China's one child policy actually pushed many low income families to have their first college graduates as they could focus on one child. The flip of this is the male lopsidedness of the underground abortion scene. Another is younger the workforce soon being unable to support the retiring populace due to the effects of it. It's a ticking retirement bomb over there.
When you say 'indigenous population' I hope you're referring the Native Americans. After all, we took all the choice bits of land and put them in a desert with casinos as an after thought.
You're confusing traditional Seneca Falls feminism with the newer 'femi-nazism' that's creeping along social media.
Feminism is about equal opertunity, true feminists won't mind chivalry but nor will they expect it where a feminazi would want both in their hypocritical mind.
Also I don't see what your 'social family duties' have to do with this, are you advocating that women should be pressured into marriage commitments and the traditional 'wife' role? You feel like you missed something that required giving women less choice, and more societal pressure?
From someone who has mentored exemplary young women in a professional environment, I really have no words for that if so. Women can balance work and life goals such as a family on their own terms with a partner, not a caretaker as some groups would advocate.
If you want to send the kid to college to be a part of the future, else you're all but assuring them knee-capped employment possibilities. There's a higher expectation overall for parenting, especially for middle income Americans that plan this out. Uneducated folk in the lower income brackets however will still reproduce irresponsibly though.
Creating more public housing units, and adjusting zoning laws to allow higher apartments would allow it to increase availability. This would push down rent in the surrounding areas, you don't need to build them in 'down town' but somewhere in the middle near accessible transport hubs.
Sounds like you live and breathe SV. The entire tech world isn't valley btw, and SV salaries aren't the staple, they're the exception due to cost of living in SV.
You clearly don't know anything about compensation packages, 100k-200k is standard for senior SRE; 250k-500k for phd and masters level work on Algorithm development. That is without bonuses and stock options that can go to the low million per year. I was an engineer, and you need to either be a team lead or project lead to reach the upper tiers of that compensation, with stock benefits. It sounds like you're promoting 'same work, more pay'. Forget about mathematics, you just 'deserve' more.
My mechanic gets paid around 60k a year, technical support engineers around 80-70. Location and cost of living dictates pay and we're located suburban. It appears you're just upset at how you can't work the same job with no drive to perform better, and expect greater compensation. I know SREs that earn the equivalent of a 5 bedroom 2 story house every year. I suppose according to you that's not 'good enough' and that's median pay. The problem is the number of knowledgeable and capable engineers, which you clearly have missed the boat on.
You make it seem as if there is a large pool of engineers that operate at such levels. Even in something as mundane as "business management", the best players will be fought over. Now In the business of intelligence and mathematical algorithms, it's not 'gutso' or 'drive' that we seek, it's ability and a large number of American engineers simply don't know, or care about 'boring mathematics'.
You're promoting that companies "aren't paying enough". Maybe for IT work as that becomes the new 'mechanic' commodity. As far as hard mathematics, there has always been a shortage of qualified workers and we can't keep fighting over the same number of engineers as it's just musical chairs. Your solution is gating such that 'eventually' graduates will be incentivised to do the hard math required, but I can tell you that we have been offering 150, 200k+ salaries for the appropriate experience. Now if you want fresh graduates, that's 80 or 90k which we offer to both foreign and domestic applicants. Same fresh faces, one side having a mathematical edge, why should I hire someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing as opposed to another who has a great mathematical grasp and can learn the rest.
So my department is now supposed to teach, basic gray matrix and eigenvector reduction? Just wait till they reach the actual work! This is basic linear algebra, if applicants can't understand that even when duly noted in the work requirements, they have no business in my department nor should my department train them. We work on difficult telemetry problems and I'll be dammed if I'm force to train incompetents. My team does not need delinquents 'faking it till them make it'.
This isn't about anti-american candidates, it's that universities simply are not producing enough quality graduates that meet the bar. That can be both a fault of the institution and students who want it easy. This is hard work and training expenses on algorithms 101 isn't worthwhile as opposed to finding capable employees who 'get it'.
On the other side, as someone hiring engineers. I'm not going to sugar coat that many of the 'all-american' graduates don't have as strong a grasp on mathematics as the foreign graduates. The interview questions show this glaringly, do you want to lower the bar to fill quotas?
