The world economy is heading towards a black hole unless bold action taken - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21530986 <comment><USER3> "Bold" action by the politicians and the central banks created much of the current mess. If we'd just cleared the pipes by letting the banks fail, recapitalizing new banks, and basically rebooting the financial system, we'd be much further along.

Instead, we got bailouts and crony capitalism and ad hoc intervention, and today the global system is in many ways in worse shape now than in 2008. (Banking is more concentrated and national balance sheets are a mess from the bailouts)

<comment><USER4> _letting the banks fail, recapitalizing new banks, and basically rebooting the financial system_

Please tell us how that works in practice rather than in theory. I really, _really_ want to know how you just 'reboot' the financial system without massive disruption to retail banking or the payments system. How do you 're'capitalize a new bank? If you just mean create new banks, who is running these banks? I mean, I'd like to have seen a complete reboot of the system as well, but it looks like the sort of thing that is much easier said than actually done. If you're going to mention Sweden, provide specifics of how long it took and how much capital was involved.

<comment><USER5> Contrary to what some pundits would like you to believe, this is not new ground. A real estate bubble followed by a balance sheet recession has happened in at least 2 other places before: Sweden in 1992 and Japan in 1991. Different choices in these countries led to different outcomes.

In Sweden, the government demanded steep losses from equity holders before it took over a large part of the financial system (unlike US officials, the Swedish government officials were not afraid to use their superior bargaining position to get an excellent deal for the government). The upfront cost for recapitalization was 4% of GDP, the net cost in the end was less than 2% of GDP (based on different computation methods some even say 0%). Following asset sales in 1995, the Bank Support Authority went into a dormant role in 1996, 4 years after the crisis.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23k...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html)

Japan handled things differently and ended up with debt totaling 200% of GDP. See this excellent YouTube video from economist Richard Koo that explains the Japanese experience:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaNxAzLKegU>

<comment><USER4> I don't listen to media pundits. I'm asking the grandparent poster for specifics of how s/he intends a reboot of the entire financial sector because I think this is actually a rather hard problem. I have been through a real estate bubble followed by a recession before (in the UK, at the same time as the Swedish one). I think there are some definite upsides to the Swedish approach, but the people who keep bringing it up seem to overlook the fact that Sweden is a) small - <10 million people, not much more than NYC and b) one of the highest-taxed economies in the world, with tax revenues equal to almost 50% of GDP, and c) is regulated out the yin-yang. The idea that we can just lift one bit of regulatory policy from there, apply it to our financial sector, and call our problem solved is not just misguided, it's flat-out magical thinking.

<comment><USER6> Exactly.

Economic/political discussions on HN are painful because people who are capable of generating meaningful insights when the topic is technical are reduced to wishful thinking and trotting out tired, simplistic misrepresentations of economics.

Let the country's biggest banks become insolvent, then "reboot" them in a week? When you start proposing that the world's largest economy model itself on theoretical notions only tested in a country 3% it's size, ideologically oriented in a completely different direction, and founded on a radically different social contract, then you are not arguing anymore.

It's not an argument, in the sense of debate and intellectual exchange, it's dogma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All HN threads attract posts with excess ratios of certainty to knowledge.

On the technical stuff, the excesses are met with really knowledgeable rebuttal, driving up the denominator. People are afraid of embarrassment, so they write more carefully, driving down the numerator. The dynamic drives the overall ratio to something like one.

On economics, everyone is really sure the other guy is crazy. They make posts that drive up the numerator, as that's the only way to get heard, and drive down the denominator, as they must address the other guy, whether they know anything about the matter or not. The average blows out hyperbolically -- if there's a limit, the signal / noise drops too low for even the craziest people before that limit is approached.

It's kind of remarkable to see how quickly those ratios go to their logical endpoints.

<comment><USER8> You say that with a lot of certainty. You must be crazy.

Jokes aside, you have a good point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with OstiaAntica. This Economist article is a thinly veiled call for more debt and more inflationary spending. Who stands in the way of "recovery" ? The obstinate Germans (who learned the lesson of hyperinflation last century) with the only sound Euro economy, i.e. they will be paying for the bailouts. In the USA its the Tea Party and the few Republicans with a spine who recognize that the problem is the massive debt and adding to it is only going to delay the inevitable and make it worse. The bold action (that will never happen) is to let the zombie banks and businesses fail, then pickup the pieces and start over. It won't happen and everyone had better prepare for high, if not, hyper-inflation because politically that is the road we are on.

<comment><USER10> Can you please explain your theory of how massive cuts to government and the ensuing massive layoffs of government workers, and the government buying less stuff from businesses, is going to fix the economy? Please take into account in your explanation that the US is able to borrow at record low rates right now.

<comment><USER11> And also note that inflation is next to non existent right now. A few years of 3% inflation would do more to fix the housing market than all government assistance put together at this point in time.

PS: I still think we should cut government spending by around 30% AND remove the home mortgage tax deduction but both of those need to be slow changes or they are going to cause a great deal of harm.

<comment><USER12> Removing the home mortgage tax deduction will cause the price of houses to drop, because no one would be able to afford the more expensive houses anymore, and they would have to drop the price to make them affordable.

The only thing that the tax deduction did was to raise the price of houses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Let me guess: the "bold action" they want is to throw a few more trillions at bank shareholders and prodigal borrowers.

No thanks. We would be better off to head straight through the black hole, full speed ahead. It will be painful for a few years but we'll come through the other side with cleaner balance sheets and sustainable government budgets.

</comment><comment><USER14> They _almost_ made it the entire article without throwing in a bit of Both Sides Do It nonsense.

