Depends of the university (and the student). As a CS, I never had a class showing how to design circuits or a chip. But I certainly learned about basic circuits, logical design, computer organization, hardware architecture. Depending on the instructor, some of the CS students would actually build custom embedded systems with sensors and shit. Others, we just program existing ones, but we still had to show an understanding of how everything is supposed to work. Plus, we were (and are) expected to have a good knowledge of how to build a computer from the ground up from spare parts...
... and in our labs, we were expected how to turn machines off and on, and even do basic troubleshooting. The only time we ever called a lab assistant was when something was truly toasted or if we needed someone to use admin/sysadmin powers to get something going.
And we weren't in a top-tier CS school. A decent school, but not the prestigious ones in SV that feed the Googlez cublicle farms. If this story is true, I would say that shit is truly shocking. Not something I would expect. At. Fucking. All.
Does hardware need to be "truly innovative" anymore?
It can be "truly innovative" in its usage of new materials that either lowers its TOC (say, by lowering energy consumption) or by lowering its upfront purchase price or its portability.
It can also be innovative when several of its components - despite appearing to be non-innovative - can be integrated into providing novel solutions.
It needs to solve a problem in an innovative way in a manner that enough people can care for it in order to be viable (a concept separate from being "truly innovative".)
Is there much practical difference between a washing machine and a tablet?
(that was two questions, but at least one was rhetorical)
Oh hell yeah, there is a difference. The new washing machine I use at home lowers water consumption significantly without loss of desired function. Though the trade-off is that it runs longer than an older washer. Energy consumption appear the same, though.
The ability of putting a computer and a bunch of sensors in it to detect how much of a load it has and then adjust the amount of water to the minimum needed to clean, quite effectively, an arbitrary bunch of clothes, ranging from a pair of socks to more than 5 cubic feet of heavy duty work clothes. That is not something to sneeze at. That is innovative. And those are still build here.
A tablet it is innovative in its own form, solving different problems. Some of my favorite restaurants in Tokyo use tablets for menus (or for waiters to take your orders). That is so smooth and effective.
A different type of tablet is what I use for my kids, the ruggerized variety with educational programs that either entertain them or complement their education.
Then there is my tablet which I use for storing my kindle library. I miss reading physical books, but shit, then I remember how much space I would need if I were to have all my books in physical form.
Though I would grant that their form are no longer being manufactured in the US anymore. And that is because their innovation is no longer in their hardware, but in their application integration (and their size - it is cheaper to ship quasy-disposable tiny tablets from Shenzhen by the millions than it is to ship a 100lbs washer with a life expectancy of a decade.)
the hardware has faded in importance compared with the software
Uh, no. Hardware is of utmost importance (you can't run software and bring all those applications to the hoi polloi.). It's just so happen that hardware can now be commoditized with the bulk of it (if not its entirety) being manufactured and assembled somewhere else where it is cheaper. If your hardware is not truly innovative, it is going to be handled at a FoxConn assembly line.
It goes without saying, but it's ok to be willing to be wrong provided you have some skills and a clue of the issues you need to deal with. Otherwise, you are just a morbidly fat walrus flapping on dry land.
The blue collar workers I know that leave their families behind 3-6 months of the year are making four times as much money as they could with their skills otherwise. That's totally fine, if they want to do that. I just don't want to be starved out of my choice to make 1/4 of that money and have time to spend with my family.
That's good and dandy, and I respect that. We all have choices to make.
What makes you think we can't turn the clock back? It is just a matter of changing federal legislation.
Because federal legislation means squat to 3-4 billion people all of the sudden entering the workforce with enough education to compete against us. Because protectionism would wreak havoc to our supply chains. Because the countries we compete against us are also our biggest customers in heavy machinery, agriculture and pharma; a disruption in our supply chains would also cause disruption in their supply chains (which would tremendously impact our exports.)
And so on, and so on, and so on. You are still operating in the 1950's-1960's premise that half of the world was either in the pre-industrial age or in ashes, when the US industrial capacity emerged not only unscathed but supreme. A time when you could nothing but a HS degree and limited skills and yet work a 9-5 job pulling a lever in a conveyor belt for 20-30 years and retire with a home fully paid.
That gravy train is gone dude. Protectionism via legislation won't do squat because the rest of the world, though still behind us, they can adapt their supply chains and create new markets. A global economy was inevitable (unless you were willing to bomb countries back to the stone age to maintain economic supremacy).
And as such, a global economy is like the internet. As John Gilmore said "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it", a connected economy will see protectionist barriers as damage and route around it.
