4 ms·

Well, as someone working in tech and making good money outside the valley I think the SF-cost-of-living-problem is a bit of a misnomer for the wider tech commun

Well, as someone working in tech and making good money outside the valley I think the SF-cost-of-living-problem is a bit of a misnomer for the wider tech community. People all over the world are getting big rich off of tech. And I think the inundation of underqualified is just the cost of sorting out the good people. I've personally hired two people who never went to college. And I know a lot of people with unrelated and/or BS-only degrees who went big. You can get a laptop that does fine for $300 + internetCost. Getting an education that could earn 6-figures if you're good at it has never been easier. Maybe not perfect, but never easier.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> Well, as someone working in tech and making good money outside the valley I think the SF-cost-of-living-problem is a bit of a misnomer for the wider tech community. People all over the world are getting big rich off of tech. Yes, but they are the exception. > And I think the inundation of underqualified is just the cost of sorting out the good people. Which this industry has consistently shown it is horrible at. > I've personally hired two people who never went to college. That doesn't say anything about how the larger industry behaves. > And I know a lot of people with unrelated and/or BS-only degrees who went big. A degree is still enough of a signal to get you past screens that one with no degree can't. > You can get a laptop that does fine for $300 + internetCost. Getting an education that could earn 6-figures if you're good at it has never been easier. "Could" being the opportune word. In most of the country the median salary for a software engineer with a degree and 10 years experience isn't six figures. If you are trying to sell people the idea that they are going to make $100,000/year after a few months of Coursera courses on a $300 laptop you are selling a pipe dream.
- DickingAround 11y ago
  I don't substantially disagree with you. I think we're making different points. What I'm trying to make the case for is that it is a meritocracy. Not that everyone has what it takes to deliver. The article claims that it's not actually a meritocracy; that the people who get ahead don't have unusual skills. I think they do, or at least more so than at any point in the past or other industries. Maybe they got them from upbringing or DNA or their parent's ability to have time off to teach them personally or whatever. But when most programmers make a lot of money it's because they were good at it.

vonmoltke 11y ago

> Well, as someone working in tech and making good money outside the valley I think the SF-cost-of-living-problem is a bit of a misnomer for the wider tech community. People all over the world are getting big rich off of tech. Yes, but they are the exception. > And I think the inundation of underqualified is just the cost of sorting out the good people. Which this industry has consistently shown it is horrible at. > I've personally hired two people who never went to college. That doesn't say anything about how the larger industry behaves. > And I know a lot of people with unrelated and/or BS-only degrees who went big. A degree is still enough of a signal to get you past screens that one with no degree can't. > You can get a laptop that does fine for $300 + internetCost. Getting an education that could earn 6-figures if you're good at it has never been easier. "Could" being the opportune word. In most of the country the median salary for a software engineer with a degree and 10 years experience isn't six figures. If you are trying to sell people the idea that they are going to make $100,000/year after a few months of Coursera courses on a $300 laptop you are selling a pipe dream.

DickingAround 11y ago
I don't substantially disagree with you. I think we're making different points. What I'm trying to make the case for is that it is a meritocracy. Not that everyone has what it takes to deliver. The article claims that it's not actually a meritocracy; that the people who get ahead don't have unusual skills. I think they do, or at least more so than at any point in the past or other industries. Maybe they got them from upbringing or DNA or their parent's ability to have time off to teach them personally or whatever. But when most programmers make a lot of money it's because they were good at it.