2 ms·
As I understand your point, your trying to make it from the other side, as in "I negotiated this pay level so that I can afford to pay more for my house." It i
by ChuckMcM 6y ago
As I understand your point, your trying to make it from the other side, as in "I negotiated this pay level so that I can afford to pay more for my house."
It isn't an unreasonable argument. The author of the piece glosses over the level of preparation/skill and automated vs non-automated manufacturing[1] in their clothing worker argument. And of course the cost of goods for a shirt that cost $10 in labor vs one that cost $1 in labor won't retail for the same amount.
[1] Jobs that train "on the job" (erroneously called "low skilled") typically have a wider workforce to choose from and thus get more workers competing for jobs and thus and lower wages.
- greenrd 6y agoIn reality, these days, software engineers train on the job to a large extent too. If your employer uses a dozen different technologies - languages, frameworks, tracing frameworks, infrastructure providers - which isn't at all unreasonable these days - then good luck to them with finding someone who has solid experience in all 12, especially if one or two are a bit off the beaten track. So I don't think "trains on the job" is a good definition for low-skilled. Low-skilled means there is less to learn, IMO.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoFor me, when someone designs a system from first principles it feels like software engineering, and when someone implements business logic in a preexisting framework, it feels more like software assembly. We can both agree that there is a wide range of definitions for "software engineer."