I love reading stories like this. I'd love it if a concerted effort were made to further optimize various non-FP glibc methods as well. I assume they're already fairly well optimized, but I would be shocked if there weren't still some gains to be made. +10 internets to you, Mr./Ms. Poyarekar.
That's assuming an ability to move in either direction. Companies will not pay for relocation costs. If you don't have the money to move, you're so out of luck.
That's why you budget money for a future move and/or rent instead of buy. A 20ft U-Haul truck from Austin to SanFran is $850, plus gas. Loaded it gets 8mpg, and the trip is 1750 miles. So figure $450 for gas, for a total of $1300. Say your buddy gets an offer for $100k/year back in California. He could counter with "$95k/year + $1500 to relocate." The employer would recoup its cost within 4 months. Most would accept that counter-offer. Sucks to give up base salary, but if the alternative is "no job at all and you're stuck in Texas when you don't want to be" then it starts to look more attractive.
1. Hedge funds/billionaires being able to borrow at the Fed rate and at much higher margins than us peons (95% vs 50% for the rest of us) pumped the money into the stock markets.
Which I'm not sad about, since my savings is mainly in U.S. equities.
2. All the money floating around was used by corporations to do stock buybacks - not because their businesses were worth investing in (contrary to the myth taught in Finance classes and spewed by corporate PR departments) but because it allowed the CEOs and billionaires to get even richer.
And anyone else who owns stock in those companies. Like me. And I'm not even a millionaire.
3. 1 & 2 were all done at our expense because it weakened the dollar - making consumer goods more expensive; while our wages haven't gone up.
The dollar isn't especially weak. Here is a graph of its value vs. a basket of trade-weighted currencies. You'll notice it actually got significantly stronger during the recession. Here is a graph of CPI. Post-recession is has increased at about the same rate as pre-recession. I can't speak for everyone else, but my wages have gone up.
In the meantime, we are working longer and longer hours because in order to keep profits up, companies have been laying people off and making their current workforce work harder and longer.
Not working longer hours here. Here is a graph of average hours worked per week for employed persons. Seems like the current level is roughly the same as the level prior to the recession.
A plan that was supposed to help us out and get employment back to 2007 levels has horribly failed.
In 2007 U-3 unemployment ranged from 4.4% (March) to 5.0% (December). Current unemployment (November 2014) is 5.8%. The rate of decrease since peak unemployment (10.0% in October 2009) has been fairly linear at about 0.069% per month. At that rate we should once again be at "2007 levels" (i.e. 5.0%) in October 2015.
I work for a company that makes apps for small community banks. We have about 300 apps in the Google Play store and another 450 in the Apple store (our iPad version is technically a separate app.) So it's not quite a 1-1 from app to company.
I've never threatened to quit somewhere and then stayed. For that matter, I've only ever left one job willingly (the place I was at before this current one). All the other job changes have been due to layoffs or the company going under. So the graph of my salary over time is very "stair-step" in appearance. Periods of relative flatness for 2-3 years followed by sudden jumps.
Interestingly, my current employer is the first one I've ever had that gave me significant raises. Everywhere else I've worked I got cost-of-living-increase at most, and sometimes not even that. So, essentially, the only time I got a raise is when I switched jobs. With the current employer, though, I've gotten raises in the 6-9% range for the past two years. I guess they didn't get the memo. That, or they realize their work environment is frustrating enough that they have to overpay people to keep them from leaving.
Generally the recruiter doesn't get paid if the candidate doesn't last at least 6 months. If they foist someone absolutely terrible on you and that person is released within 6 months the recruiter loses his payday. That said, after the 6 month period they could care less if you leave.
Our experience has been hit-or-miss with new grads. Of course, with an absurdly low sample-size, so not really something one can draw general conclusions from. Three have more-or-less worked out. Decent junior-level devs. Two were absolutely terrible. Of course, my employer has such a terrible interview process that we end up hiring people who probably wouldn't be hired elsewhere. I think the trick with new grads is to just be extra-picky.
