39 ms·

There's good/bad engineers everywhere. I have worked with students that earned less than $9/h and produced better quality work results than highly payed senior

by okl 5y ago

There's good/bad engineers everywhere. I have worked with students that earned less than $9/h and produced better quality work results than highly payed senior engineers. Nationality is also not a reason for high quality/sloppy work. However, I can accept that expecting to get the same quality work for a fraction of the cost should be viewed skeptically.

Victerius 5y ago
> Nationality is also not a reason of high quality/sloppy work. In some ways it can be, though. Poor countries tend to be poor for a myriad of reasons, but among these reasons should be the lack of a quality education system. Wealthy countries tend to have excellent school systems and universities, and a better trained student body, than poor countries. If poor countries had the education systems of wealthy countries, they wouldn't be poor, but the reason that can't sustain a system like that is precisely because they are poor.
- Sebguer 5y ago
  I mean, India was "poor" because it had 90 years of having everything of value stolen by the British Empire.
  - Victerius 5y ago
    That's one point of view, yes. Like I said, there are a lot of reasons why poor countries became poor, or failed to industrialize. Personally I don't think India would be America 2.0 (or China 2.0) had the Brits never colonized it. The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse. This particular argument is usually made without understanding history. India, the country, did not exist before British enslavement & colonisation. India’s diversity and size are comparable to the entire EU, with double the population. I don’t see why 75 years is /too long/. It's quite tiring to hear such naïve takes. I would really recommend reading some books…
    - ngc248 5y ago
      Its not about the partition of India, its about the colonization of India. This is like telling a person whose legs were cut off to grow a pair and start running. How many years would it take for a colonized country to develop. Does anyone have an answer? You can't show countries like singapore (too small and practically a one party country). South Korea (was a military dictatorship, homogeneous population).
- okl 5y ago
  It's a generalization. Regarding Indian SWEs in particular: I've worked with completely inept as well as very competent ones. Writing a headline that promotes a stereotype is not helpful.

by okl 5y ago

Victerius 5y ago

> Nationality is also not a reason of high quality/sloppy work. In some ways it can be, though. Poor countries tend to be poor for a myriad of reasons, but among these reasons should be the lack of a quality education system. Wealthy countries tend to have excellent school systems and universities, and a better trained student body, than poor countries. If poor countries had the education systems of wealthy countries, they wouldn't be poor, but the reason that can't sustain a system like that is precisely because they are poor.

Sebguer 5y ago
I mean, India was "poor" because it had 90 years of having everything of value stolen by the British Empire.
- Victerius 5y ago
  That's one point of view, yes. Like I said, there are a lot of reasons why poor countries became poor, or failed to industrialize. Personally I don't think India would be America 2.0 (or China 2.0) had the Brits never colonized it. The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > The partition of India happened 75 years ago, however. The British Empire is no longer a valid excuse. This particular argument is usually made without understanding history. India, the country, did not exist before British enslavement & colonisation. India’s diversity and size are comparable to the entire EU, with double the population. I don’t see why 75 years is /too long/. It's quite tiring to hear such naïve takes. I would really recommend reading some books…
  - ngc248 5y ago
    Its not about the partition of India, its about the colonization of India. This is like telling a person whose legs were cut off to grow a pair and start running. How many years would it take for a colonized country to develop. Does anyone have an answer? You can't show countries like singapore (too small and practically a one party country). South Korea (was a military dictatorship, homogeneous population).
okl 5y ago
It's a generalization. Regarding Indian SWEs in particular: I've worked with completely inept as well as very competent ones. Writing a headline that promotes a stereotype is not helpful.