Do you know that US car manufacturers cannot compete with German and Asian car manufactures in Latin America and Africa because the former have trade agreement and we do not? Mexico is our 3rd largest buyer of agricultural exports. Tiny Central America is our 4th largest buyer. What do you think will happen if we decided build a wall and start protectionist shenanigans?
Do you want to see what happens to a powerful country that goes the road of protectionism? Take a look at Brazil. That's what happens.
The economy is not a zero-sum game.
How could you resign so willingly to something that affects you so much.
It's called adaptation. It's called evolution. I have an obligation to work in whatever I can to provide for my family needs. If and when there is a working alternative to this state of affairs, I will take it. But in the meantime, I will embrace the suck and make it work to my advantage. I'm not going to close my eyes and wish reality to go away.
Only in America. Over here in Europe Barack Obama would be (and some times is) considered mixed race if he didn't (inexplicably) called himself black. If you have a white parent you can't be black, only mixed race.
The problem with "embrace the suck" is that, unless people put their foot down at some point, it will only be worse next year.
You put the foot down by negotiating better terms. I've increase my salary 4-fold in 25 years. Granted, I have to work long hours, but there is no alternative. And since I know what poverty truly looks like (I was born in a poor country), I'd say that anyone born in this country should consider himself blessed.
You are a contributor to the wage gap as much as anyone else.
I disagree with that notion. You want to put your foot down, no one stops you. I have a family to feed, a family to provide a middle/upper-middle class life. So I work where work is available, do what I need to do, and work as many hours as needed.
Obviously, if I do the math and divide my total income by the number of hours I put in, my hourly rate has decreased. But guess what? I'm still at a better place that many people in this country (and many more people outside of this country.)
I try to lift people when I can, I talk and coach kids about what they need to do to prepare themselves. I've helped people make the transition from one career into another. I think that is more helpful to ameliorate the wage gap than spouting notions of putting our feet down. In a world where we could negotiate and demand compensation from employers as equals we wouldn't have to do this.
But that's not reality. It has never been a reality in this world. I was born in a poor country, I know what a really shitty short end of the stick looks like. Here, we are blessed, no matter how hard you think you have it. We are given an opportunity to work our asses and have some acceptable income. It is harder than the deal boomers had, but I can tell you, it is a far more better deal than the one 5 billion people on this Earth live and die with.
It is not beneficial for me or my family to pretend I can turn the clock back and hop into that gravy train. Right now I'm working 50+ hours a week, and I'm looking at getting another gig. My wife does things on the side, even Amazon Turk for pennies. My accountant (he is from Iran) who I saw this saturday, that guy was in his office, on saturday, from 10AM to 11PM.
Of course we want to have more free time, I would love to spend more time with my children. But guess what, people like me, people like my accountant, we know how the gig is.
Think about about all the blue collar American workers who leave their families behind for 3-6 months at a time to work oil rigs in Texas or North Dakota. They also know how the gig is. We have obligations to fill, and we are thankful to have a chance to fulfill them even if it means making sacrifices. There is no time to dream for good times that are forever gone.
The way to close the income gap is not by putting the foot down and pretend we can turn the clock back. Is by giving back, is by having empathy, is by helping others... and by working our asses off to ensure we and our children don't fall through the cracks.
Sure, if non-traditional jobs actually replaced traditional jobs in terms of compensation, but they don't.
Depends. Like, when I work as a contractor, I do not get the same type of 401k matching (through the contracting agency) I would get with a company as a perm. And certainly I do not get paid vacation (which could be about 6% of your total annual income.) But I do negotiate for a larger base salary to somewhat compensate for loss benefits (not to mention that I typically get the added/invisible benefit of working with newer technologies far more often with contracts than with perm jobs.)
At the very least, they require longer hours doing non-payed activities such as networking
But networking has been a given in any professional career, like, forever. Whether you were an engineer or a lawyer or a doctor, you had to network.
and in my experience they don't offer enough compensation to purchase health coverage like a traditional job would offer.
My experience has been that health coverage in traditional jobs have gone down the crapper for the last 10 years. There is almost no difference in coverage between a traditional job and a reputable contracting agency.
As a consultant, I typically get a comparable health care plan, but I have to plan for COBRA between gigs (but that might change as ACA and other things change the health insurance landscape.) The key here is to accept that your health plans are nothing but insurance against catastrophic events. You accept this, and you budget for this. Then there are no sour surprises.
