18 ms·

The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor c

by Hasu 2y ago

The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.

nsonha 2y ago
> so that prices for labor will go down wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    > After all, that's why the opposite situation: Collusion – where actors try to deliberately limit the supply of something, thereby causing price to rise – is illegal. Unless they’re a union.
  - muglug 2y ago
    The creation of computer science degree courses did not push down the price of software engineers.
    - flyingfences 2y ago
      The popularization of computer science degrees absolutely did push down the price of software engineers on average. The Big Names in SV are outliers; the rest of the industry employs us at wages far closer to other professions than they could a generation ago.
      - busterarm 2y ago
        This. People really do forget what it was like just before the peak of the dotcom bubble. There were companies that offered perks like a fully paid lease on a brand new Porsche 911. This wasn't just for the software engineers either. If you could breathe on a keyboard, you could land a high-paying job. Demand was that high. That era of tech minted way, way, way more millionaires on average.
        netdevnet 2y ago
        Surely, we can all agree that this is not sustainable. Companies basically throwing money at people that might not have the skills you need is a massive waste of money from the companies point of view.
        busterarm 2y ago
        Nobody was talking about whether or not it was sustainable, we're just comparing salary potential now to a generation ago. To the managerial class, tech people used to be literal wizards conjuring the impossible and now we're regular commoditized office labor like any other.
        netdevnet 2y ago
        Not sure if comparing salary potentials coming from two different socio-economic periods is useful or likely to mislead. Tech and people versed in it were not common (to people outside tech) and so the high salaries would reflect that. Now is not the case. It was always going to be temporary. As people become acquainted with tech people, the magic vanishes, you see the code behind the pixels. At the same time, tech people themselves did cause this by making tech easier to understand and manipulate. It's like a magician, the first few times, it is enticing and mysterious but after a while it becomes ordinary. Tech wizards are just like that.
        busterarm 2y ago
        People with wizard-like skills are out there but typically can't command the salaries they used to. Todays SWEs tend to know far less about how computers operate and how protocols work than in the old days.
    - silveraxe93 2y ago
      You're on a boat with a hole in the bottom. The water is rushing in. You grab a bucket and keep scooping water out, but not as fast as it rushes in. Throwing water out of boats do not make it more buoyant.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Nonsense. Almost everyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to get paid for creating more of that something. Diminishing the price is at best an unintended second-order effect.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - simplicio 2y ago
    I mean, that's the effect of increasing the supply, but I doubt its the motivation for most people.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      It is the motivation when the buyer tries to stimulate expansion of the supply, per the topic at hand, though.
pydry 2y ago
For the corporate donors, sure. Im sure the people running it were genuine though.
- csomar 2y ago
  > Im sure the people running it were genuine though. The people running it are getting paid to run it. It's a job. There are few people who do charity for charity but for most people I met working for non-profits, it was just a job for them. Doesn't mean they didn't love their work or did their best but at the end of the day they need a pay check like everybody else.
- mdgrech23 2y ago
  There was a bootcamp by me. They had a squeaky clean image but were getting big payouts from placing candidates in a local fortune 500. People get used to that money.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
> interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further It's good when a profit-driven industry decides to stop trying to cut expenses.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Also unlikely.
netdevnet 2y ago
> so that prices for labor will go down. I don't think that's the reason (it is a side effect though). What makes you think that?
- strikelaserclaw 2y ago
  because most of these companies are (run by?) sociopaths - as soon as low interest rates dried up DEI initiatives got slashed even though these companies are still making record profits.
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    Also depends on who's perspective you have in mind: the Girls in Tech founder's, or (most of) the (big) donors'
- randomdata 2y ago
  Why else would a buyer invest heavily in increasing the supply?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - RIMR 2y ago
    I like that we're not beating around the bush and admitting that businesses only donate money to causes they think will financially benefit them. That there are no altruistic actions by a business entity, everything is either an operational expense or an investment. This is 100% true in practice, so you're absolutely correct here. I just hope that we're in agreement that this is a bad state of affairs if businesses have completely written off doing the right thing in favor of profit 100% of the time. As a community of entrepreneurs, we should aim higher. If this is the only reason that tech companies invest in gender equality, then we need to find better advocates, or at least come prepared to counter the exploitation the current advocates have in mind.
    - 2y ago

by Hasu 2y ago

nsonha 2y ago

> so that prices for labor will go down wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.

