3 ms·

We probably need a better definition of the "American Dream" though, because I think GP is largely right. For a couple decades now there has been a very simple

We probably need a better definition of the "American Dream" though, because I think GP is largely right. For a couple decades now there has been a very simple plan to execute that will result in probably 90% of successful adherents ending up with a 6 figure job: (1) Don't screw up high-school too badly. (2) Go to a college at least a few people have heard of and study STEM. (3) Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible. That's literally it. Follow this plan and you are now a professional making 6 figures. Most people wallowing in student debt wondering what happened to the American Dream didn't really consider the marketability of their planned education. With that said, I think going forward this is all more complicated. I wouldn't really know what to recommend to a current middle schooler, for instance, in a world where most white collar work will probably be done better by ChatGPT 8 in a handful of years. But for the past few decades before this point in time, this has all been way simpler than people think, provided they were willing to gut out the level of effort required for a STEM degree.

wincy 3y ago
Heck, I managed to screw up pretty much all of those things you listed and am making six figures in tech. A little ambition can get you a long way in this field.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    > And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc. Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs. Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money." I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.
wvenable 3y ago
> Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible. It's a good plan but if everyone did that we also wouldn't have a functional society. My daughter is an occupational therapist for children and works at a restaurant -- guess which is better for society and guess which pays better.
- whynotminot 3y ago
  I’m talking about a general plan to make money, not what’s good for society. We of course do not need more people working in adtech.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    You were talking about a general plan to make as single person money but not a whole generation of people and I don't think that's terribly relevant.
    - whynotminot 3y ago
      So the only relevant plans are for a whole generation of people? Buddy I don't think everyone can be rich.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        The American Dream isn't about everyone being rich. Or just one person being successful because they go into tech. The American reality is that a growing number of people are poor.
jltsiren 3y ago
15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead. It all changed with the Great Recession.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low 19 years was ago was the highest peak before the boom in the last decade, and even at the bottom of the short trough after that, more CS degrees were awarded that any time before the 5 years before the peak > CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead. Nope, business, finance, and humanities dropped—less sharply, except business—at the same time CS did; natural sciences, health, and medical science curved up at an accelerated rate (which continued even after CS picked back up).
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Degrees are a lagging indicator. The people who graduated in 2004 started their studies near the peak of the dot-com boom. The trough that followed went below the peak in the mid-80s, meaning that people thought CS less relevant in the mid-2000s than in the early 80s. And the ambitious STEM graduates (not business/finance graduates) went to finance, because that's where the good jobs were.

wincy 3y ago

Heck, I managed to screw up pretty much all of those things you listed and am making six figures in tech. A little ambition can get you a long way in this field.

whoknowsidont 3y ago
And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Do you truly believe that across entire societies there is limited mobility because of a lack of talent and drive, or is it more likely those societies are not setup with effective merit channels and proper reward mechanisms?
- whynotminot 3y ago
  > And what about everyone who did not end up in your position. Are you going to claim the moral and ethical victory, or is it more logical to apply the survivorship bias? Tech is overflowing with people who literally just did a few things right. And it's also renowned for welcoming in people with non-traditional backgrounds: people who don't have degrees but showed talent, people who have the wrong degrees but then went to bootcamps, Product Managers and designers with no technical background, etc. Survivorship bias implies a "most don't make it" result. I would argue that most who execute a reasonable plan do in fact make it fine in tech. There really aren't very many tech failure stories (outside of startup founders). If you "fail" at one place you'll probably get hired at another. Even if you're not good at it, there is no shortage of bad engineers who still have high-paying jobs. Now, not everyone wants to do tech. Not everyone enjoys that kind of work, or wants to put in the amount of effort required to get a STEM degree or go to a bootcamp. But then this is a different question--the question then is no longer "Is there still a reasonable path to the American Dream" and more "why won't the thing I've chosen to do irrespective of market conditions give me lots of money." I do think it's valid to ask why there aren't more routes to attaining success. Because I think in the past it felt like you could do a pretty vast array of things and still have a middle class lifestyle. But to say it doesn't exist is to ignore the very obvious routes to success that are still attainable.

wvenable 3y ago

> Graduate and go into Tech as soon as possible. It's a good plan but if everyone did that we also wouldn't have a functional society. My daughter is an occupational therapist for children and works at a restaurant -- guess which is better for society and guess which pays better.

whynotminot 3y ago
I’m talking about a general plan to make money, not what’s good for society. We of course do not need more people working in adtech.
- wvenable 3y ago
  You were talking about a general plan to make as single person money but not a whole generation of people and I don't think that's terribly relevant.
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    So the only relevant plans are for a whole generation of people? Buddy I don't think everyone can be rich.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      The American Dream isn't about everyone being rich. Or just one person being successful because they go into tech. The American reality is that a growing number of people are poor.

jltsiren 3y ago

15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead. It all changed with the Great Recession.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> 15-20 years ago, people generally thought that software jobs would be outsourced to low-cost countries. CS enrollments were low 19 years was ago was the highest peak before the boom in the last decade, and even at the bottom of the short trough after that, more CS degrees were awarded that any time before the 5 years before the peak > CS enrollments were low, because people didn't believe in the tech job market anymore. Ambitious STEM graduates who wanted a lucrative career went to finance instead. Nope, business, finance, and humanities dropped—less sharply, except business—at the same time CS did; natural sciences, health, and medical science curved up at an accelerated rate (which continued even after CS picked back up).
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Degrees are a lagging indicator. The people who graduated in 2004 started their studies near the peak of the dot-com boom. The trough that followed went below the peak in the mid-80s, meaning that people thought CS less relevant in the mid-2000s than in the early 80s. And the ambitious STEM graduates (not business/finance graduates) went to finance, because that's where the good jobs were.