When I'm looking for team members I care about what they're able to do and we pay our American and H1B workers the same salary (just north of 100k). So payment is not the issue as you like to claim. In shortages employees have more bargaining power absolutely and retaining skilled workers is difficult. This does not need to be artificially inflated by causing a deliberate brain shortage unless you're willing to admit sub-par engineers whom are more interested in Tinder and quick library re-use rather than the hard algorithmic nuances of the work we do.
I get the whole 'healthy lifestyle' campaigns to battle obesity, but this essentially groups junk food with cigarettes which was similarly banned in the US from public 'mass media' advertisement (tele/billboard).
At that point you're classifying categories of comfort food as 'junk'. How long is it until chocolate is also junk food? Junk food is only dangerous by over indulgence. Smoking however is deliberate damage to the lungs, even if 'moderated' just like alcohol is to the brain. Oddly enough alcohol has no such advertising ban, as they 'self moderate' to only legal drinking age markets supposedly.
Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.
Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.
Then perhaps companies should keep their research internal to employees rather than outsource to open universities. If you want the best research, you ought to hire the brightest rather than getting it 'on the cheap' from PHD students barely making ends meet.
Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers, and is safer both to burn and acquire. This isn't propping up fossil fuels, this is preferring an industry whose workforce doesn't want to adapt or change.
Goldman Sachs is a large financial company who's whole buisness is taking other people's money, and investing it to make more money for them while siphoning a portion of it for themselves as payment.
Sure many millionares and billionaries have big ticket accounts, but there's also Joe Shmo, who has a modest 140k, or 200k retirement account there. Since all the money from each account is pooled to give Goldman the capital to invest, failed investments will impact all portfolios.
Investing in companies that develop cures is all good and dandy assuming all are as successful as Gilead. However, for every successful business, there are failed ones. Here, Goldman is basically saying that in the best case scenario the profit was not good enough to justify the investment even if they made an okay profit. After all, that one 'decent' success needs to offset the number of failed companies that Goldman also had their money on.
Assuming they had a net gain including all the losses, then it comes to wither the amount expended was worth the profit. It's more than monetary here, this includes paying for research consultants, retaining experts to vet companies, visits and check ups on said companies as well as all the menagerie of departmental-ism compared to that same expenditure on something else, as you put it.. a company whose drug suppresses the illness that would produce more money over a long period of time.
As a Joe Shmo do you want to see your retirement account grow faster or slower? Big or small, we're all capitalists, and unless Goldman wanted to discriminate accounts (and get sued) every customer they have suffers or gains; details be damned apparently.
A public-private partnership of some kind can promote these kind of investments, but there's also many things that could go wrong. Direct company grants would be optimal, but then that opens bureaucracy and expenditures on 'vetting' companies as well as possible sham companies that will still get through (cough)theranos(cough).
Supporting the middle men such as GS to make the investments and the 'minnowing' is also risky for obvious reasons.
I honestly don't know exactly how this can work unless people really put their money where their mouths are.
.... GS is basically saying they're not getting a good ROI. GS didn't cure the disease, a company they invested in did, and perhaps that funding was tied to X year commitments so it was an initial burst followed by possibly unprofitable years.
Now you want to invest in other companies that possibly end up like that as a 'best case' scenario? The best case being a 'decent' amount of profit with a number of failed companies that tried to cure X.
It's not sustainable, nor good for cash flow unless you have unlimited cash. Financial institutions are flush, but they need to work at a net profit, sure there's a lead-loser model such as say Costco gasoline, but very sector overall needs a profit. Bio-tech investments cannot be operated at a loss for the sake of 'reputation'.
Businesses need a profit. I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists that will crop up around this point, but the amount of research and spending to get only a short burst of financial gain is impractical.
Some would argue that this should be government funded and all I can say is... well good luck, at least in the US we cut that funding for bombs and missiles.
Slashdot Mirror
China's one child policy actually pushed many low income families to have their first college graduates as they could focus on one child. The flip of this is the male lopsidedness of the underground abortion scene. Another is younger the workforce soon being unable to support the retiring populace due to the effects of it. It's a ticking retirement bomb over there.
