3 ms·

man, that's about the most arrogant way you could put it. I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" Th

by lsc 15y ago

man, that's about the most arrogant way you could put it. I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" The thing is, how much money you make? usually has more to do with how much money you are involved with than anything else. Now, sure, if you are highly skilled, you have a better chance of scoring the jobs involving more money, but that doesn't weigh any heavier than connections, certainly after you pass the bar of basic competence, from what I've seen. People working for top-end consulting companies, from what I've seen, are not on average much more skilled than people working at ISPs or smaller companies. There is a 'shadow IT' industry where people do, essentially, our jobs for $10-$15/hr. Some of these people are quite good, (and often 'real IT' companies that pay real wages will snatch people out of this 'shadow IT' industry.) It's interesting to watch this happen; usually one person in the "shadow IT" industry will get a real job, and then the good people that one person knows? over the next few years they will get real jobs through this one person who got a job. I mean, you need a certain minimum level of skill to be considered, and beyond that, the better you are the more social bullshit people will overlook, but a lot of it really is 'who you know, not what you know.' I know a bit about this, because I worked my way up through the 'shadow IT' industry into 'real IT' and now I run a company that is somewhere in between 'shadow IT' and 'real IT' From what I've seen, the difference between working for peanuts in the 'shadow IT' industry and working for six figures in the 'real IT' industry, once you pass a certain minimum skill level, has more to do with who you know, and how confidently you can present at interviews than anything else. I can't tell you about several times where I was picked over people that I knew were vastly technically better than I was. As for the real question you are asking, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" well, there are two problems. first, there just isn't enough work to go around at minimum wage right now. Next, we live in a country where basic medical care is unaffordable on minimum wage. I think both problems would be solved if we could find something higher-value for low-skilled people to do. I mean, sure, education maybe could help? but personally, I doubt it. I didn't go to school, and economically speaking, I am doing much better than people I know who did. I think most of the wage/education correlation you see has to do with the correlation between going to college and having well-off parents. I mean, I've gotten a job through parental contacts (I mean, only one, but it was in the depth of the dot-com bust. I /really/ needed that job.) and almost all my other jobs through contacts that I earned myself; and yeah, I didn't go to college, but I had access to a computer, compilers, programming books, and training from a real live programmer and a real live sysadmin from the age of four on. I was privileged in the same way that most people who go to college are privileged.

mynameishere 15y ago
He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- lsc 15y ago
  >He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. right. as I said: >I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" It's a hard question. the thing is, unskilled or minimally-skilled (no job is completely unskilled) labor is worth something. the problem is that right now, there is a greater supply of unskilled labor than there is demand. But this has not always or even usually been the case. (I mean, there is also then the problem of living on unskilled living wages, which I think is a lower priority than just getting people jobs.) Maybe lowering the cost of unskilled labor would boost demand? I don't know. Most unskilled work is near the skilled workers, and eh, the cost of rent (or commuting) will put a natural 'minimum wage' in place. I think here in silicon valley, at least, that natural minimum wage is already rather higher than the state-mandated minimum wage. This, of course, varies a lot by location. The big problem with this is that wages for the unskilled have not been keeping up with inflation, while wages for the skilled have, and the skilled and unskilled are in competition for some resources, for example, housing within commuting distance of the city. >And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology. This makes a lot of assumptions; The first assumption you make is that the demand for unskilled or minimally skilled labor is significantly less than the supply. At the moment, this is true; but I don't think this is normal. Throughout most of history, most people supported themselves by doing minimally skilled labor. The next assumption is that the factors that attributes that allow a person to get and keep a skilled jobs are all genetic. Obviously, there are huge holes here. Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, though this is only weakly supported by the scientific evidence. Further, while I feel that this generalized intelligence may be dependent largely on genetic factors, the scientific support for that theory is also pretty weak. Even if I'm right on both counts, and generalized intelligence exists and it's largely genetic in nature, the correlation between wage and IQ is... weird. Earnings tend to increase with measured IQ up to a point, then they flatten. It could very well be that IQ correlates with something else that correlates to wages. My point is just that the evidence for unskilled workers being genetically unskilled is, well, not very strong.

by lsc 15y ago

mynameishere 15y ago

He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lsc 15y ago
>He's not talking about people doing programming work for low pay. He's talking about talentless people--of which there are many. I mean--people who would starve to death or become criminals if it wasn't for the social safety net. right. as I said: >I mean, at it's root, I think there is a valid question, "what do we do with unskilled laborers?" It's a hard question. the thing is, unskilled or minimally-skilled (no job is completely unskilled) labor is worth something. the problem is that right now, there is a greater supply of unskilled labor than there is demand. But this has not always or even usually been the case. (I mean, there is also then the problem of living on unskilled living wages, which I think is a lower priority than just getting people jobs.) Maybe lowering the cost of unskilled labor would boost demand? I don't know. Most unskilled work is near the skilled workers, and eh, the cost of rent (or commuting) will put a natural 'minimum wage' in place. I think here in silicon valley, at least, that natural minimum wage is already rather higher than the state-mandated minimum wage. This, of course, varies a lot by location. The big problem with this is that wages for the unskilled have not been keeping up with inflation, while wages for the skilled have, and the skilled and unskilled are in competition for some resources, for example, housing within commuting distance of the city. >And the solution is genetic engineering, an infant technology. This makes a lot of assumptions; The first assumption you make is that the demand for unskilled or minimally skilled labor is significantly less than the supply. At the moment, this is true; but I don't think this is normal. Throughout most of history, most people supported themselves by doing minimally skilled labor. The next assumption is that the factors that attributes that allow a person to get and keep a skilled jobs are all genetic. Obviously, there are huge holes here. Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as generalized intelligence, though this is only weakly supported by the scientific evidence. Further, while I feel that this generalized intelligence may be dependent largely on genetic factors, the scientific support for that theory is also pretty weak. Even if I'm right on both counts, and generalized intelligence exists and it's largely genetic in nature, the correlation between wage and IQ is... weird. Earnings tend to increase with measured IQ up to a point, then they flatten. It could very well be that IQ correlates with something else that correlates to wages. My point is just that the evidence for unskilled workers being genetically unskilled is, well, not very strong.