmers that don't make a whole lot.
I'm merely saying that his appeal to survival of the fittest is bullshit. We already did that working much less.40 hours is more than reasonable to expect a living wage. Humans were so good at spearing things they survived tens of thousands of years working less than 20 hour weeks. If you got in shape for it and learned how im sure you could do it.
100,000 per year for a programmer? Uhh... right.
You seem to forget that human beings used to be hunter-gatherers, and then living in small farming villages, asshole. Once we shifted to urban living we pretty much took up the longer work week. Someone needs to give you a god damn history lesson.
I had a job like that. I wouldn't be able to "Get in the zone" when coding because a meeting was scheduled every couple hours. We suffered from a manager that had to micro-manage people so much and was so afraid of the group not meeting deadlines that he actually demanded that we put in additional hours after hours to complete projects, even though he wasted our time several times a day.
I think the point is that these people may actually be working more than 40 hours a week, they just telecommute for an hour to make up on some work.
Or he should be thinking why he has 7 employees only working 1 hour a day rather than 1 employee working 7.
At my work, they pay us competitively, give us profit sharing, buy us lunch once a month, and pay for us to go on monthly excursions like massages and stuff. They also pay for us to go to a different city and work once a year for a week, and pay for a company vacation once a year for a weekend at a resort or ranch without expecting any of that bullshit team-building exercise stuff. We just hang out and get sloshed. I still make about average wage for a US household, but I do notice this sort of treatment makes all of us there work pretty hard during the week.
Sometimes there is simply nothing to do. When our help-desk queue is empty, I don't have much I can do so I typically spend some time trying to figure something out, then I give up and go do something else around the house while monitoring my PC. This happens periodically, but most days I telecommute I work the entire day.
I don't see how that works at all. Every hour you work at a company makes them more money than they pay you, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay you and continue to operate. Then, your work hours also have to pay management and upper management, all the way to the CEO. So, a CEO making 20 million a year is effectively stealing that from their lower level employees. Why not just pay them less and hire more people? They can't possibly work 100 times harder than the average employee.
I had a job where there were so many god damn meetings I actually couldn't get work done, so I would typically just telecommute and relax while working. I was a coder for a research group at a University so sitting there with a beer (yeah, after noon that is), listening to music and coding was pretty relaxing for me.
Give me a break. Human beings survived thousands of years only working 15-20 hour weeks. Its only since modern society developed that people are required to work 40-80 hour weeks to survive. Its precisely the fact that there are so many god damn people on Earth that you have to work so hard. So many mouths to feed so you can't subsist on your own anymore, or you work that hard providing food for these people. There is no way a human can be productive the whole 80 hours, it is physically impossible. You may be able to last that long, but if you weren't perpetually exhausted you could probably put in twice the effort in 40 hours.
Most people are productive in the morning then it dies off in the afternoon anyway, with many an afternoon spent playing solitaire or browsing the web. My guess is those that telecommute and only spend an hour working every day are telecommuting for a job that doesn't require more than an hour of work anyway, and its pretty much managements fault for having positions like this open rather than offloading several such people's jobs onto one person. Having worked at a University on the administration side for their IT dept. I saw many people doing nothing a lot of the day when they weren't in meetings. I also worked on the research side at a University, and we had so many required meetings I couldn't get work done AT ALL if I didn't telecommute. There obviously is a happy medium. Currently, I telecommute weekends for a different job and its quite demanding of my time since I have to clear out help-desk tickets otherwise when I come in on Monday the early-birds and management are pissed they were bombed with weekend tickets. Some days are slow, and on those days I am waiting for tickets I am not ashamed to say I may go off and watch TV or do chores around the house with my laptop nearby waiting for something to do.
Tea Partiers co-opted Libertarianism to maintain the status-quo of wealthy people controlling the poor. Then slap religion on top and you have control over the not-poor as well.
Oddly enough, the Tea Partiers are the loudest in this regard. Yet they statistically have more college educated people than the rest of the Republican party. How the hell does that work? Must not be science majors.
I showed up to jury duty twice, and they dismissed me even though I had every interest in serving. Keep in mind I didn't do anything to try to get dismissed. In fact, I was civil, tried to participate, and did nothing to appear biased or impartial. Fact is, lawyers don't want impartial people and will make up any excuse in the book to get rid of you if you are. I have a shaved head, and Im a large white man. In both cases the defendant was black and around my age. Coincidence? Possibly, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be considered an impartial peer of the defendants.