randomdata 2y ago
Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  > After all, that's why the opposite situation: Collusion – where actors try to deliberately limit the supply of something, thereby causing price to rise – is illegal. Unless they’re a union.
- muglug 2y ago
  The creation of computer science degree courses did not push down the price of software engineers.
  - flyingfences 2y ago
    The popularization of computer science degrees absolutely did push down the price of software engineers on average. The Big Names in SV are outliers; the rest of the industry employs us at wages far closer to other professions than they could a generation ago.
    - busterarm 2y ago
      This. People really do forget what it was like just before the peak of the dotcom bubble. There were companies that offered perks like a fully paid lease on a brand new Porsche 911. This wasn't just for the software engineers either. If you could breathe on a keyboard, you could land a high-paying job. Demand was that high. That era of tech minted way, way, way more millionaires on average.
      - netdevnet 2y ago
        Surely, we can all agree that this is not sustainable. Companies basically throwing money at people that might not have the skills you need is a massive waste of money from the companies point of view.
        busterarm 2y ago
        Nobody was talking about whether or not it was sustainable, we're just comparing salary potential now to a generation ago. To the managerial class, tech people used to be literal wizards conjuring the impossible and now we're regular commoditized office labor like any other.
        netdevnet 2y ago
        Not sure if comparing salary potentials coming from two different socio-economic periods is useful or likely to mislead. Tech and people versed in it were not common (to people outside tech) and so the high salaries would reflect that. Now is not the case. It was always going to be temporary. As people become acquainted with tech people, the magic vanishes, you see the code behind the pixels. At the same time, tech people themselves did cause this by making tech easier to understand and manipulate. It's like a magician, the first few times, it is enticing and mysterious but after a while it becomes ordinary. Tech wizards are just like that.
        busterarm 2y ago
        People with wizard-like skills are out there but typically can't command the salaries they used to. Todays SWEs tend to know far less about how computers operate and how protocols work than in the old days.
  - silveraxe93 2y ago
    You're on a boat with a hole in the bottom. The water is rushing in. You grab a bucket and keep scooping water out, but not as fast as it rushes in. Throwing water out of boats do not make it more buoyant.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Nonsense. Almost everyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to get paid for creating more of that something. Diminishing the price is at best an unintended second-order effect.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    [flagged]
- simplicio 2y ago
  I mean, that's the effect of increasing the supply, but I doubt its the motivation for most people.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    It is the motivation when the buyer tries to stimulate expansion of the supply, per the topic at hand, though.

pydry 2y ago

For the corporate donors, sure. Im sure the people running it were genuine though.

csomar 2y ago
> Im sure the people running it were genuine though. The people running it are getting paid to run it. It's a job. There are few people who do charity for charity but for most people I met working for non-profits, it was just a job for them. Doesn't mean they didn't love their work or did their best but at the end of the day they need a pay check like everybody else.
mdgrech23 2y ago
There was a bootcamp by me. They had a squeaky clean image but were getting big payouts from placing candidates in a local fortune 500. People get used to that money.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

> interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further It's good when a profit-driven industry decides to stop trying to cut expenses.

autoexec 2y ago
Also unlikely.

netdevnet 2y ago

> so that prices for labor will go down. I don't think that's the reason (it is a side effect though). What makes you think that?

strikelaserclaw 2y ago
because most of these companies are (run by?) sociopaths - as soon as low interest rates dried up DEI initiatives got slashed even though these companies are still making record profits.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  Also depends on who's perspective you have in mind: the Girls in Tech founder's, or (most of) the (big) donors'
randomdata 2y ago
Why else would a buyer invest heavily in increasing the supply?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- RIMR 2y ago
  I like that we're not beating around the bush and admitting that businesses only donate money to causes they think will financially benefit them. That there are no altruistic actions by a business entity, everything is either an operational expense or an investment. This is 100% true in practice, so you're absolutely correct here. I just hope that we're in agreement that this is a bad state of affairs if businesses have completely written off doing the right thing in favor of profit 100% of the time. As a community of entrepreneurs, we should aim higher. If this is the only reason that tech companies invest in gender equality, then we need to find better advocates, or at least come prepared to counter the exploitation the current advocates have in mind.
  - 2y ago