I usually take my current salary and ask for $5-10k more. If another employer is arguing I should quick my current gig then they should be willing to present a better value proposition. If they're not going to pay me more then they need to convince me that their job is "better" in some other way than what I'm doing now. Of course, I always claim I'm super-happy where I am (even if I'm not), so generally their value proposition is going to involve more compensation.
As a sanity check you can go to salary.com and plug in your degree, years experience, job description (in as much detail as possible; they usually have different "grades" of each one, e.g. "Software Engineer I", "Software Engineer II", etc.), and geographic area. It then spits out 25th, 50th and 75th percentile values.
Lots of businesses are relocating to Texas due to low taxes. Texas has relatively high rates of blacks and Hispanics. Also relatively high crime. Especially in the urban areas where these businesses are relocating. So your logic fails. "Security" is not a major expense. State taxes and cost of labor are.
Also- Atlanta is "blacker" than Detroit and has markedly lower crime.
Sure, I've got some free time. I'll do your googling for you. U-3 unemployment down 1.2% from 7.0% in Nov-2013 to Nov-2014. Should reach pre-recession levels by end of year 2015, if not earlier. Two successive quarters (Q2 and Q3 2014) of high GDP growth (4.6% and 5.0% annualized). Stock market still doing well, though I question how long that can last given its overvalued relative to GDP. U.S. Consumer Confidence index for Dec-2014 is at an eight-year high. Oil prices are low and project to stay that way throughout 2015 (good for the overall economy, but bad for U.S. energy producers). Core inflation under 2%. Weekly unemployment claims (4 week moving average) down around 300k, matching pre-recession lows.
Can't say I didn't do my part. I looked over the Box Office top 100 for 2014 and I saw 23 of them in the theater. Number is partly inflated by my having to take my kids to lots of kids films.
1. Jews aren't monolithic. Some Jews want open borders. Some Jews don't. Some non-Jews want open borders.
2. Jews live in the countries where (some of them) are pushing for open borders. If open borders turns a country into a third-world hell hole, why would a Jew want to turn his own country of residence into a third-world hell hole? It's not in his own self-interest.
3. Singapore: diverse, not a hell-hole. Ditto Canada.
Legally citizenship still has meaning, but his point is that the reality outside the legal realm has changed. I'll grant that. Instead, I'd point to "language and culture", part of which probably includes religion (or lack thereof). I was born in and grew up in the U.S. If I emigrated to India, renounced my U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of that country, then lived the rest of my life there I would probably remain "culturally American" for the rest of my days. Note: this doesn't mean I can't appreciate other cultures. Far from it. Just that it's very hard to internalize a foreign culture to the extent that it entire displaces what was there before.
To maximize employability you'd want a degree from a reputable 4-year brick-and-mortar university. On the other hand that's probably also the most costly and time-consuming option. Some ideas in no particular order:
1. Go back to the university where you earned your English degree. It hasn't been that long since you graduated, so you may be able to apply your existing credits to a C.S. or Math degree. That might allow you to get the second degree in as little as two years instead of four. If there are any required classes for the 2nd degree that can be taken elsewhere (e.g. a junior college) and transferred in then doing so can lower your total cost.
2. Go through one of those "Code Academy" places. This still costs money but takes way less time. It also offers less in terms of employability, but it's better than nothing.
3. Teach yourself some of the basics of C.S. Data structures, algorithmic complexity, discrete math, etc. Possibly through some online courses. Then self-teach yourself Objective-C+iOS or Java+Android and create some sort of app. Put it in the store. Interview for junior level app developer positions. If you have an app in the store and can talk intelligently about how it's designed (and why you chose to design it in that particular way instead of various other alternatives) then many employers will overlook your lack of formal C.S. education. Even if your first software dev. job is shitty, the point is to get your foot in the door. Once you have a dev. job on your resume it becomes that much easier to get other (better) dev jobs, because employers will no longer see you as someone with no experience in the field.
4. If you can stomach it, the military actually isn't a bad deal. Last I checked they were offering an abbreviated 2-year full-time commitment (with a longer period of national guard duty). At the end you get a sort of "half" version of the G.I. bill. More importantly (at least, it would be if you were younger), being honorably discharged from the service severs the link between you and your parents when it comes to applying for financial aid. Their income and savings is no longer taken into account when calculating your "need".
