4 ms·

I guess other than wanting a continuing supply of in-country tech's to hire (as others have touched on), it sort of comes back to the old "give a man a fish" vs

I guess other than wanting a continuing supply of in-country tech's to hire (as others have touched on), it sort of comes back to the old "give a man a fish" vs "teach him to fish" shenanigans. They could hire a bunch of janitors, who are already employed anyway, and essentially just transfer that $1b directly into their pockets but at the end of the day they're still going to be janitors. By investing that some amount of money into education though, they're enabling them to go off and achieve something more meaningful that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to do.

dvanduzer 9y ago
If they brought that support staff in-house, wouldn't it be easier to teach them how to fish?
- synicalx 9y ago
  Possibly, but I wouldn't think it's likely that every janitor is going to want to be a programmer. Whereas if you invest money in a school that teaches programming, there's a good chance that most of the people attending that school will want to be a programmer. But you make a good point though, with even a fraction of that budget + maybe a little time investment from their staff, they could create some great opportunities for their otherwise non-technical employees.
baursak 9y ago
This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay. It might be true, but in my opinion an average janitor is more beneficial to society than an average programmer. More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!
- losteric 9y ago
  Direct vs indirect utility. Janitors are directly beneficial to a small number of people. The typical Google engineering is indirectly and marginally beneficial to millions.
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    Is that what we tell ourselves, "I'm making a difference"?
    - losteric 9y ago
      It might not be positive, but we are making a difference
      - amigoingtodie 9y ago
        True.
- ENGNR 9y ago
  The janitor's salary goes up, and the incentive to automate increases. It's all win really assuming knowledge work is more enjoyable than being a janitor
- synicalx 9y ago
  > More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor! That is a good point, but I think it comes down to the barrier to entry - it's easier to become a janitor than it is to become a programmer so one could probably assume there's always going to be a steady stream of people who are willing to do janitorial work. > This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay It does unfortunately. Given some of the awful stuff janitors have to deal I believe they're deserving of higher pay, but unfortunately the job market doesn't agree with me on that.

dvanduzer 9y ago

If they brought that support staff in-house, wouldn't it be easier to teach them how to fish?

synicalx 9y ago
Possibly, but I wouldn't think it's likely that every janitor is going to want to be a programmer. Whereas if you invest money in a school that teaches programming, there's a good chance that most of the people attending that school will want to be a programmer. But you make a good point though, with even a fraction of that budget + maybe a little time investment from their staff, they could create some great opportunities for their otherwise non-technical employees.

baursak 9y ago

This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay. It might be true, but in my opinion an average janitor is more beneficial to society than an average programmer. More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor!

losteric 9y ago
Direct vs indirect utility. Janitors are directly beneficial to a small number of people. The typical Google engineering is indirectly and marginally beneficial to millions.
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  Is that what we tell ourselves, "I'm making a difference"?
  - losteric 9y ago
    It might not be positive, but we are making a difference
    - amigoingtodie 9y ago
      True.
ENGNR 9y ago
The janitor's salary goes up, and the incentive to automate increases. It's all win really assuming knowledge work is more enjoyable than being a janitor
synicalx 9y ago
> More to the point though, what happens when a janitor learns to code and gets a coding job? You still need a janitor! That is a good point, but I think it comes down to the barrier to entry - it's easier to become a janitor than it is to become a programmer so one could probably assume there's always going to be a steady stream of people who are willing to do janitorial work. > This implies that janitor is an inherently inferior job that deserves lower pay It does unfortunately. Given some of the awful stuff janitors have to deal I believe they're deserving of higher pay, but unfortunately the job market doesn't agree with me on that.