In other words, it is a balance. You gain some, you lose some. In addition to that, I accept the fact I will work 50 hours at least no matter what type of job I have (perm or contract) and that I have to squeeze here and there to do odd jobs on the side for additional money.
So, that's the non-traditional path I follow. I'm overworked just trying to keep a certain level of compensation. So, it sucks.
But, on the other hand, just being in anything related to software puts the like of you and me way ahead of everybody else. And just being in this country puts us (and our children) ahead of 5 billion people (and their children.)
The important thing here is to get perspective. As the marines say, "embrace the suck". Otherwise, it will eat you alive.
At the very least, they require longer hours doing non-payed activities such as networking and in my experience they don't offer enough compensation to purchase health coverage like a traditional job would offer.
Well, it used to be that if you wanted guaranteed income you worked a traditional job. I wouldn't consider raising a family on a nontraditional job. Don't blame me for seeing my dad go through the same company, being promoted, and thinking I could get that for myself. Now all there is very little traditional and I'd adapted, but not with the same assurances for myself and my family than I had before.
I'm not blaming you. I'm just telling you that the writing was on the wall for a long time. Hell it was there even before people in our age bracket entered the professional job market. The Japanese were en route to take over, and it was just their catastrophic real estate bubble that stopped them on their tracks. But by that time we had already lost a lot of jobs already to them and to the Taiwanese. We are talking early 80's.
That is, the job disruption reckoning was postponed by 10 years. Which is why it was only till the late 90's and early 2000's (and not a decade before) that we started feeling the brunt of it. It is demographics. It is unstoppable. And it was visible in its current form two decades ago, and we were getting solid hints of it a full decade before that.
I would actually say it is more feasible to have an middle/upper-middle class family income with non-traditional job opportunities. Versatility is king now.
I've been doing it for around that long myself. I didn't see what the big deal was, but in the last few months everything around me started to get outsourced. I have basically been told that I can only continue on for anther year or two.
I have been told that since 2001 as far as I can remember. And before that, I've been told full-time jobs would be completely replaced by contracting gigs at least since 1995 (this has been mostly true depending of the metro area one lives.) To stave off such predictions, one has to be ruthlessly pro-active and plan/expect to shift gigs (or survive a layoff) every 3-4 years. I'm sorry if I came up as a dick, but truly, you should have seen how much of a big deal this was.
In my experience, the only people that are very insulated from these things are engineers working with the DOE or DOD contracts with some type of required clearance, or working in critical systems, like medical devices or avionics. That's the type of shit with contractual red tapes that one cannot throw bodies at (specially offshore bodies.)
I've been looking for something else, but so far the salaries I have been offered will set me back 10 years in my career.
Don't consider that option unless you really have to. It can go really sideways. I have a friend of mine that quit engineering, and that shit didn't work out at all. And it is hard to come back, almost impossible.
Be willing to work contracts, be willing to travel. Be willing to have an additional source of income. Be willing to sacrifice a benefit (say, paid vacation or a 401k) from time to time. It is not pretty, but it beats the alternatives (like changing a career and being set back a decade in salary.)
The only way to really switch careers without sacrificing compensation is by going into your own business, in a business that you (or people close to you) are 1) familiar and 2) successful. Differently from my friend who switched and tanked, I have another friend that went from engineering into a landscaping business (for rich neighborhoods) with a brother that had already a established company. He works somewhat longer hours, but he kept comparable compensations, with potential for more, and a more flexible schedule.
That is, you cannot quit engineering to become an flat-salary employee somewhere else. If you quit, it is because you are going into a business with significantly good chances of doing well (landscaping or commercial real estate, for instance.)
I'm sure that there are some that are lucky to work for companies or at least live in areas with companies that resist this movement, but it is a real thing.
Being realistic about how the game is changing in a way that will make things more difficult for me is way different than feeling sorry for myself; that was actually a bit of a dickish thing to say. I've fortunately seen this coming and I have been able to prepare myself with a few alternative plans to fall back on, but they are nothing like the traditional job that most people have and they involve quite a bit more risk.
Forget traditional jobs. They have been gone for 2 decades now. I'm sorry if I came up as a dick, but truly dude, I have a hard time understanding how people are just realizing something that has been a status quo for quite some time. That's the kind of shit that can blindside you really bad.
I am wondering who will quit their 6-digit salary paying swanky job in the Silicon Valley, just because they do not agree with the law enforcement. Maybe 1 or 2 people with some screws loose upstairs, but no sane person would do such a thing. Quite the contrary if they were told they will either help the law enforcement or get fired, I am pretty sure those people would come to the help of FBI in droves. Who do they think they are fooling ? Techies ? Naah, most of them are too smart not to work for Apple empire. Are they trying to fool Apple-Fan-Boys ? No need. If your work address is "1 Infinite loop" you already are a demi-god. So no need to resort to such ploys. And general public doesn't really care if Apple employees quit for holding high standards or not, as long as there is a new "Jesus-phone" every 12 months or less.
