why are tech workers, my industry, so committed to this ideology? Do you think the tech layoffs of the last few years was a justified culling of lazy idiots?
I'm old enough to remember a time when people in tech were called 'wizards' and there was an air of mystery that surrounded the industry. A large subset of this group really seems to have bought into the idea that working in tech makes you 'special'. It does not. It's a skilled profession that is trainable and attainable by large swaths of the population. Working in tech does not make you special (Yes - you) and the tech industry is well overdue for quality of life improvements that other, organized, sectors have had for decades.
Back in 1978, when I worked as an electronics assembly technician, the company (Aph) decided to take us to a local electronics convention in Los Angeles. We showed up and got in line to get our steenkin' badges. I was in front, and was asked what my job title was.
As I was soldering boards together, I said "gnome". The clerk laughed, and said "no, seriously". I said "seriously, gnome". We argued a bit, and he capitulated, saying I was going to be sorry. The Aph guy behind me heard the debate, and asked for "wizard" as his job title. And so forth for all the employees. I think the owner of Aph asked for "grand wizard" or something like that.
Wandering around the convention floor, people would read our badges and laugh. It was all great fun.
After that, such job titles appeared on business cards, convention badges, etc.
I flatter myself in suspecting that it was I who started it!
When I was at Apple (before Steve returned, when it was going out of business), the employees got to pick their titles. Most were approved, but one woman wanted to be "Madonna of the File System", I think that was not. She did, however, know that code inside and out and deserved to get it.
Have you found the things you say to actually be true?
I've worked with people that were passionate about the art their entire life , and I've worked with on-job trained people in equivalent positions -- the difference in code quality/structure/logic is pretty telling between the two camps.
It certainly makes one think that either the skill set is 'special', or that we're really in the experimental trial phase of learning how to teach it to those otherwise uninterested.
I think people who entered the industry before 2010 (maybe even later) don't understand the current reality.
Previously, you were probably a dork in high school and mostly self taught for the love of technology. You might have gone through a prestigious academic CS program and cultivated a sense of superiority over the humanities and biz school kids. Outsourcing / off shoring was a thing but you had the innate protection of skin color and acculturation.
Today it's just another thing some people study because that's where the jobs are.
> "trainable and attainable by large swaths of the population"
Bold assertions requires evidence.
I mean sure we are not "wizards" , but I highly doubt "large swaths of population " can qualify to work in tech as you claim.
Tech remains be a highly desirable position specifically because it's difficult for an average person to fully grasp it. CS has one of the highest drop rates compared to other fields because people fundamentally have a hard time comprehending systems.
I never understand why our profession actively tries to undermine its own status compared to other fields. You never hear Lawyers going around telling people their profession is pointless and any average Joe can master it by taking a 6 week boot camp course.. or that they are "overpaid" for sending a single letter via email.
My pet theory is that the underlying nerd culture enables this due to our insecurities.
I bet this is also why we are not taken very seriously and lack accountability.
Honestly yes. I've been interviewing people that have gotten laid off and almost 75% of the time I'm thinking that they were probably chosen for layoffs due to low performance
> I've been interviewing people that have gotten laid off and almost 75% of the time I'm thinking that they were probably chosen for layoffs due to low performance
The people interviewing with you might be a biased subset of those that were laid off. I don’t mean anything about your company, which could be great or terrible, I have no idea. But I would expect the best performers to get new positions quickly through their networks and connections. You would not see these people replying to random offers, but it does not mean that they were not high-performers who were laid off.
> The people interviewing with you might be a biased subset of those that were laid off.
I suspect this to be very likely the case but I don't think it changes anything here. If we laid off people that were high performers and they got taken up in the job market quickly that means things are still healthy and we are still giving jobs to people that deserve jobs. A net neutral effect on the system as a whole.
The stragglers that can't find new jobs because they were laid off for low performance AND also are low performing interviewers are not useful to the system. Now they just kind of eat up some interviewing productivity but thats probably a net-positive for the entire job market as a whole.
The reason given is usually to cut costs, because the company claims to lack the cashflow or income to pay them. If the company can't afford it or doesn't believe they need it, they cut meat and bone and not just fat.
Look at the news organizations laying off reporters in large numbers. The news organizations' product suffers considerably.