"In America the Republicans are guilty of outrageous obstructionism and misleading simplification, while Mr Obama has favoured class warfare over fiscal leadership."

<comment><USER15> Obama class warfare? No sign of it. I think Obama's a great human being, but he's a essentially a conservative by any sane standard. With the economic stance he holds now, he'd have been a Republican in 1970 (a time in which Republicans were not all horrible).

<comment><USER16> If Obama is your idea of a Republican, I don't want your idea of a Democrat in office...ever.

<comment><USER17> The horror... you might just end up like Germany or France.

<comment><USER16> 70%+ taxes, no thanks. I thought this was HN, not reddit...

<comment><USER14> According to Wikipedia, the German and French personal tax rates are in the area of 50%:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world>

<comment><USER16> This doesn't include VAT and increased taxes in other areas, so personal income tax might be 50%, but you are actually paying a much higher rate.

<comment><USER17> You're making numbers up and don't actually know what the aggregate taxes for an average consumer in France, Germany and the US are.

<comment><USER16> ..and you are basing an individuals total tax rate based on income tax alone, which doesn't account for the many other taxes that someone has to pay.

I suppose if you made money, didn't live in a house, and didn't spend your money in any way, your tax rate would be 50% in France. This just isn't the case for the average consumer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That article has almost zero factual content to back up it's assertions. This kind of nonsensical ravings really grate me. Don't write something like 'witness the increasingly dark economic backdrop' or 'America's economy is still limping along' without some hard numbers. This article attempts to support those statements with broad general commentary like 'summer slump in share prices and consumer confidence suggest future spending will weaken further'...that's not proof, that's an interpretation of data that the author isn't sharing.

The worst part about that article is that the meatiest statement 'That could change if Congress came to its senses, passed Barack Obama's jobs plan and agreed on a medium-term deficit-reduction deal by November' is dead on, but delivered in such a clumsy manner it's almost a throwaway piece.

<comment><USER19> This is an online version of an article in the Leaders section of the Economist magazine. The articles in that section are mostly short summaries of topics discussed in greater detail in the relevant subsections of the issue.

For instance, the same print issue as this 'nonsensical raving' has a much more detailed summary of the euro crisis in the Briefings section if you're looking for the gory details alluded to in the leader[1].

[1]<http://www.economist.com/node/21530960>

<comment><USER20> Then for future reference, link to that article. The one posted was a gigantic waste of time and had no information.

<comment><USER21> We should write a filter for HN that makes it impossible to submit articles from the Leaders section!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Although the _Economist_ tends to oscillate between sanguinity and (mild) hyperbole, this is as close to panicked as I have seen it in a decade. Situation downgraded from 'worrying' to 'grave.'

</comment><comment><USER20> This article has no depth and is not worth discussing.

Here are two quotes taken from the article:

1) "That could change if Congress came to its senses, passed Barack Obama's jobs plan and agreed on a medium-term deficit-reduction deal by November." - Author favors Obama's plan and says it will fix the problem.

2)"while Mr Obama has favoured class warfare over fiscal leadership." - <USER2> refers to the exact same policy, but now calls it favoured class warfare.

This has a ton of link bate and zero information anyone actually cares about.

</comment><comment><USER22> I am continuously amused by people vehemently arguing about topics they have almost no expertise in and thinking whatever insane batshit theory they have is better than a PhD doctorate's advice.

<comment><USER23> When it comes to economics, you can find a set of PhDs to support whatever wild theory you happen to fancy.

<comment><USER24> The great quote "Economists have successfully predicted seven out of the last three recessions".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "That could change if Congress came to its senses, passed Barack Obama's jobs plan"

The jobs plan doesn't even have enough Democratic support to pass the Senate, so the likelihood of it making it through both houses is nil. It's more of a political plan than an economic one.

I also think that we have limited capability to make expedient investments in infrastructure with a positive ROI. Take a look at the Columbia River Crossing project between Oregon and Washington states - six years after project inception, the final environmental impact study still hasn't been released. Construction would start in 2013 at the earliest and is estimated to take 5-7 years. Time lines like that are common with large infrastructure projects in the US.

</comment><comment><USER26> When discussing "bold action" to save the economy, we should really be reevaluating the incentives of the traders on Wall Street. This makes me think of Mark Cuban's article "What Business is Wall Street In?"

[http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/08/what-business-is-wall- str...](http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/08/what-business-is-wall-street-in-2/)

These traders on Wall Street have little interest in creating capital for the companies that stem innovation. Their main incentive is profit, even if it means making money off economic downswings. We need to put them back on the proper track via taxes or a complete restructuring of the capital gains system.

</comment><comment><USER27> My god this article is spot on:

"If Democrats and Republicans fail to hash out a compromise on the deficit, draconian spending cuts will follow in 2013. For all the tirades against the Europeans, America's economy risks being pushed into recession by its own fiscal policy—and by the fact that both parties are more interested in positioning themselves for the 2012 elections than in reaching the compromises needed to steer away from that hazardous course."

Says it all right there.

</comment><comment><USER28> _building a firewall around illiquid but solvent countries like Italy_

I'm not entirely sure I understand the distinction being made between illiquidity and insolvency here, could someone please explain it? It seems to me that if you are in a state in which a high enough interest rate on your debt will put you in a death spiral from which you cannot feasibly recover, then your problem is bigger than liquidity.

<comment><USER29> That's exactly the distinction being made. Italy's debt is highish but manageable; it budget deficit is small. If it can borrow at reasonable rates for the next few years, it's not in danger of default. That's illiquidity. Compare to Greece, which, even if it could get loans at low interest, is never going to be able to repay what it already owes. That's insolvent.