People do that all the time for a variety of reasons ranging from conscience all the way to just getting mad at the boss. Software/IT has an above average attrition rate.
This 'centrist' is on the record (see his DC CCW ruling on 2nd A) for saying the Constitution is a 'living document' who SHOULD be reinterpreted as they see fit.
That is not respecting it. That is treating it as 'just another piece of paper' as Bush called it.
Furthermore, he may be centrist by the far left rag NY Times but that is not saying much. Most would call him a leftist wingnut.
It is a living document. If it if weren't, we wouldn't have had a need for amendments and additional bills of rights.
Yes, by all means capitalize it for a month or two, and also learn the skill of teaching foreigners to do your job. In fact, I'm not sure why most employers don't just make 'transitioning to a foreigner' a job requirement in the first place.
You are doing it wrong if you feel that way. I've been in this shit for 22 years. You are always at risk of being replaced, so the solution is to simply keep moving. This is reality. It has been a reality for almost two decades. It is a reality that you can still navigate and make an above average salary.
It beats the alternatives.You can either use it to your advantage or feel sorry for yourself. Your choice.
Yes, the typical fast food restaurant is full of machines that need cleaning.
But who's going to do this when the minimum wage goons are gone?
Are you really this stupid?
It will be two guys in a little white van that says "Carls Jr" on it that drive around and do these things, covering all the locations on the "west side" (maybe 8 or 10 of them)
There might be cameras and "manual steps" to take over a machine run out of Phillipines to fix minor glitches. That will be 8 people covering 120 stores corporate wide.
But in general, two moderately paid employees will drive around, clean, re-stock and troubleshoot machines. A regional tech group will be on call for big problems. There will be a dozen people per shift taking the place of three hundred droolers.
They could pay those dozen people 100k per year and still come out ahead.
Bingo. And this is already happening. For instance, every StarBucks gets re-stocked as soon as the last employee closes the store at 11PM. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities of having similar crews cleaning equipment and furniture, or even doing sensitive things like tallying up the cash registers after hours.
You are still not understanding the terms you are using.
I based my technical career around an expected shortage based on well-defined demographics in the long-term future. Not a perceived shortage to suppress wages by hiring managers in the short-term future.
Bingo. It is refreshing to see someone who gets it. Look for shortages and capitalize on them. That's the way to thrive in software/IT. This field is not for the inflexible.
Not really all that clever. The Republicans boxed Obama into a corner - everyone knew a very liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan.to be dismissed immediately. The best he could hope for was to name a centrist.
I think the Republicans should take it as a victory and confirm the guy. They're certainly not going to get a better nomination out of Trump or Clinton. Cruz would pick someone who respects the Constitution but he may not get the nomination. We have to keep trying though.,
Who in the SCOTUS does not respect the constitution? Does the current nominee disrespect the constitution? Specific please (unless we are just looking to settle for simple minded slogans.)
No, you are missing the gag. This guy is anti-2nd amendment, and exactly what makes Obama hard and Hillary wet. A judges record is public, and important.
So, an anti-2nd amendment guy was previously praised and recommended by GOP senators, who have, on record, say that he is qualified for the job? Please continue. Let us push this argument and let the chips fall where they may.
You did. You voted for Obama for the executive, then the GOP for the legislative. "Advise and consent" != "rubber stamp."
No one is asking for a rubber stamp. Senators can bring up the nomination for deliberation and simply vote with a no. They just don't want deliberate why Garland is unqualified on record (because they really have nothing against the candidate other than it was nominated by the scary black man in the White House.)
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count. One could make the same argument about Bush and pretty much almost every single fucking presidency since God knows when.
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress. You argument is bullshit. When you have to reach so far up the ass for that argument, you should know you don't have a valid point.
How did you get from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president?" It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.
By bending over like a Mongolian contortionist, then shoving the hand up the ass till it tickled the tonsils, then opening and closing the fist till there was a faux argument to grab, then pulling said argument into the light of day. That is pretty much how he got from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president."
Slashdot Mirror
That's because CS programs do not teach hardware.
