28 ms·

The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they

The CTO asked the CEO what happens if we train these people and they decide to leave? The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (and/or big enough to have a buffer against competitors and market fluctuations). Most can't (or at least think they can't), and so don't. There's a saying attributed to the late founder of an IT corporation in my country - "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of students". This may not be true in a useful fashion[0], but the sentiment feels accurate. The market seems to be showing that for most of the industry, fresh junior coders are at the equilibrium: skilled enough to do the job[1], plentiful enough to be cheap to hire - cheap enough that it makes more sense to push seniors away from coding and towards management (er, "mentoring new juniors"). In short, for the past decade or more, the market was strongly suggesting that it's cheaper to perpetually hire and replace juniors than to train up and retain expertise. -- [0] - However, with LLMs getting better than students, this has an interesting and more worrying corollary: "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of LLM spend". [1] - However shitty. But, as I said, most software is throwaway. Self-reinforcing loop? Probably. But it is what it is.
- GTP 2y ago
  This reminds me of a quote from dr. House. In one of the episodes with the smart girl that also studied mathematics (I don't remember her name), Cuddy said something like "You will figure this out, the sum of your IQs is over X". To which House replied, "The same applies to a group of four stupid people". Sometimes knowledge and experience aren't additive: if none of the students had a certain experience/knows a certain fact, the sum of the students will still not have that experience or not know the fact.
- lupire 2y ago
  I think it's more accurate to say that the company doesn't need as many people with 20+ years of experience but lower energy and as attention to commit to the company or demand higher pay, vs people with 5-20 years of experience and youthful energy and fewer external commitments. This is especially true now that senior employees have gotten more demanding about wanting to see theit children, which didn't happen at scale in the past.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I'd agree, except IMO the ranges are not 5-20 and 20+, but more like 1-10 and 10+.
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  > it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Hence, regulation.
  - learningstud 2y ago
    Regulations are even worse. Hayek explained how regulations are the main drivers of shitty companies.
    - Nullabillity 2y ago
      Worse how?
      - learningstud 2y ago
        To say the least, requiring FDA to approve drugs and medical doctors get licenses actually harm citizens. These claims might seem absurd at first glance, but please give Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" a read before contending. Hayek changed my whole life.
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. I rather see the problem in US culture: in many other countries switching the company every few years is considered to be a sign of low loyalty to the company, thus a red flag in a job application.
dartos 2y ago
> The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Then they both chuckle and say they’ll hire some other schmuck, it doesn’t matter bc they already got series A funding.
nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. The latter represents a mindset that's prevalent at a large portion of companies. Most companies aren't FANNGS or AAA Game Studios (w/e) looking for the best of the best, most companies are outsourcing a large portion of work and/or are speeding to the bottom of the quality race. Many aren't even in any position to judge competence, nurture it, or reward it. They just want "5 years experience" in whatever Cloud crap and Java thing.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. That's true, but by the same token, it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Companies are just following local gradient they perceive. Some can afford to train people - mostly ones without much competition (and/or big enough to have a buffer against competitors and market fluctuations). Most can't (or at least think they can't), and so don't. There's a saying attributed to the late founder of an IT corporation in my country - "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of students". This may not be true in a useful fashion[0], but the sentiment feels accurate. The market seems to be showing that for most of the industry, fresh junior coders are at the equilibrium: skilled enough to do the job[1], plentiful enough to be cheap to hire - cheap enough that it makes more sense to push seniors away from coding and towards management (er, "mentoring new juniors"). In short, for the past decade or more, the market was strongly suggesting that it's cheaper to perpetually hire and replace juniors than to train up and retain expertise. -- [0] - However, with LLMs getting better than students, this has an interesting and more worrying corollary: "any specialist can be replaced by a finite amount of LLM spend". [1] - However shitty. But, as I said, most software is throwaway. Self-reinforcing loop? Probably. But it is what it is.

GTP 2y ago
This reminds me of a quote from dr. House. In one of the episodes with the smart girl that also studied mathematics (I don't remember her name), Cuddy said something like "You will figure this out, the sum of your IQs is over X". To which House replied, "The same applies to a group of four stupid people". Sometimes knowledge and experience aren't additive: if none of the students had a certain experience/knows a certain fact, the sum of the students will still not have that experience or not know the fact.
lupire 2y ago
I think it's more accurate to say that the company doesn't need as many people with 20+ years of experience but lower energy and as attention to commit to the company or demand higher pay, vs people with 5-20 years of experience and youthful energy and fewer external commitments. This is especially true now that senior employees have gotten more demanding about wanting to see theit children, which didn't happen at scale in the past.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I'd agree, except IMO the ranges are not 5-20 and 20+, but more like 1-10 and 10+.
Nullabillity 2y ago
> it's also true the world is mostly made of shit companies. Hence, regulation.
- learningstud 2y ago
  Regulations are even worse. Hayek explained how regulations are the main drivers of shitty companies.
  - Nullabillity 2y ago
    Worse how?
    - learningstud 2y ago
      To say the least, requiring FDA to approve drugs and medical doctors get licenses actually harm citizens. These claims might seem absurd at first glance, but please give Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" a read before contending. Hayek changed my whole life.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. I rather see the problem in US culture: in many other countries switching the company every few years is considered to be a sign of low loyalty to the company, thus a red flag in a job application.

dartos 2y ago

> The CEO asked in reply what happens if we don't train the people and they decide to stay? Then they both chuckle and say they’ll hire some other schmuck, it doesn’t matter bc they already got series A funding.

nyarlathotep_ 2y ago

> Any reasonably smart company will invest in its employees. They should absolutely be training you to be better programmers while you are on the job. Only shit companies would refuse to do so. The latter represents a mindset that's prevalent at a large portion of companies. Most companies aren't FANNGS or AAA Game Studios (w/e) looking for the best of the best, most companies are outsourcing a large portion of work and/or are speeding to the bottom of the quality race. Many aren't even in any position to judge competence, nurture it, or reward it. They just want "5 years experience" in whatever Cloud crap and Java thing.