<comment><USER28> So the only thing that really separates Italy from Greece is the market's expectation that Germany won't let any of the other sovereign nations default. Absent that expectation, Italy and Spain are one good speculative attack (a la Soros vs. the British Pound) away from insolvency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Bold action _might_ help us.

This "bold action" depends on politicians. -> Forget about it!

Strap in, change is opportunity, get ready for an exciting ride.

<comment><USER31> I don't think all the new homeless people, or whoever is going to get very poor are going to find the ride all that exciting.

The guys who make money, the rich, however, certainly will. These recessions and all are always a pretty good opportunity to make more money.

<comment><USER32> Right, so with a deeper recession looming, those of us with the wherewithal to foresee it should be asking ourselves how best we can benefit from it.

Look, it's shitty that it's going to hurt a lot of people. I wish it didn't. But, the fact that it will doesn't mean that it should hurt _me_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The scariest part of all this, is that for the first time in the past century, we no longer have any options. Less regulation, more regulation, centralization, de-centralization, it's all been tried. We're out of options, and the policy makers and central bankers have clued in (Bernanke's recent speeches have been dreadful to listen to).

Maybe, just maybe, things are going to go really, really badly this time around. Maybe.

</comment><comment><USER34> I find the preaching of fear distasteful.

It is better to gravely recognize the scope of the problem, assemble facts regarding the situation, and then to move to positively affect the situation on all levels, from globally to locally.

The bold action that is needed is to not panic, but to take measured steps regardless of ideology and re-election chances.

I wish I was in a position to do more than work hard, invest, and not panic.

</comment><comment><USER35> On one hand, I really hate the Economist. It's a magazine that thinks an ideology, a smart tone, and providing the only decent coverage of world events widely available makes for a compelling magazine. Even if that coverage is ridiculously biased and not really knowledgeable about facts on the ground.

On the other, it's perhaps the pre-eminent mouthpiece for the ruling Anglo- American elite, and it's comforting that they're sounding the alarms to what's happening. I think it's too little too late, but I genuinely hope that people and policymakers hear them.

Because this is really bad, folks. Really, really bad. It's pretty clear the dominoes that will fall: Greece fails, setting off markets and destroying banks across the continent, causing Spain to fail, doing the same, causing Italy, Belgium, maybe even France to fail. Who knows what after that. The EU's demise will signal the financial collapse of an economy larger than the United States; it's already either at the brink or already in a new recession, and this will be the deathblow. The quick succession of collapses, happening all within the span of a month or two, reverberate throughout the entire world, throwing the USA back into a second, possibly harsher recession than the first we have yet to recover from.

The only other solution is converting the European Union into a fiscal union. On the face of it this is implausible: you'd be asking Germans, who in their self imagination see themselves as pure as snow, to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize what they see as the lavish lifestyles of lazy unproductive Mediterranean types. Even if you could form some political consensus to do this, though, it's not even clear that politicians could coordinate the solution in time to cut off the collapse. Effectively consolidating dozens of countries into the same fiscal union isn't a change you can implement by sheer willpower; it'd be a herculean task even with years of preparation.

And, stateside, any attempt to counteract or prepare for this tidal wave is simply doomed because of our ridiculously broken institutions. One side has the ability to co-operate and try to fix the situation, but because of how our government is set up all the incentives on their side are to actively sabotage the economy--regardless of causes, if it does badly, the party of the current President will be blamed.

Because people (Americans, Germans, Greeks, Chinese) are all idiots, from the man on the street to the upper echelons of power.

<comment><USER36> Greece's failure will only destroy banks that France and Germany aren't interested in preserving. They can play the zombie-bank game for a long time.

Also, I really disagree that this crisis has evolved from idiocy. It's more a matter of misaligned incentives. Many of the people who have caused this mess have already profited handsomely from it.

<comment><USER28> Greece's failure will invite a sustained speculative attack on Spain and Italy which would probably require coordinated actions between European and non- European (i.e. American and Chinese) governments to stop.

I agree that the crisis is a matter of misaligned incentives, but I include politicians and bureaucrats from pretty much every country in the set of those who have directly misaligned incentives (i.e. not just indirectly misaligned by campaign contributions from wealthy bankers), so I have very little faith in the ability of regulation to solve the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Get money out of politics so politicians can make unbiased, level-headed decisions.

I don't doubt the complexity of our current economic situation, but the way our government is currently run by lobbyists who naturally have their own myopic view, I think it would be more an accident than on purpose that our economy gets better.

</comment><comment><USER38> Lately, I've noticed that political and financial systems seem to behave according to the laws of increasing entropy in closed systems. For that reason, sometimes I fear that there is no fixing it, and that only a new system will be better.

</comment><comment><USER39> Nothing new here.

What I find interesting is how an impending Chinese squeeze would affect American markets. Their economy has been steadily dropping, but with all eyes on Europe no one has really looked into it.

<http://macro-man.blogspot.com/2011/09/china-squeeze.html>

</comment><comment><USER40> Why the date is shown as "Oct 1st 2011" ? (Current GMT is Sept 30, 6:06 am)

<comment><USER41> It is the date of the print edition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Scary news sell newspapers. This article is way to sensationalist for my taste. The one thing I find worrying is the large shift in power from people to financial corporations that has happened in the past decade.

</comment><comment><USER43> I feel like I've heard that headline before.