Depends of the university (and the student). As a CS, I never had a class showing how to design circuits or a chip. But I certainly learned about basic circuits, logical design, computer organization, hardware architecture. Depending on the instructor, some of the CS students would actually build custom embedded systems with sensors and shit. Others, we just program existing ones, but we still had to show an understanding of how everything is supposed to work. Plus, we were (and are) expected to have a good knowledge of how to build a computer from the ground up from spare parts...
And we weren't in a top-tier CS school. A decent school, but not the prestigious ones in SV that feed the Googlez cublicle farms. If this story is true, I would say that shit is truly shocking. Not something I would expect. At. Fucking. All.
Does hardware need to be "truly innovative" anymore?
It can be "truly innovative" in its usage of new materials that either lowers its TOC (say, by lowering energy consumption) or by lowering its upfront purchase price or its portability.
It can also be innovative when several of its components - despite appearing to be non-innovative - can be integrated into providing novel solutions.
It needs to solve a problem in an innovative way in a manner that enough people can care for it in order to be viable (a concept separate from being "truly innovative".)
Is there much practical difference between a washing machine and a tablet?
(that was two questions, but at least one was rhetorical)
Oh hell yeah, there is a difference. The new washing machine I use at home lowers water consumption significantly without loss of desired function. Though the trade-off is that it runs longer than an older washer. Energy consumption appear the same, though.
The ability of putting a computer and a bunch of sensors in it to detect how much of a load it has and then adjust the amount of water to the minimum needed to clean, quite effectively, an arbitrary bunch of clothes, ranging from a pair of socks to more than 5 cubic feet of heavy duty work clothes. That is not something to sneeze at. That is innovative. And those are still build here.
A tablet it is innovative in its own form, solving different problems. Some of my favorite restaurants in Tokyo use tablets for menus (or for waiters to take your orders). That is so smooth and effective.
A different type of tablet is what I use for my kids, the ruggerized variety with educational programs that either entertain them or complement their education.
Then there is my tablet which I use for storing my kindle library. I miss reading physical books, but shit, then I remember how much space I would need if I were to have all my books in physical form.
Though I would grant that their form are no longer being manufactured in the US anymore. And that is because their innovation is no longer in their hardware, but in their application integration (and their size - it is cheaper to ship quasy-disposable tiny tablets from Shenzhen by the millions than it is to ship a 100lbs washer with a life expectancy of a decade.)
the hardware has faded in importance compared with the software
Uh, no. Hardware is of utmost importance (you can't run software and bring all those applications to the hoi polloi.). It's just so happen that hardware can now be commoditized with the bulk of it (if not its entirety) being manufactured and assembled somewhere else where it is cheaper. If your hardware is not truly innovative, it is going to be handled at a FoxConn assembly line.
Willing To Be Wrong
It goes without saying, but it's ok to be willing to be wrong provided you have some skills and a clue of the issues you need to deal with. Otherwise, you are just a morbidly fat walrus flapping on dry land.
The blue collar workers I know that leave their families behind 3-6 months of the year are making four times as much money as they could with their skills otherwise. That's totally fine, if they want to do that. I just don't want to be starved out of my choice to make 1/4 of that money and have time to spend with my family.
That's good and dandy, and I respect that. We all have choices to make.
What makes you think we can't turn the clock back? It is just a matter of changing federal legislation.
Because federal legislation means squat to 3-4 billion people all of the sudden entering the workforce with enough education to compete against us. Because protectionism would wreak havoc to our supply chains. Because the countries we compete against us are also our biggest customers in heavy machinery, agriculture and pharma; a disruption in our supply chains would also cause disruption in their supply chains (which would tremendously impact our exports.)
And so on, and so on, and so on. You are still operating in the 1950's-1960's premise that half of the world was either in the pre-industrial age or in ashes, when the US industrial capacity emerged not only unscathed but supreme. A time when you could nothing but a HS degree and limited skills and yet work a 9-5 job pulling a lever in a conveyor belt for 20-30 years and retire with a home fully paid.
That gravy train is gone dude. Protectionism via legislation won't do squat because the rest of the world, though still behind us, they can adapt their supply chains and create new markets. A global economy was inevitable (unless you were willing to bomb countries back to the stone age to maintain economic supremacy).
And as such, a global economy is like the internet. As John Gilmore said "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it", a connected economy will see protectionist barriers as damage and route around it.
Do you know that US car manufacturers cannot compete with German and Asian car manufactures in Latin America and Africa because the former have trade agreement and we do not? Mexico is our 3rd largest buyer of agricultural exports. Tiny Central America is our 4th largest buyer. What do you think will happen if we decided build a wall and start protectionist shenanigans?