More like 350 million / mile. Defense budget is about $700B and the border is ~2000 miles. Still; we're not going to tell the military to take a year off. The question is what is a reasonable amount to spend each and every year to "secure" the southern border. $50B? $100B? At what point does the cost outweigh the benefits? For $100B/year the U.S. could provide a $5000 yearly grant to every single student enrolled at university. Would that provide more bang-for-the-buck than spending $100B/year to secure the border? Or, for that matter, the federal govt. could refund $100B worth of taxes to low-income households. Or it could take the $100B and use it to incentivize work by juicing a program like the EITC. Etc. All of which would probably be better uses of that money.
How large? How much spent per-mile-guarded? What would be the cost to replicate that level of protection across 1954 miles? How would this address the problem of people entering legally and overstaying their visas?
What reason besides greed does an American company have to fire a US worker and hire a foreign worker at lower wages and benefits
Because they want to be more successful as a company and provide benefit to their shareholders, which is the goal of any corporation. Why does the domestic worker deserve to be more highly paid if he can't provide any additional value?
who is more important to our society? a working taxpaying American or a working non taxpaying foreigner
Foreign nationals pay U.S. income tax, but don't qualify for SS or Medicare. They also pay local property tax, local sales tax, etc. Whatever tax they pay is essentially "cake" to the IRS.
I don't know 1 product besides pencils and crayons that are 100% are in the USA. That's ok by you?
You're exaggerating. But, yes, I'm generally okay with most goods being imported if they can be produced less expensively abroad. I am generally not okay with huge swaths of the U.S. workforce being more or less unemployable. If we need to artificially subsidize low-wage labor in order to create demand at the bottom then so be it. Better that than have people not working and on the dole.
Our people are fat because the only places to work anymore are Wal-Mart's and burger kings and call centers of the USA.
Our people are fat because we eat a lot of junk food and don't exercise. Learn a marketable skill and you don't have to work at Wal-Mart, Burger King or a call center.
So, in essence, you advocate no trade between nations except perhaps in raw materials and foodstuffs that can be grown in one geography but not another. Awesome.
American companies should be required by law to hire Americans first and foremost
Let's take this to its logical conclusion. Should "American" companies be required to purchase only American goods? Can't buy Lenovo; gotta buy Dell. Can't buy Toyota delivery vehicles; gotta buy GM. Etc. Should we allow foreign investors to buy stock in "American" companies? A corporation is "owned" by its shareholders, after all, and we want these to be truly "American" companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I love reading stories like this. I'd love it if a concerted effort were made to further optimize various non-FP glibc methods as well. I assume they're already fairly well optimized, but I would be shocked if there weren't still some gains to be made. +10 internets to you, Mr./Ms. Poyarekar.
That's why you budget money for a future move and/or rent instead of buy. A 20ft U-Haul truck from Austin to SanFran is $850, plus gas. Loaded it gets 8mpg, and the trip is 1750 miles. So figure $450 for gas, for a total of $1300. Say your buddy gets an offer for $100k/year back in California. He could counter with "$95k/year + $1500 to relocate." The employer would recoup its cost within 4 months. Most would accept that counter-offer. Sucks to give up base salary, but if the alternative is "no job at all and you're stuck in Texas when you don't want to be" then it starts to look more attractive.
Which I'm not sad about, since my savings is mainly in U.S. equities.
And anyone else who owns stock in those companies. Like me. And I'm not even a millionaire.
The dollar isn't especially weak. Here is a graph of its value vs. a basket of trade-weighted currencies. You'll notice it actually got significantly stronger during the recession. Here is a graph of CPI. Post-recession is has increased at about the same rate as pre-recession. I can't speak for everyone else, but my wages have gone up.
Not working longer hours here. Here is a graph of average hours worked per week for employed persons. Seems like the current level is roughly the same as the level prior to the recession.
In 2007 U-3 unemployment ranged from 4.4% (March) to 5.0% (December). Current unemployment (November 2014) is 5.8%. The rate of decrease since peak unemployment (10.0% in October 2009) has been fairly linear at about 0.069% per month. At that rate we should once again be at "2007 levels" (i.e. 5.0%) in October 2015.