</comment><comment><USER44> Bold action is for sissies. We'll deal with the black hole when it comes!</comment>


Let's Make Texting REALLY Social - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/67a4b516bbce

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure this use case is covered by Twitter, which ironically in this context folks are starting to beat up for not having private messaging.</comment>


Secure, Free, Incremental and Instant Backups for Linux - mike-cardwell https://grepular.com/Secure_Free_Incremental_and_Instant_Backups_for_Linux

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking the time to write this up -- and, as well, your post on email storage encryption.

My problem in all this is rolling some Windows machines into the mix.</comment>


Software Engineers Will Work One Day For English Majors - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-22/software-engineers-will-work-one-day-for-english-majors.html <comment><USER2> The title of this article is pure flamebait, but I am a 41 year old former English major, and I've founded several software companies and had several hundred software engineers work for me since I co-founded my first company in 1995. I'm a little bit of a unique case, since what got me started was being hired as a research assistant for a forward-thinking biology professor who wanted me not only collecting information, analyzing it, and writing (my core specialty) but also administering a Gopher server, which turned into a web server, which became a proficiency with 1993-era web design. When I co-founded my company in 1995, I was the only one of the co-founders that really knew anything about the web. I eventually settled into the head of product role, and I've been a jack-of-all-trades product executive ever since.

So not every English major is going to have a similar backstory. But I do know this: research, organization, and strong writing skills got me where I am. It helps also that I was an engineering school dropout and I share many of the proclivities of my engineering brethren. I just decided at some point in college that I liked writing as a way of making things, and switched to English.

As other commenters have noted, no forty year old is an English major anymore. The point worth making is that receiving a good education and being ambitious, hard-working, curious, and embracing new technology is a good recipe for success. And if you think you're going to get anywhere in this new world without strong written communication skills, you're fooling yourself.

</comment><comment><USER3> How many English majors are still in "English" at age 40? Many of them will have exited the workforce , started their own business, changed careers, or leveled up high enough that their occupational classification the government uses changes.

Programmers do all these things, too.

I love programming. I didn't even make it to thirty as a "programmer"! (P.S. There exist lots of benefits to not calling yourself a programmer.)

<comment><USER4> I doubt many 40+ programmers are going to come out in support of this article. In cases of discrimination, you are labeled a crybaby so it's better to just stay quite. HN is mostly young and the only 40+ ones here are the type who like puzzles or in top 1 percentile of programming (e.g. patio11). For a vast majority of 40+ programmers, the reality is as grim as painted in this article.

If you are not in top 1 percentile of programming abilities, you better move to management. This is hard for someone who isn't verbally aggressive. Positions for management require X years of managing Y employees so if didn't make the move early on, you are doomed. Given that there isn't a puzzle/test type of way to rank managers, the management positions get doled out as opposed to competed for. You have to be in the shoes of a 40+ programmer who is not in top 1 percentile to know this :-(

<comment><USER3> While I appreciate the praise, I am likely not in the top 1% of programming ability. (People often say that I am, because I'm pretty good at written and oral communication. Take note, young impressionable HNers, because this strongly suggests reprioritizing which trees to put your talent points into.)

As to your own circumstances: there exist many clueful companies which would hire you. Find my email if you want to talk specifics. This is not a market where anyone skilled should be hurting for offers.

<comment><USER5> To add to patio11's note: I don't have as much social clout here as he, but believe me when I say that people skills (I'm lumping in various communication skills here) are way, _way_ more important than technical skills. Reprioritizing is right. In my opinion, his success is due more to his "soft" skills; he's closer to a one-percenter [grin/duck/run] in terms of his communication skills than his technical ones.

Even so, this isn't rocket science. Just like any other skill, effective communication can be taught. Like many other pursuits, it doesn't take long to distinguish yourself just because there's so much rubbish out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe this is why so much software these days looks like it was written by unsupervised youngsters.

I just wasted a day trying to get ListView's to work in Android only to find out that, well, they don't work, so you need to use something else. Then it took me a couple of hours to essentially duplicate the ListView functionality, except a working version.

The thing is developing a GUI framework isn't rocket science, its been done before and there are plenty of examples of reasonably well designed frameworks out there, Swing and Qt to name a couple.

Software is complex so it takes a while (years at least, probably decades) for a human brain to gain real perspective on what's important and what isn't in software development. A culture like the one we're living in that throws away those brains dooms itself to decline.

<comment><USER7> It's not the youngster who are jobless is the older software engineers who never learned to learn new concepts. The older programmer to so much time to learn everything from algorithms , to cryptography, and things that are analytical they forget about learning new technologies. Yoru comment shows why older people have difficult getting jobs. It took you a day to understand how a listview work while a good young programmer who understand technologies should be able to pick up any technology and understand it in a few weeks.

<comment><USER8> I think newer programmer's just work for less. There really isn't that much new under the sun in software engineering.

<comment><USER9> Really? And here I was thinking that my discipline was one of the most rapidly evolving on the planet...

<comment><USER10> Not so much, mostly people keep reinventing the wheel over and over again.

Consider, there is vary little that separates handheld Apps from desktop applications. Sure, if you come from the Web side of things it seems new and nifty but they are just stand alone applications. Capacitive sensing touch screens where where new in _1965_ , but wait it's 2012. <http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html>

People worry about what happens when desktop CPU's have hundreds of cores, but the super computer world is already dealing with hundreds of thousands of cores etc.

PS: I think this relates to the hacker mentality. If you find a problem you look for a solution rater than see how other people solved the same problem 30 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article states: "A large technology company might typically pay new law- school graduates and MBAs salaries and compensation approaching double what they give new master's degree grads in computer science. "

But, from what I've read, those high-paying law school jobs are very few, only for the elite of the elite, and requires the new employee to work insane hours. Same for those MBAs.