Do you want to see what happens to a powerful country that goes the road of protectionism? Take a look at Brazil. That's what happens.
The economy is not a zero-sum game.
How could you resign so willingly to something that affects you so much.
It's called adaptation. It's called evolution. I have an obligation to work in whatever I can to provide for my family needs. If and when there is a working alternative to this state of affairs, I will take it. But in the meantime, I will embrace the suck and make it work to my advantage. I'm not going to close my eyes and wish reality to go away.
Only in America. Over here in Europe Barack Obama would be (and some times is) considered mixed race if he didn't (inexplicably) called himself black. If you have a white parent you can't be black, only mixed race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem with "embrace the suck" is that, unless people put their foot down at some point, it will only be worse next year.
You put the foot down by negotiating better terms. I've increase my salary 4-fold in 25 years. Granted, I have to work long hours, but there is no alternative. And since I know what poverty truly looks like (I was born in a poor country), I'd say that anyone born in this country should consider himself blessed.
You are a contributor to the wage gap as much as anyone else.
I disagree with that notion. You want to put your foot down, no one stops you. I have a family to feed, a family to provide a middle/upper-middle class life. So I work where work is available, do what I need to do, and work as many hours as needed.
Obviously, if I do the math and divide my total income by the number of hours I put in, my hourly rate has decreased. But guess what? I'm still at a better place that many people in this country (and many more people outside of this country.)
I try to lift people when I can, I talk and coach kids about what they need to do to prepare themselves. I've helped people make the transition from one career into another. I think that is more helpful to ameliorate the wage gap than spouting notions of putting our feet down. In a world where we could negotiate and demand compensation from employers as equals we wouldn't have to do this.
But that's not reality. It has never been a reality in this world. I was born in a poor country, I know what a really shitty short end of the stick looks like. Here, we are blessed, no matter how hard you think you have it. We are given an opportunity to work our asses and have some acceptable income. It is harder than the deal boomers had, but I can tell you, it is a far more better deal than the one 5 billion people on this Earth live and die with.
It is not beneficial for me or my family to pretend I can turn the clock back and hop into that gravy train. Right now I'm working 50+ hours a week, and I'm looking at getting another gig. My wife does things on the side, even Amazon Turk for pennies. My accountant (he is from Iran) who I saw this saturday, that guy was in his office, on saturday, from 10AM to 11PM.
Of course we want to have more free time, I would love to spend more time with my children. But guess what, people like me, people like my accountant, we know how the gig is.
Think about about all the blue collar American workers who leave their families behind for 3-6 months at a time to work oil rigs in Texas or North Dakota. They also know how the gig is. We have obligations to fill, and we are thankful to have a chance to fulfill them even if it means making sacrifices. There is no time to dream for good times that are forever gone.
The way to close the income gap is not by putting the foot down and pretend we can turn the clock back. Is by giving back, is by having empathy, is by helping others... and by working our asses off to ensure we and our children don't fall through the cracks.
Sure, if non-traditional jobs actually replaced traditional jobs in terms of compensation, but they don't.
Depends. Like, when I work as a contractor, I do not get the same type of 401k matching (through the contracting agency) I would get with a company as a perm. And certainly I do not get paid vacation (which could be about 6% of your total annual income.) But I do negotiate for a larger base salary to somewhat compensate for loss benefits (not to mention that I typically get the added/invisible benefit of working with newer technologies far more often with contracts than with perm jobs.)
At the very least, they require longer hours doing non-payed activities such as networking
But networking has been a given in any professional career, like, forever. Whether you were an engineer or a lawyer or a doctor, you had to network.
and in my experience they don't offer enough compensation to purchase health coverage like a traditional job would offer.
My experience has been that health coverage in traditional jobs have gone down the crapper for the last 10 years. There is almost no difference in coverage between a traditional job and a reputable contracting agency.
As a consultant, I typically get a comparable health care plan, but I have to plan for COBRA between gigs (but that might change as ACA and other things change the health insurance landscape.) The key here is to accept that your health plans are nothing but insurance against catastrophic events. You accept this, and you budget for this. Then there are no sour surprises.
In other words, it is a balance. You gain some, you lose some. In addition to that, I accept the fact I will work 50 hours at least no matter what type of job I have (perm or contract) and that I have to squeeze here and there to do odd jobs on the side for additional money.
So, that's the non-traditional path I follow. I'm overworked just trying to keep a certain level of compensation. So, it sucks.
But, on the other hand, just being in anything related to software puts the like of you and me way ahead of everybody else. And just being in this country puts us (and our children) ahead of 5 billion people (and their children.)