Then you move back to Silicon Valley. (Or wherever the local conditions are brightest for your particular field.)
I work for a company that makes apps for small community banks. We have about 300 apps in the Google Play store and another 450 in the Apple store (our iPad version is technically a separate app.) So it's not quite a 1-1 from app to company.
I've never threatened to quit somewhere and then stayed. For that matter, I've only ever left one job willingly (the place I was at before this current one). All the other job changes have been due to layoffs or the company going under. So the graph of my salary over time is very "stair-step" in appearance. Periods of relative flatness for 2-3 years followed by sudden jumps.
Interestingly, my current employer is the first one I've ever had that gave me significant raises. Everywhere else I've worked I got cost-of-living-increase at most, and sometimes not even that. So, essentially, the only time I got a raise is when I switched jobs. With the current employer, though, I've gotten raises in the 6-9% range for the past two years. I guess they didn't get the memo. That, or they realize their work environment is frustrating enough that they have to overpay people to keep them from leaving.
Generally the recruiter doesn't get paid if the candidate doesn't last at least 6 months. If they foist someone absolutely terrible on you and that person is released within 6 months the recruiter loses his payday. That said, after the 6 month period they could care less if you leave.
Our experience has been hit-or-miss with new grads. Of course, with an absurdly low sample-size, so not really something one can draw general conclusions from. Three have more-or-less worked out. Decent junior-level devs. Two were absolutely terrible. Of course, my employer has such a terrible interview process that we end up hiring people who probably wouldn't be hired elsewhere. I think the trick with new grads is to just be extra-picky.
Err, "quit my current gig" not "quick".
I usually take my current salary and ask for $5-10k more. If another employer is arguing I should quick my current gig then they should be willing to present a better value proposition. If they're not going to pay me more then they need to convince me that their job is "better" in some other way than what I'm doing now. Of course, I always claim I'm super-happy where I am (even if I'm not), so generally their value proposition is going to involve more compensation.
As a sanity check you can go to salary.com and plug in your degree, years experience, job description (in as much detail as possible; they usually have different "grades" of each one, e.g. "Software Engineer I", "Software Engineer II", etc.), and geographic area. It then spits out 25th, 50th and 75th percentile values.
Lots of businesses are relocating to Texas due to low taxes. Texas has relatively high rates of blacks and Hispanics. Also relatively high crime. Especially in the urban areas where these businesses are relocating. So your logic fails. "Security" is not a major expense. State taxes and cost of labor are.
Also- Atlanta is "blacker" than Detroit and has markedly lower crime.
Sure, I've got some free time. I'll do your googling for you. U-3 unemployment down 1.2% from 7.0% in Nov-2013 to Nov-2014. Should reach pre-recession levels by end of year 2015, if not earlier. Two successive quarters (Q2 and Q3 2014) of high GDP growth (4.6% and 5.0% annualized). Stock market still doing well, though I question how long that can last given its overvalued relative to GDP. U.S. Consumer Confidence index for Dec-2014 is at an eight-year high. Oil prices are low and project to stay that way throughout 2015 (good for the overall economy, but bad for U.S. energy producers). Core inflation under 2%. Weekly unemployment claims (4 week moving average) down around 300k, matching pre-recession lows.
Can't say I didn't do my part. I looked over the Box Office top 100 for 2014 and I saw 23 of them in the theater. Number is partly inflated by my having to take my kids to lots of kids films.
1. Jews aren't monolithic. Some Jews want open borders. Some Jews don't. Some non-Jews want open borders.
2. Jews live in the countries where (some of them) are pushing for open borders. If open borders turns a country into a third-world hell hole, why would a Jew want to turn his own country of residence into a third-world hell hole? It's not in his own self-interest.
3. Singapore: diverse, not a hell-hole. Ditto Canada.
Legally citizenship still has meaning, but his point is that the reality outside the legal realm has changed. I'll grant that. Instead, I'd point to "language and culture", part of which probably includes religion (or lack thereof). I was born in and grew up in the U.S. If I emigrated to India, renounced my U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of that country, then lived the rest of my life there I would probably remain "culturally American" for the rest of my days. Note: this doesn't mean I can't appreciate other cultures. Far from it. Just that it's very hard to internalize a foreign culture to the extent that it entire displaces what was there before.