I'm pretty sure that, on average, a new master's degree grad in Computer Science outperforms a typical law school graduate, and should be close or better than an MBA.

Let's Google:

<http://www.nalp.org/classof2010_salpressrel>

Law graduates:

"The national median salary for the Class of 2010, based on those working full-time and reporting a salary, was $63,000"

and only because of those few outliers making $160,000.

[http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/06/paying.jobs.2011.gr...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/06/06/paying.jobs.2011.grads.cb/index.html)

"Computer science -- Average annual salary offer to 2011 grads: $63,017"

[http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/sep2009/bs20090...](http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/sep2009/bs20090928_592028.htm)

"PayScale's average (for starting salary MBAs) clicks in at a much more modest $66,300"

So, basically, he's wrong.

<comment><USER12> > But, from what I've read, those high-paying law school jobs are very few, > only for the elite of the elite, and requires the new employee to work > insane hours. Same for those MBAs.

My sister got a law degree and then did an internship specializing in tax law (I know). She got a job last year straight out of college (at age 25) making $130,000 at a firm that handles the tax issues when one company wants to acquire another. Among all the jobs you could have as a corporate (and especially tax) lawyer, it seemed pretty cool. One of her early projects involved a well-known entertainment company that wanted to buy another entertainment company (although the deal eventually fell through).

In recent months she's been crying a lot and wanting to quit. She works 6-7 days a week and 12+ hours a day. She's never home and has no life. She'd rather start her own restaurant, which is something that she's always had a passion for. Even if her pay were cut to 25% of what it is now for the first few years, she says she would be happier, but she's contractually stuck in this job for a minimum of 12 months (until September), so it's kind of a personal hell. Also, there's the sunk cost issue. She's already devoted 8 years of her life and $100,000 to preparing for this career, so it's hard to just walk away.

My point is, good money is rarely easy.

<comment><USER13> > My point is, good money is rarely easy.

You should ask her if she seriously talked to the partners managing her about scaling back her hours. I'm not a psychic, but I'm very certain that she hasn't actually done that. A friend of mine has a very similar story ($160k straight out of law school in NYC and hating it) and is dealing with it in a similar way (passive-aggressive complaining to friends and relatives, escapist fantasies, but hers center around travel instead of restaurateurism).

A lot of people seem to be closet masochists when it comes to work. If you tackle the issues bothering you directly you'll be surprised how easy they are to resolve, and your managers will respect you more for standing up for yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age > 40.

Really? What statistics? And where do these statistics show the developers going? People don't just dry up and blow away at 40. They move to managerial positions. They start their own companies. They stay in jobs longer, so while you might see fewer of them being hired, that doesn't mean they're not still working in the field.

And there are simply not many older developers to begin with. How much of this effect is the fact that there are simply many more qualified developers under 35 than there are over 40, as the field wasn't as big and not as many people were getting training 20 years ago?

This article is high on anecdotal doom and gloom and low on actual evidence. "Statistics show" is not a very convincing argument.

<comment><USER15> I think you touched on the core of the issue here. How much has the market grown on the past 20 years? Quite a lot actually. As the market grows, more people gravitate towards it as a career choice, and they are mostly young people looking for career choices. 20 years from now, those people will be seniors in a highly competitive market where solutions grow in technical complexity day after day.

The only thing certain is that things will have changed by them from what they are currently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This would be dead-on except for he misses a key point: programming is not about programming anymore.

"Programming" in the sense he uses it is a corporate cog working in some huge technology-producing machine. That job? Sure. It leans heavily towards younger workers. Why not? Have you seen the way they treat programmers?

But the general skill of programming is not practiced in that environment much anymore. Today programming is everywhere. It's more like the way cursive writing used to be -- you won't get far without knowing it. Programming is that skill you mix into some other skill to make the whole thing better.

Programming is quickly becoming more of a necessary add-on than an end-point in itself.

</comment><comment><USER17> The title initially made me angry, but there's a lot of truth in this post. The sad fact is that once you cross 35, the salary growth slows considerably for most engineers and you have to jump to management roles to make more, even if your output translates to more dollars.

Contrary to the article, I think people in Law and Finance go through the same thing, but they get about 10 years more than us. My friends in Finance can stay in technical roles well into their 30s while still making double what even a typical Software Engineering Manager would make. When they finally have to go into more managerial roles, their kids might be getting out of the house and their personal responsibilities are lower, so they can take less stressful roles, or even go into consulting and start traveling if they want to be more hands on.

<comment><USER18> What you do see in law that you don't in engineering is the up-or-out pressure in big firms. You either make partner in years 7-10 or you go find another job. But if you do make partner (possibly at a much smaller firm than where you started), you basically get to do technical work for as long as you want. Partners do some business development and management work, sure, but they're still the ones that go into court and argue the motions. And in that role you only get more valuable with age. People go to lawyers when something has gone sideways, and all else being equal they want the cool-headed guy with 20 years of experience over the young hot-shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is more about risk than it is intelligence. It's the case that as most people get older, their tolerance for risk gets less and less: they pick up things like "spouses," "mortgages" and "children" which make it so that they cannot afford to work for equity/cash combinations.

I suspect this is also why you see a trend of "I don't want to work 80 hour weeks" posts bubbling up these days as well (though that could be confirmation bias) -- the initial Web2.0 generation is getting to be that age.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think some of the reason for this is that younger people are more likely to start their programming careers with the current "cool" tools/languages whereas the older programmers will have large amounts of experience and therefor be most valuable (and able to command better salaries) maintaining software that is becoming legacy.