The important thing here is to get perspective. As the marines say, "embrace the suck". Otherwise, it will eat you alive. At the very least, they require longer hours doing non-payed activities such as networking and in my experience they don't offer enough compensation to purchase health coverage like a traditional job would offer.
Well, it used to be that if you wanted guaranteed income you worked a traditional job. I wouldn't consider raising a family on a nontraditional job. Don't blame me for seeing my dad go through the same company, being promoted, and thinking I could get that for myself. Now all there is very little traditional and I'd adapted, but not with the same assurances for myself and my family than I had before.
I'm not blaming you. I'm just telling you that the writing was on the wall for a long time. Hell it was there even before people in our age bracket entered the professional job market. The Japanese were en route to take over, and it was just their catastrophic real estate bubble that stopped them on their tracks. But by that time we had already lost a lot of jobs already to them and to the Taiwanese. We are talking early 80's.
That is, the job disruption reckoning was postponed by 10 years. Which is why it was only till the late 90's and early 2000's (and not a decade before) that we started feeling the brunt of it. It is demographics. It is unstoppable. And it was visible in its current form two decades ago, and we were getting solid hints of it a full decade before that.
I would actually say it is more feasible to have an middle/upper-middle class family income with non-traditional job opportunities. Versatility is king now.
I've been doing it for around that long myself. I didn't see what the big deal was, but in the last few months everything around me started to get outsourced. I have basically been told that I can only continue on for anther year or two.
I have been told that since 2001 as far as I can remember. And before that, I've been told full-time jobs would be completely replaced by contracting gigs at least since 1995 (this has been mostly true depending of the metro area one lives.) To stave off such predictions, one has to be ruthlessly pro-active and plan/expect to shift gigs (or survive a layoff) every 3-4 years. I'm sorry if I came up as a dick, but truly, you should have seen how much of a big deal this was.
In my experience, the only people that are very insulated from these things are engineers working with the DOE or DOD contracts with some type of required clearance, or working in critical systems, like medical devices or avionics. That's the type of shit with contractual red tapes that one cannot throw bodies at (specially offshore bodies.)
I've been looking for something else, but so far the salaries I have been offered will set me back 10 years in my career.
Don't consider that option unless you really have to. It can go really sideways. I have a friend of mine that quit engineering, and that shit didn't work out at all. And it is hard to come back, almost impossible.
Be willing to work contracts, be willing to travel. Be willing to have an additional source of income. Be willing to sacrifice a benefit (say, paid vacation or a 401k) from time to time. It is not pretty, but it beats the alternatives (like changing a career and being set back a decade in salary.)
The only way to really switch careers without sacrificing compensation is by going into your own business, in a business that you (or people close to you) are 1) familiar and 2) successful. Differently from my friend who switched and tanked, I have another friend that went from engineering into a landscaping business (for rich neighborhoods) with a brother that had already a established company. He works somewhat longer hours, but he kept comparable compensations, with potential for more, and a more flexible schedule.
That is, you cannot quit engineering to become an flat-salary employee somewhere else. If you quit, it is because you are going into a business with significantly good chances of doing well (landscaping or commercial real estate, for instance.)
I'm sure that there are some that are lucky to work for companies or at least live in areas with companies that resist this movement, but it is a real thing. Being realistic about how the game is changing in a way that will make things more difficult for me is way different than feeling sorry for myself; that was actually a bit of a dickish thing to say. I've fortunately seen this coming and I have been able to prepare myself with a few alternative plans to fall back on, but they are nothing like the traditional job that most people have and they involve quite a bit more risk.
Forget traditional jobs. They have been gone for 2 decades now. I'm sorry if I came up as a dick, but truly dude, I have a hard time understanding how people are just realizing something that has been a status quo for quite some time. That's the kind of shit that can blindside you really bad.
I am wondering who will quit their 6-digit salary paying swanky job in the Silicon Valley, just because they do not agree with the law enforcement. Maybe 1 or 2 people with some screws loose upstairs, but no sane person would do such a thing. Quite the contrary if they were told they will either help the law enforcement or get fired, I am pretty sure those people would come to the help of FBI in droves. Who do they think they are fooling ? Techies ? Naah, most of them are too smart not to work for Apple empire. Are they trying to fool Apple-Fan-Boys ? No need. If your work address is "1 Infinite loop" you already are a demi-god. So no need to resort to such ploys. And general public doesn't really care if Apple employees quit for holding high standards or not, as long as there is a new "Jesus-phone" every 12 months or less.