To maximize employability you'd want a degree from a reputable 4-year brick-and-mortar university. On the other hand that's probably also the most costly and time-consuming option. Some ideas in no particular order:
1. Go back to the university where you earned your English degree. It hasn't been that long since you graduated, so you may be able to apply your existing credits to a C.S. or Math degree. That might allow you to get the second degree in as little as two years instead of four. If there are any required classes for the 2nd degree that can be taken elsewhere (e.g. a junior college) and transferred in then doing so can lower your total cost.
2. Go through one of those "Code Academy" places. This still costs money but takes way less time. It also offers less in terms of employability, but it's better than nothing.
3. Teach yourself some of the basics of C.S. Data structures, algorithmic complexity, discrete math, etc. Possibly through some online courses. Then self-teach yourself Objective-C+iOS or Java+Android and create some sort of app. Put it in the store. Interview for junior level app developer positions. If you have an app in the store and can talk intelligently about how it's designed (and why you chose to design it in that particular way instead of various other alternatives) then many employers will overlook your lack of formal C.S. education. Even if your first software dev. job is shitty, the point is to get your foot in the door. Once you have a dev. job on your resume it becomes that much easier to get other (better) dev jobs, because employers will no longer see you as someone with no experience in the field.
4. If you can stomach it, the military actually isn't a bad deal. Last I checked they were offering an abbreviated 2-year full-time commitment (with a longer period of national guard duty). At the end you get a sort of "half" version of the G.I. bill. More importantly (at least, it would be if you were younger), being honorably discharged from the service severs the link between you and your parents when it comes to applying for financial aid. Their income and savings is no longer taken into account when calculating your "need".
Malware implies malicious intent. This patch is just unintentionally buggy. Not the same thing.
More like 350 million / mile. Defense budget is about $700B and the border is ~2000 miles. Still; we're not going to tell the military to take a year off. The question is what is a reasonable amount to spend each and every year to "secure" the southern border. $50B? $100B? At what point does the cost outweigh the benefits? For $100B/year the U.S. could provide a $5000 yearly grant to every single student enrolled at university. Would that provide more bang-for-the-buck than spending $100B/year to secure the border? Or, for that matter, the federal govt. could refund $100B worth of taxes to low-income households. Or it could take the $100B and use it to incentivize work by juicing a program like the EITC. Etc. All of which would probably be better uses of that money.
How large? How much spent per-mile-guarded? What would be the cost to replicate that level of protection across 1954 miles? How would this address the problem of people entering legally and overstaying their visas?
Because they want to be more successful as a company and provide benefit to their shareholders, which is the goal of any corporation. Why does the domestic worker deserve to be more highly paid if he can't provide any additional value?
Foreign nationals pay U.S. income tax, but don't qualify for SS or Medicare. They also pay local property tax, local sales tax, etc. Whatever tax they pay is essentially "cake" to the IRS.
You're exaggerating. But, yes, I'm generally okay with most goods being imported if they can be produced less expensively abroad. I am generally not okay with huge swaths of the U.S. workforce being more or less unemployable. If we need to artificially subsidize low-wage labor in order to create demand at the bottom then so be it. Better that than have people not working and on the dole.
Our people are fat because we eat a lot of junk food and don't exercise. Learn a marketable skill and you don't have to work at Wal-Mart, Burger King or a call center.
So, in essence, you advocate no trade between nations except perhaps in raw materials and foodstuffs that can be grown in one geography but not another. Awesome.
Crossed legally then didn't leave when they were supposed to. Sort of like if I went to Canada on vacation then just never left.
Let's take this to its logical conclusion. Should "American" companies be required to purchase only American goods? Can't buy Lenovo; gotta buy Dell. Can't buy Toyota delivery vehicles; gotta buy GM. Etc. Should we allow foreign investors to buy stock in "American" companies? A corporation is "owned" by its shareholders, after all, and we want these to be truly "American" companies.
What other market restrictions would you impose?
So? If the govt. were to contact him about testifying against Atos I suspect he'd welcome the opportunity.