2 ms·

This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremark

This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. Everything has trade-offs.

rayiner 13y ago
I know that $150k+ straight out of college is the norm on this board, but "unremarkable" "average coding jobs" are nonetheless a solid foundation for a middle class life. Just 1/3 that amount is enough to pull a family of four out of the "low-income" category, a category that encompasses the families of 87% of students in Chicago public schools.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. Being a "9-to-5 enterprise monkey" means having a job, and given the demographics of the pool here, if many get to that state as a result of this effort, its a big win. > There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. And it would be great if Americans from low income backgrounds were able to get the skills to do them rather being dependent on kinds of physical labor that are easily automated -- which likely means unemployment. > The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. I don't see how this follows. Making learning basic programming skills part of compulsory education might (though I don't see it necessary that it would) increase the number or proportion of people choosing to enter the programming profession that have a fairly low ceiling on how far they could go in the profession, but even if it did why would that be bad? Where is the evidence for any kind of dilution that really is a "natural consequence" of this being harmful in any way. > Everything has trade-offs. Its actually quite possible for some options to be strictly superior to others. But, sure, most real choices have some degree of trade-offs. But where is the argument -- not just the bare assertions -- that the trade-offs here aren't desirable?

rayiner 13y ago

I know that $150k+ straight out of college is the norm on this board, but "unremarkable" "average coding jobs" are nonetheless a solid foundation for a middle class life. Just 1/3 that amount is enough to pull a family of four out of the "low-income" category, a category that encompasses the families of 87% of students in Chicago public schools.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. Being a "9-to-5 enterprise monkey" means having a job, and given the demographics of the pool here, if many get to that state as a result of this effort, its a big win. > There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. And it would be great if Americans from low income backgrounds were able to get the skills to do them rather being dependent on kinds of physical labor that are easily automated -- which likely means unemployment. > The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. I don't see how this follows. Making learning basic programming skills part of compulsory education might (though I don't see it necessary that it would) increase the number or proportion of people choosing to enter the programming profession that have a fairly low ceiling on how far they could go in the profession, but even if it did why would that be bad? Where is the evidence for any kind of dilution that really is a "natural consequence" of this being harmful in any way. > Everything has trade-offs. Its actually quite possible for some options to be strictly superior to others. But, sure, most real choices have some degree of trade-offs. But where is the argument -- not just the bare assertions -- that the trade-offs here aren't desirable?