Take myself for example, I started doing programming seriously around 2001 when PHP/MySQL was the hot technology. This meant that I got a lot of experience quickly in a field that was high in demand for new projects. This means of course that I now have several years of PHP experience and could get a PHP job relatively easily.

However very few new cool startups etc are being built using PHP but that is not a problem since there is still plenty of PHP around, however what happens in 10-20 years when all of the PHP codebases have been retired and everything is done in NodeJS or whatever.

I will be competing for jobs with recent graduates who "came up" using Node and who will be willing to work for lower salaries. I may have more experience than them in programming but probably not in something like Node. Sure I will be able to learn these skills on my own time to an extent but probably not with the sheer enthusiasm and vigor that an 18 year old who is dreaming of making his million dollar idea could muster.

Of course there are areas like algorithms etc that do not change so much over time, but the odds are that a bright college grad will be able to remember his CS classes much more clearly than an older developer would (unless the older dev had reason to exercise those skills often during his career).

The main thing an older developer would be able to offer is Wisdom, but this is largely something for which there is not a high value placed in modern software.

<comment><USER21> same deal, started in 2001 on LAMP stack

2 years ago woke up and started exploring, Groovy, Ruby, and then, bing, penny dropped, Scala.

New life at 40 ;-)

In the end you need passion. I would be shocked if I am not coding full-time at 60, nothing grabs me more...

<comment><USER22> +1 for Scala. It's like Java on Steroids without the verbosity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Umm.. The author is not objective. He (Norman Matloff) had long since been spouting off on H1-B and why its bad. He also found a way to work it in to the article, in the same way that he had used in the past so effectively, to scare the current programmer segment in to being worried for their jobs.

I am not saying that H1-B isnt abused, but his take on it is largely one sided, and against.

<comment><USER24> I googled the good doctor, and wow, you weren't kidding.

<http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b.html>

He really does see the H1-B as some sort of Ragnarok for the American programmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This whole idea that the wisdom of an older experienced programmer isn't somehow hugely useful mystifies me. I'm at the top of my CS class in the UC system and spending this summer interning at one of the biggest Intenet companies. I'm also very comfortable in C++, Objective-C, Java, and a host of "hot" web languages.

With that said, I'm aware I truly "don't know jack" despite being one of the best in my degree program. If given the choice of hiring a new CS grad at $75k a year or an experienced developer at $150k for a startup, I'd choose the experienced developer every time. Maybe it's a product of my self education supplementary to school, but someone who has done it before(even if using something as ancient as COBOL) is the person I want to be my superstar.

<comment><USER26> I'd take the graduate at 100k/yr if he had awesome side projects that show hustle/autodidactism rather than the experienced developer at any pricepoint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wow, what hogwash. I still don't see where the article connects the dots -- why, exactly, would I end up working for an English major?

As for the balance of the article, most of the finger-pointing to dead-end oblivion for 40+ programmers is that they're priced out of the market. While that may be true in some cases, it's certainly not a trend I'm seeing -- rather, the opposite.

Mostly, this article was written by someone who has no idea what programmers/developers/architects/engineers do with their time, nor why companies value them in those endeavors.

<comment><USER28> Eh... I wouldn't write off the author that easily. I had him as a professor at UC Davis.

<http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/matloff.html>

<comment><USER29> Perhaps, but he's no English major - didn't support his thesis.

<comment><USER30> He doesn't work for one either: his boss (Chancellor) is an EE. <http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/index.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Max career length depends on how the young engineer sets himself up. Early in your career you want to bootstrap yourself with some hot new technology to get your foot in the door. Once you are about 3-4 years in, you need to switch gears and focus on learning the things that change slowly. Such as:

1\. How to work with people (technical/non-technical)

2\. More about math and general concepts of your craft, not just new language X.

3\. Measuring the business effects of your work.

People are more apt to deal with a 20 something nerd with a bad attitude because he's cheap and fits the stereotype. An expensive 40 something with the same attributes will be seen as a weirdo.

<comment><USER20> Yes, I can imagine far more people wanting to hire Mark Zuckerberg than Richard Stallman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I get the odd feeling there is something personal going on for the author. There isn't anything in there to back up English or humanities majors taking more managerial positions in tech companies.

"If you choose a software-engineering career, just keep in mind that you could end up working for one of those lowly humanities majors someday."

</comment><comment><USER33> Some programmers dodge this bullet, others don't.

I know a guy who worked for UNISYS his whole life writing Macro Assembler for 360 mainframes. A few years back the state of New York found that the official printer interface for IBM mainframes wasn't fast enough to print all of the paperwork New York State sends out, so he invented a whole new printer interface.

He just retired at age 60 and he's got enough $ to have a home in upstate NY and one in Hawaii.

The trouble you do have is that as you get older you will want to get a more senior job and those do get harder to find.

</comment><comment><USER34> The author is a CS professor. Does he not enjoy CS or something? I'm not certain what his goal is with this article.

"Finally, those high programmer salaries are actually low, because the same talents (analytical and problem-solving ability, attention to detail) command much more money in other fields, such as law and finance."

This is a tricky one, because it really boils down to "it depends." I can't speak about the law sector, but my limited experience in the financial world speaks to sales guys making oodles more than the analysts or quants. Further, the high salaries come with many more hours, so the per-hour salary of a software engineer would actually be higher.