When you say 'indigenous population' I hope you're referring the Native Americans. After all, we took all the choice bits of land and put them in a desert with casinos as an after thought.
You're confusing traditional Seneca Falls feminism with the newer 'femi-nazism' that's creeping along social media.
Feminism is about equal opertunity, true feminists won't mind chivalry but nor will they expect it where a feminazi would want both in their hypocritical mind.
Also I don't see what your 'social family duties' have to do with this, are you advocating that women should be pressured into marriage commitments and the traditional 'wife' role? You feel like you missed something that required giving women less choice, and more societal pressure?
From someone who has mentored exemplary young women in a professional environment, I really have no words for that if so. Women can balance work and life goals such as a family on their own terms with a partner, not a caretaker as some groups would advocate.
I suggest you keep working in Vietnam, no American corp wants you.
It sounds like someone is in the 'forever single' category and is upset about it, so let's blame feminists for for not having enough babies?
If you want to send the kid to college to be a part of the future, else you're all but assuring them knee-capped employment possibilities. There's a higher expectation overall for parenting, especially for middle income Americans that plan this out. Uneducated folk in the lower income brackets however will still reproduce irresponsibly though.
Creating more public housing units, and adjusting zoning laws to allow higher apartments would allow it to increase availability. This would push down rent in the surrounding areas, you don't need to build them in 'down town' but somewhere in the middle near accessible transport hubs.
Sounds like you live and breathe SV. The entire tech world isn't valley btw, and SV salaries aren't the staple, they're the exception due to cost of living in SV.
You clearly don't know anything about compensation packages, 100k-200k is standard for senior SRE; 250k-500k for phd and masters level work on Algorithm development. That is without bonuses and stock options that can go to the low million per year. I was an engineer, and you need to either be a team lead or project lead to reach the upper tiers of that compensation, with stock benefits. It sounds like you're promoting 'same work, more pay'. Forget about mathematics, you just 'deserve' more.
My mechanic gets paid around 60k a year, technical support engineers around 80-70. Location and cost of living dictates pay and we're located suburban. It appears you're just upset at how you can't work the same job with no drive to perform better, and expect greater compensation. I know SREs that earn the equivalent of a 5 bedroom 2 story house every year. I suppose according to you that's not 'good enough' and that's median pay. The problem is the number of knowledgeable and capable engineers, which you clearly have missed the boat on.
You make it seem as if there is a large pool of engineers that operate at such levels. Even in something as mundane as "business management", the best players will be fought over. Now In the business of intelligence and mathematical algorithms, it's not 'gutso' or 'drive' that we seek, it's ability and a large number of American engineers simply don't know, or care about 'boring mathematics'.
You're promoting that companies "aren't paying enough". Maybe for IT work as that becomes the new 'mechanic' commodity. As far as hard mathematics, there has always been a shortage of qualified workers and we can't keep fighting over the same number of engineers as it's just musical chairs. Your solution is gating such that 'eventually' graduates will be incentivised to do the hard math required, but I can tell you that we have been offering 150, 200k+ salaries for the appropriate experience. Now if you want fresh graduates, that's 80 or 90k which we offer to both foreign and domestic applicants. Same fresh faces, one side having a mathematical edge, why should I hire someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing as opposed to another who has a great mathematical grasp and can learn the rest.
So my department is now supposed to teach, basic gray matrix and eigenvector reduction? Just wait till they reach the actual work! This is basic linear algebra, if applicants can't understand that even when duly noted in the work requirements, they have no business in my department nor should my department train them. We work on difficult telemetry problems and I'll be dammed if I'm force to train incompetents. My team does not need delinquents 'faking it till them make it'.
This isn't about anti-american candidates, it's that universities simply are not producing enough quality graduates that meet the bar. That can be both a fault of the institution and students who want it easy. This is hard work and training expenses on algorithms 101 isn't worthwhile as opposed to finding capable employees who 'get it'.
On the other side, as someone hiring engineers. I'm not going to sugar coat that many of the 'all-american' graduates don't have as strong a grasp on mathematics as the foreign graduates. The interview questions show this glaringly, do you want to lower the bar to fill quotas?