People do that all the time for a variety of reasons ranging from conscience all the way to just getting mad at the boss. Software/IT has an above average attrition rate.
This 'centrist' is on the record (see his DC CCW ruling on 2nd A) for saying the Constitution is a 'living document' who SHOULD be reinterpreted as they see fit. That is not respecting it. That is treating it as 'just another piece of paper' as Bush called it. Furthermore, he may be centrist by the far left rag NY Times but that is not saying much. Most would call him a leftist wingnut.
It is a living document. If it if weren't, we wouldn't have had a need for amendments and additional bills of rights.
Yes, by all means capitalize it for a month or two, and also learn the skill of teaching foreigners to do your job. In fact, I'm not sure why most employers don't just make 'transitioning to a foreigner' a job requirement in the first place.
You are doing it wrong if you feel that way. I've been in this shit for 22 years. You are always at risk of being replaced, so the solution is to simply keep moving. This is reality. It has been a reality for almost two decades. It is a reality that you can still navigate and make an above average salary.
It beats the alternatives.You can either use it to your advantage or feel sorry for yourself. Your choice.
Yes, the typical fast food restaurant is full of machines that need cleaning.
But who's going to do this when the minimum wage goons are gone?
Are you really this stupid?
It will be two guys in a little white van that says "Carls Jr" on it that drive around and do these things, covering all the locations on the "west side" (maybe 8 or 10 of them)
There might be cameras and "manual steps" to take over a machine run out of Phillipines to fix minor glitches. That will be 8 people covering 120 stores corporate wide.
But in general, two moderately paid employees will drive around, clean, re-stock and troubleshoot machines. A regional tech group will be on call for big problems. There will be a dozen people per shift taking the place of three hundred droolers.
They could pay those dozen people 100k per year and still come out ahead.
Bingo. And this is already happening. For instance, every StarBucks gets re-stocked as soon as the last employee closes the store at 11PM. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities of having similar crews cleaning equipment and furniture, or even doing sensitive things like tallying up the cash registers after hours.
I really want to see that!
I used to work at a McDonalds 25 years ago. I was already seeing *that*, and automation wasn't even in the picture.
You are still not understanding the terms you are using.
I based my technical career around an expected shortage based on well-defined demographics in the long-term future. Not a perceived shortage to suppress wages by hiring managers in the short-term future.
Bingo. It is refreshing to see someone who gets it. Look for shortages and capitalize on them. That's the way to thrive in software/IT. This field is not for the inflexible.
Not really all that clever. The Republicans boxed Obama into a corner - everyone knew a very liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan.to be dismissed immediately. The best he could hope for was to name a centrist.
I think the Republicans should take it as a victory and confirm the guy. They're certainly not going to get a better nomination out of Trump or Clinton. Cruz would pick someone who respects the Constitution but he may not get the nomination. We have to keep trying though.,
Who in the SCOTUS does not respect the constitution? Does the current nominee disrespect the constitution? Specific please (unless we are just looking to settle for simple minded slogans.)
No, you are missing the gag. This guy is anti-2nd amendment, and exactly what makes Obama hard and Hillary wet. A judges record is public, and important.
So, an anti-2nd amendment guy was previously praised and recommended by GOP senators, who have, on record, say that he is qualified for the job? Please continue. Let us push this argument and let the chips fall where they may.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Gridlock was indeed the intention.
The gridlock is supposed to happen on the senate floor by continuously rejecting candidates.
You did. You voted for Obama for the executive, then the GOP for the legislative. "Advise and consent" != "rubber stamp."
No one is asking for a rubber stamp. Senators can bring up the nomination for deliberation and simply vote with a no. They just don't want deliberate why Garland is unqualified on record (because they really have nothing against the candidate other than it was nominated by the scary black man in the White House.)
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count. One could make the same argument about Bush and pretty much almost every single fucking presidency since God knows when.
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress. You argument is bullshit. When you have to reach so far up the ass for that argument, you should know you don't have a valid point.
How did you get from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president?" It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.
By bending over like a Mongolian contortionist, then shoving the hand up the ass till it tickled the tonsils, then opening and closing the fist till there was a faux argument to grab, then pulling said argument into the light of day. That is pretty much how he got from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president."
not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
You mean like in 2008? When Pelosi didn't bother doing anything until Obama was sworn in? What goes around comes around.
It seems perfectly logical to wait for the better president.
And it seems more logical to just do it now.
Watching yours is what reminds us why we revolted.
Just sayin.
We? You are not your predecessors.