[http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Financial-Analyst-l-New- York,...](http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Financial-Analyst-l-New- York,-NY.html)

[http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=software+engineer&l1=sun...](http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=software+engineer&l1=sunnyvale)

[http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=quant&l1=new+york+city](http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=quant&l1=new+york+city) (note that a quant is typically a phd-only position and comes with _crazy_ hours)

[http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=fixed+income+sales&l1=ne...](http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=fixed+income+sales&l1=new+york+city)

According to this data I was mistaken about sales vs quants, but I wonder if this factors in bonuses (which would be significant for the latter two)?

<comment><USER35> Those quoted finance salaries won't include bonuses I suspect, so the potential upside is much higher than that.

The programmer at GS who was accused of taking their code (and later acquitted) was on at least $400k, although I can't remember the exact figure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Regarding the Facebook preference for hiring young people...

The "young" developers today are those who grew up with the sorts of stacks that start-ups today are being built on. The 1.0 release of ROR was late 2005. If you were hacking away at 12 years old in 2005 then you would be 19 today!

Learning the web dev stack is a lot of effort, especially if you throw Linux in with that. Most people generally don't want to put in the time / effort to do new things. That's even more true of people who have families and busy lives.

Also, it's the web dev stack that is bringing down the barriers to entry for starting new businesses. Things like dirt cheap server resources and cloud services are even more recent than Ruby 1.0.

No wonder it's all young people! It's the young people who grew up with this stuff and who don't have to be stuffed into the old molds of work and education. For example, I'm a U.S. citizen working from the Philippines just for a change of scenery. Perhaps I could have been able to do this 10 years ago, but probably not much earlier than that.

This train is moving fast. Quit reading these articles because nobody can predict where we are going. It's getting crazy.

</comment><comment><USER37> So, I'm confused. What percentage of English majors are still in the "English" field by age 40? What is the English field? Outside of academia, it barely exists. Publishing? So, it's laudable to receive a general education which provides one with many opportunities in life? Great, I agree. Now, why shouldn't the same logic apply to a computer science degree? Aren't the ways CS majors learn to think easily transferred to other endeavors? Why is it not celebrated that CS degrees are so flexible that a high percentage of graduates ostensibly find ways to do what interests them, pays well etc.?

<comment><USER38> I am an English major who's over 40 with a love of programming and writing. I've only recently realized that these two passions are not mutually exclusive. Given the latter, I suppose I'm a bit of a slow learner. But on the upside, since discovering this, I'm applying more and more energy toward contributing to open source projects as a writer. I contribute as a programmer when I can, but for many, many projects improving the documentation is where the greatest benefits can be had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I completely failed to parse the title of this article. I thought it was about some union-like action in which some set of software engineers will donate their salaries to some set of, supposedly, poor English majors.

The more I read, the more confused I got since it never seemed to get to the point: _who are doing this_? Heh. English is not my native language, which I guess this served as a good reminder of.

</comment><comment><USER40> I've found an easy answer to age discrimination. For the past seven+ years I have worked from home. Many of my clients and coworkers have little idea of my relatively advanced age.

</comment><comment><USER41> This guy is so off the radar it is a wonder why he is allowed to publish this stuff.

I will just add two points.

1) Facebook, Google, and other silicon valley companies are far from the norm of software development jobs. There are far more jobs in finance, retail, and travel for engineers than the type of position he is describing.

2) Most directors, executive directors and VPs I have worked for started their careers as software engineers as a matter of fact engineering is how they developed the business knowledge to become executives.

</comment><comment><USER42> Many software engineers will one day work for English Majors. Most English majors without a strong support network will one day work for Burger King. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Frankly, if you didn't work for Burger King at all before college, it might be worthwhile for you to work for them for a little while after, though some other gig in the food service industry is probably a better call.

</comment><comment><USER43> This article touched a nerve for me.

I haven't always been in computer science. I actually minored in English in college, and now I'm finishing up a MS program in CS (though I've always tinkered and programmed computers).

I have a tendency, for better or worse, to constantly think about the future. I'm 26 now, and about to graduate and go to work for a well known tech company. Originally I was much more interested in starting my own company, but I spent so much time catching up in CS that I never had enough time to network at school (which I think is crucial for startup success). I could have taken a job with an existing startup, but I never found one that really clicked for me (which I also think is crucial for working at a startup). So I went with the big tech company. It helped that they offered a lot of money. But it also makes me worry.

I'm not really worried about being unemployable, like the article suggests, because I doubt I'll ever be substantially worse of a programmer than I am now. But I do worry that I've hit some sort of ceiling. I'm pretty sharp now -- will I ever be twice or three times as sharp as I am now? Probably not. Assuming my pay tracks my ability (is this a valid assumption?), my current salary at 26 may be 75% or more of my lifetime max salary. In other words, I've already peaked.

Admittedly, some people may enjoy the comfort in this, but I don't. I feel a bit like the proverbial "shark" in that if I don't keep moving, I die. I am happiest with a destination I am moving toward, and if jobs like this one turn out to feel stagnant, I'll have to quit.

But if/when that time comes, will I still be able to break into the startup scene? Will I suffer from an age bias? Will I have too many other commitments, wife/kids, mortgage, etc., so that I won't be able to risk quitting my job?

And what really scares me: is it true that after 35 your programming mettle starts to leave you?

<comment><USER44> This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but I've met a bunch of older programmers who were _very_ good. And this is across several specializations-- all the way from developing drivers to virtualization software to enterprise Java development to compilers. I suspect that, right now, by pure competence the best programmers I've met have actually been older. (And this is ignoring my professors who tend to be exceptional as well as older.)