When I'm looking for team members I care about what they're able to do and we pay our American and H1B workers the same salary (just north of 100k). So payment is not the issue as you like to claim. In shortages employees have more bargaining power absolutely and retaining skilled workers is difficult. This does not need to be artificially inflated by causing a deliberate brain shortage unless you're willing to admit sub-par engineers whom are more interested in Tinder and quick library re-use rather than the hard algorithmic nuances of the work we do.
I get the whole 'healthy lifestyle' campaigns to battle obesity, but this essentially groups junk food with cigarettes which was similarly banned in the US from public 'mass media' advertisement (tele/billboard).
At that point you're classifying categories of comfort food as 'junk'. How long is it until chocolate is also junk food? Junk food is only dangerous by over indulgence. Smoking however is deliberate damage to the lungs, even if 'moderated' just like alcohol is to the brain. Oddly enough alcohol has no such advertising ban, as they 'self moderate' to only legal drinking age markets supposedly.
Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.
Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.
The cost is space, it's still a cost.
Utah is also sparsely populated and has a low cost of living. You want to paint that blueprint everywhere now?
Then perhaps companies should keep their research internal to employees rather than outsource to open universities. If you want the best research, you ought to hire the brightest rather than getting it 'on the cheap' from PHD students barely making ends meet.
You can actually take a look at the graduation rates by states and in rank... You won't like what you see if you're looking for partisan validation.
Seriously... they cobbled all of that together for a piece of vector art?
Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers, and is safer both to burn and acquire. This isn't propping up fossil fuels, this is preferring an industry whose workforce doesn't want to adapt or change.
Goldman Sachs is a large financial company who's whole buisness is taking other people's money, and investing it to make more money for them while siphoning a portion of it for themselves as payment.
Sure many millionares and billionaries have big ticket accounts, but there's also Joe Shmo, who has a modest 140k, or 200k retirement account there. Since all the money from each account is pooled to give Goldman the capital to invest, failed investments will impact all portfolios.
Investing in companies that develop cures is all good and dandy assuming all are as successful as Gilead. However, for every successful business, there are failed ones. Here, Goldman is basically saying that in the best case scenario the profit was not good enough to justify the investment even if they made an okay profit. After all, that one 'decent' success needs to offset the number of failed companies that Goldman also had their money on.
Assuming they had a net gain including all the losses, then it comes to wither the amount expended was worth the profit. It's more than monetary here, this includes paying for research consultants, retaining experts to vet companies, visits and check ups on said companies as well as all the menagerie of departmental-ism compared to that same expenditure on something else, as you put it.. a company whose drug suppresses the illness that would produce more money over a long period of time.
As a Joe Shmo do you want to see your retirement account grow faster or slower? Big or small, we're all capitalists, and unless Goldman wanted to discriminate accounts (and get sued) every customer they have suffers or gains; details be damned apparently.
That's actually a good analysis.
A public-private partnership of some kind can promote these kind of investments, but there's also many things that could go wrong. Direct company grants would be optimal, but then that opens bureaucracy and expenditures on 'vetting' companies as well as possible sham companies that will still get through (cough)theranos(cough).
Supporting the middle men such as GS to make the investments and the 'minnowing' is also risky for obvious reasons.
I honestly don't know exactly how this can work unless people really put their money where their mouths are.
Pass the buck to the next generation! We'll spend it now! /sarcasm
But really, it's marginal compared to what was spent or 'invested' in 'security'.
.... GS is basically saying they're not getting a good ROI. GS didn't cure the disease, a company they invested in did, and perhaps that funding was tied to X year commitments so it was an initial burst followed by possibly unprofitable years.
Now you want to invest in other companies that possibly end up like that as a 'best case' scenario? The best case being a 'decent' amount of profit with a number of failed companies that tried to cure X.
It's not sustainable, nor good for cash flow unless you have unlimited cash. Financial institutions are flush, but they need to work at a net profit, sure there's a lead-loser model such as say Costco gasoline, but very sector overall needs a profit. Bio-tech investments cannot be operated at a loss for the sake of 'reputation'.
Businesses need a profit. I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists that will crop up around this point, but the amount of research and spending to get only a short burst of financial gain is impractical.
Some would argue that this should be government funded and all I can say is... well good luck, at least in the US we cut that funding for bombs and missiles.