5 ms·

I think IT is unique in that there was a time when you could sit down and teach yourself enough to get a decent job. That's becoming less true today and I'd exp

I think IT is unique in that there was a time when you could sit down and teach yourself enough to get a decent job. That's becoming less true today and I'd expect that trend to continue. That, I think, is what this article is most concerned about: once people make it up into this fabled 20%, they (consciously or not) work to change the system in such a way that they cement their advantage for themselves and their children. It's easy to imagine it happening; if your parents pay for an expensive education and you work hard for your degree, when you end up in the field it must seem obvious that those people from the more expensive schools are simply better prepared. Now that we're talking about it, not only professionally but even socially. And they're just a better "fit" with the rest of the team... Things become more stratified and it becomes more difficult to enter the field if you're different. I found it interesting that the author found this to be uniquely American, that in the UK people found it much easier to admit the ways in which being wealthy was to their benefit. I had always thought it was like this everywhere.

thatwebdude 9y ago
I agree with this statement, but the first one: > I think IT is unique in that there was a time when you could sit down and teach yourself enough to get a decent job. I think can be true, but many aspects of IT are skills-based honestly. And there will always be the ability to self-teach skills-based work. Some of this skill-based work is just well-paying right now. Because everyone needs it for something.
smsm42 9y ago
> That's becoming less true today and I'd expect that trend to continue. How so? I can't think of anything I know about IT and my profession that I couldn't learn from open free sources or experience. I don't say time spent acquiring degree was wasted on me, no, there are other advantages and I am not sure I could manage to gain that knowledge without the structure of the degree and peer support and so on. But it is possible to do it, at least all the means are around. > that in the UK people found it much easier to admit the ways in which being wealthy was to their benefit. Maybe in UK there's no consistent narrative that wealthy (and in general any well-to-do, societally adjusted) people are somehow all evil and at fault about anything wrong with the world, constantly scheming to oppress everybody else, and need to be constantly attacked, derided and shamed? No idea, I am not familiar with UK narratives, but I certainly know in some parts of the US such narrative is pretty much the default.
- JCzynski 9y ago
  >How so? I can't think of anything I know about IT and my profession that I couldn't learn from open free sources or experience. That's irrelevant to the claim being made. It's not education or knowledge that's inaccessible to lower classes, it's the stuff around it. It's nearly impossible to judge just knowledge and skills without any context, and even if you could manage it, it would be an unwise move leading to chaotic work environments. But it's also nearly impossible to judge "would this person be disruptive?" without also sneaking in strongly-class-biased culture fit screening, even if you explicitly prohibit doing so. (Also, having the time to learn and knowledge of where to go to start learning are class biased. The founding population of tech was a different social community from previous power but still heavily upper-middle-class. (I'd guess tech workers 1990-2010 were about 60% from the second quintile and 80% in the 2nd-4th deciles.) They're skills that anyone could learn, but only in theory; in practice they're skills that anyone with the opportunity can learn, and the opportunity is not evenly distributed.)
- cmiles74 9y ago
  I disagree that there is some kind of anti-wealthy narrative that characterizes the rich as evil or at fault for the state of the nation and world. I believe there is a great deal of anti-corporate sentiment and, in my opinion, it is well deserved. But in terms of individual people who are rich, they seem as well loved and esteemed as ever. If you have some compelling articles to the contrary, I would be interested to read them. During the past election, much was made of the wealth of the candidates. That didn't strike me as very effective... What did seem to strike a chord was the idea that some of the wealthy aren't paying taxes and that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > I believe there is a great deal of anti-corporate sentiment That's even weirder because "corporation" is nothing but a name that we call group of people doing some stuff together for efficiency. There are more legal aspects to it, but it's rarely what is discussed in this context. How evil is that instead of each of us making our own furniture we have people from IKEA corporation to do it for us! Makes no sense to me. > During the past election, much was made of the wealth of the candidates. Well, it's a convenient target. If the candidate has no money, obviously it's a loser and can't be trusted with a trillion size economy. If they do have money, obviously it was made by some kind of shady deals and they don't understand the plea of the common man. There's always something to attack here. > the idea that some of the wealthy aren't paying taxes and that sounds entirely reasonable to me. Overwhelming majority of the rich pay taxes, and, moreover, if taken together with upper middle class, they pay most of the taxes. If we distributed political influence according to how much taxes the person paid, the richest 1% would have 40% of all the influence, the bottom 95% would have another 40% and the middle would have remaining 20%. The rich are paying tons of taxes. Highest quintile has about 69% of overall tax burden. The next one has another about 20%. [1] This BTW undercounts corporate and other business taxes, which are not personally paid by "the rich", but paid by enterprises they own and thus diminish their income. If you count those too, the picture would be even more tilted towards most of the taxes being paid by "the rich". Of course, that doesn't mean everybody pays the same - through some scheming, or good timing, or both, some persons may pay low marginal tax, or even for some time no tax at all (e.g. when suffering a lot of losses, but still remaining rich), or may enjoy special treatment from the government for their enterprises, including reduced tax burden. But if we look at the overall picture, it stays the same. If you take it as "somewhere, in some moment of time, I can find a rich person that doesn't pay a lot of taxes" - that would be true. If you take it as a systematic occurrence among rich people - it is completely false. And, of course, any recent usage of this meme were complete fabrications - Romney did pay taxes, so did Trump. So I'm not sure - which part sounds "entirely reasonable"? [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

