3 ms·
I see this as a result of two problems: 1: We expect everything to be perfectly packaged and ready to go, including people. We aren't interested in investing i
by rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I see this as a result of two problems:
1: We expect everything to be perfectly packaged and ready to go, including people. We aren't interested in investing in people. A cog is a cog.
2: Older programmers are more expensive (see: skilled), and are more likely to have families or obligations that prevent their hustle (see: working bullshit hours for free).
- icefox 11y agoDepends on the company. My current company does invest in developers. Especially at the junior level where there is a lot to teach, but at all the levels effort and investment is made in individuals. From books, classes, pair programming, etc. Taking the long outlook and investing in individuals knowing that the payoff is going to be in a few years works from what I have seen.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoI agree, I just think it will take time for it to catch on among the private sphere. I work now in higher Ed and the culture is much different: surprise, surprise, an Ivy League university likes its employees learning. I also work with a lot of non-career programmers, none of which have Ivy degrees (nor do I). Ofc most companies can't hold a candle to these educational resources, but if they choose to invest in their staff, like you say, it does work.