3 ms·

The classist aspect of my own opinion is the implication that there are inherently classes of people: Those that can be good at software engineering and those t

The classist aspect of my own opinion is the implication that there are inherently classes of people: Those that can be good at software engineering and those that can't. There is a more egalitarian school of thought is that people are people, and if given the same opportunities, advantages, educational, financial, etc, the distinction between them is much MUCH MUCH smaller than what our current wealth gap in society seems to suggest. And that if we DID achieve such a society, then unions would be a net good because otherwise all work becomes essentially commodotized, and without the protection of Unions "high skilled" workers will not be paid well anymore.

newbie789 6y ago
I readily agree that there are often skill gaps in many professions or endeavors. I am an absolutely terrible when it comes to skateboarding and ice skating, and they're also not big aspirations of mine. I've opted to pursue other things that I enjoy, like problem solving, system administration and cost analysis! That being said, when I was a kid I didn't have a skateboard. I had an old DOS box to play on. Then Windows 95, then 98, ME/2000, XP etc. I'm fully aware of how good I am at what I do, but I genuinely have no objective/provable reason to believe that I'm of a "class" of person that's good with computer touching. I'd assume that I would need a machine that displays alternate realities in order to establish what "class" of person I should be assigned to, objectively. The idea of "classism" inherently (to most) relies heavily on stratification. There are (for a made-up example) The Indispensable, The Useful and The Expendable. In your definition of classism as applied to software engineering, are people born into these classes? If not, what process creates objective classification? How is it standardized and applied? And further, how does a group of software engineers, that doesn't include you, choosing to unionize hurt your prospects or experience?

newbie789 6y ago

I readily agree that there are often skill gaps in many professions or endeavors. I am an absolutely terrible when it comes to skateboarding and ice skating, and they're also not big aspirations of mine. I've opted to pursue other things that I enjoy, like problem solving, system administration and cost analysis! That being said, when I was a kid I didn't have a skateboard. I had an old DOS box to play on. Then Windows 95, then 98, ME/2000, XP etc. I'm fully aware of how good I am at what I do, but I genuinely have no objective/provable reason to believe that I'm of a "class" of person that's good with computer touching. I'd assume that I would need a machine that displays alternate realities in order to establish what "class" of person I should be assigned to, objectively. The idea of "classism" inherently (to most) relies heavily on stratification. There are (for a made-up example) The Indispensable, The Useful and The Expendable. In your definition of classism as applied to software engineering, are people born into these classes? If not, what process creates objective classification? How is it standardized and applied? And further, how does a group of software engineers, that doesn't include you, choosing to unionize hurt your prospects or experience?