thatwebdude 9y ago

I agree with this statement, but the first one: > I think IT is unique in that there was a time when you could sit down and teach yourself enough to get a decent job. I think can be true, but many aspects of IT are skills-based honestly. And there will always be the ability to self-teach skills-based work. Some of this skill-based work is just well-paying right now. Because everyone needs it for something.

smsm42 9y ago

> That's becoming less true today and I'd expect that trend to continue. How so? I can't think of anything I know about IT and my profession that I couldn't learn from open free sources or experience. I don't say time spent acquiring degree was wasted on me, no, there are other advantages and I am not sure I could manage to gain that knowledge without the structure of the degree and peer support and so on. But it is possible to do it, at least all the means are around. > that in the UK people found it much easier to admit the ways in which being wealthy was to their benefit. Maybe in UK there's no consistent narrative that wealthy (and in general any well-to-do, societally adjusted) people are somehow all evil and at fault about anything wrong with the world, constantly scheming to oppress everybody else, and need to be constantly attacked, derided and shamed? No idea, I am not familiar with UK narratives, but I certainly know in some parts of the US such narrative is pretty much the default.

JCzynski 9y ago
>How so? I can't think of anything I know about IT and my profession that I couldn't learn from open free sources or experience. That's irrelevant to the claim being made. It's not education or knowledge that's inaccessible to lower classes, it's the stuff around it. It's nearly impossible to judge just knowledge and skills without any context, and even if you could manage it, it would be an unwise move leading to chaotic work environments. But it's also nearly impossible to judge "would this person be disruptive?" without also sneaking in strongly-class-biased culture fit screening, even if you explicitly prohibit doing so. (Also, having the time to learn and knowledge of where to go to start learning are class biased. The founding population of tech was a different social community from previous power but still heavily upper-middle-class. (I'd guess tech workers 1990-2010 were about 60% from the second quintile and 80% in the 2nd-4th deciles.) They're skills that anyone could learn, but only in theory; in practice they're skills that anyone with the opportunity can learn, and the opportunity is not evenly distributed.)
cmiles74 9y ago
I disagree that there is some kind of anti-wealthy narrative that characterizes the rich as evil or at fault for the state of the nation and world. I believe there is a great deal of anti-corporate sentiment and, in my opinion, it is well deserved. But in terms of individual people who are rich, they seem as well loved and esteemed as ever. If you have some compelling articles to the contrary, I would be interested to read them. During the past election, much was made of the wealth of the candidates. That didn't strike me as very effective... What did seem to strike a chord was the idea that some of the wealthy aren't paying taxes and that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > I believe there is a great deal of anti-corporate sentiment That's even weirder because "corporation" is nothing but a name that we call group of people doing some stuff together for efficiency. There are more legal aspects to it, but it's rarely what is discussed in this context. How evil is that instead of each of us making our own furniture we have people from IKEA corporation to do it for us! Makes no sense to me. > During the past election, much was made of the wealth of the candidates. Well, it's a convenient target. If the candidate has no money, obviously it's a loser and can't be trusted with a trillion size economy. If they do have money, obviously it was made by some kind of shady deals and they don't understand the plea of the common man. There's always something to attack here. > the idea that some of the wealthy aren't paying taxes and that sounds entirely reasonable to me. Overwhelming majority of the rich pay taxes, and, moreover, if taken together with upper middle class, they pay most of the taxes. If we distributed political influence according to how much taxes the person paid, the richest 1% would have 40% of all the influence, the bottom 95% would have another 40% and the middle would have remaining 20%. The rich are paying tons of taxes. Highest quintile has about 69% of overall tax burden. The next one has another about 20%. [1] This BTW undercounts corporate and other business taxes, which are not personally paid by "the rich", but paid by enterprises they own and thus diminish their income. If you count those too, the picture would be even more tilted towards most of the taxes being paid by "the rich". Of course, that doesn't mean everybody pays the same - through some scheming, or good timing, or both, some persons may pay low marginal tax, or even for some time no tax at all (e.g. when suffering a lot of losses, but still remaining rich), or may enjoy special treatment from the government for their enterprises, including reduced tax burden. But if we look at the overall picture, it stays the same. If you take it as "somewhere, in some moment of time, I can find a rich person that doesn't pay a lot of taxes" - that would be true. If you take it as a systematic occurrence among rich people - it is completely false. And, of course, any recent usage of this meme were complete fabrications - Romney did pay taxes, so did Trump. So I'm not sure - which part sounds "entirely reasonable"? [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440