So really, do not worry about becoming a worse programmer. Worry perhaps that younger people will be subconsciously biased against you, sure, but this is just a bias not based on reality. That said, nobody mandates startups to be started by younger people. My dad recently worked for a startup doing some very interesting low-level work (they concentrated on using SSDs to speed up servers) that got acquired by SanDisk recently. And he doesn't have a CS degree either--he got the equivalent of a Masters in Physics in Leningrad where they didn't even have CS in his time. (I gather they barely had computers at all.) And, most importantly, I've noticed that he has become much happier after working at the startup than he was while working at a bigger company (VMWare) before.

So, ultimately, all that matters is that you are a good programmer--and I imagine you are. Perhaps it will take a bit more work for you to find a job at a startup, perhaps you will sometimes encounter bias against your age, but ultimately you should be able to do whatever you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> One would think, with the story coming from Bloomberg, that they might mention that finance almost exclusively hires older programmers. Hedge funds, trading firms, and even the banks place a significant premium on expertise and are generally staffed by a much older crowd than what you'd find in Tech. (For many of the reasons you'd expect...)

</comment><comment><USER46> Sure, many software engineers are over their creative prime by the time they hit 40 and move into management, training, recruiting, etc. With 15-20 years experience in the complexities of software engineering under the belt, they are probably pretty good at it. What does that have to do with English majors?

</comment><comment><USER47> _Statistics show that most software developers are out of the field by age 40._

If this is really true then where do they all go? There's only so many seats for managers and architects.

<comment><USER7> How many 40 year old software programmers could there be the area of science has only been around 40 years.

<comment><USER47> A lot of modern jobs have only existed for <= 40 years.

Trust me, there are a lot of us.

<comment><USER48> That's true, but software development is special because not everybody can do it.

Don't get me wrong here, I actually think that mostly anyone (lets say over average) can learn to code, including very young children or over 40 adults ... the difference between normal people and people that make a carrier out of it is that building actual applications is a lot harder than printing hello- world or sorting an array or scripting your home appliances.

I think that if you don't start doing software development early in life (at most in your early twenties), then chances to make it as a software developer are rather poor.

A couple of reasons come to my mind:

\- like with every hard skill out there, it takes a phenomenal amount of time until you're able to be effective at it

\- we constantly have to learn, just like doctors and while doable, it gets tiring. You can learn new stuff based on what you already know, so you never restart from scratch, but many people simply stop giving a shit

\- getting a hello-world working feels like magic at first, but repeat that 10,000 times and pretty soon it starts feeling like drudgery. That's the story of most things you end up working on. And it is impossible to work only on new stuff, in fact most of the work in software development is drudgery

\- related to the above, the motivation of senior software developers has to pivot from working on cool stuff to seeing happy users, or to money earned, or to other tangible byproducts or your work, because "cool" is relative and the initial magic starts fading away (which is why I believe many developers move into management)

\- the demand for "good" software developers is high. But it's actually pretty hard to find a job as a software developer if you're not at least decent or come from a good university. This makes it a hostile environment for rookies, being a bitch to get your foot in the door

\- software development is not only hard, but must be complemented with people skills ... being able to communicate effectively with others is of extreme importance, knowing how to do efficient marketing is also essential if you want to build your own products or if you want a good carrier path

<comment><USER47> Yeah I agree that programming, for whatever reason, seems to be something that a lot of people just can't do well.

But we're talking about the people that have been doing real work in the field for ~20 years getting booted out to god knows where. Is this true? If so, where do they go? It's not really so easy to start a completely new professional track at 40. Are they stocking shelves?

<comment><USER48> I really think those people just gave up for one reason or another.

But do note here that 20 years ago there weren't many jobs related to software development. This industry started taking off in the early nineties and got popular in the late nineties. And as I said, it's not an easy job.

So if you want to make statistics based on that, the sample is really small. We should wait another 20 years for any meaningful conclusions, and my guess is that in 20 years from now there will be many software developers over 40.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I guess Crockford better pack his bags and send himself to a retirement home.

There are always going to be under qualified and over qualified candidates. Some people simply loose interest in their field after 20 years. What a load of over generalized garbage.

<comment><USER50> That's an absurd interpretation of the article. It never said everyone is out of the field by 40, just "most".

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I hate it when places like Bloomberg purport to tell me what is going to happen with the rest of my career. I will be 32 at the end of this week, and you know what? I am not stopping this programming thing anytime soon. This article is written for the people that would get into our craft based on the fact that Software Engineer was just named the top job. If you love to build, if you love to create, if you love to program then you will be fine. You set the expiration date of that, not your age.

<comment><USER52> The title "33% of Software Engineers no longer writing code at 40" doesn't have the same ring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> To extend the author's logic a bit, I will change one word in a quote from the article: "Even if the 45-year-old manager making $120,000 has the right skills, 'companies would rather hire the younger workers.'"

I've worked long enough to see many middle-aged middle managers who end up unemployed for extended periods, one I know now sells real estate after being VP at a large software company. Meanwhile, I'm in my mid-forties and had a company pay to move me cross-country for my technical skills. The fact is, there are only so many management jobs and a company can just as easily put a 35-year-old in the job as a 45 or 55-year old. Also, companies are continually trying to flatten the traditional org-chart, eliminating management positions permanently and using technical talent as the first layer of management. It's getting hard out there for an English major.

I'm not trying to diminish the real bias there is against older workers. I really believe this comes from how the US health care system works. Older workers - even those who ask a lower salary - are seen as bringing up the cost of insurance for the company's group and are seen as a higher risk for long term disability. That's a reality that's skill-set agnostic and something all of us who reach 50 years of age will have to face.

</comment><comment><USER54> \-- "Although the very term "coding" evokes an image of tedium"

This is ridiculous.

<comment><USER55> Replace "coding" with "writing" and you'd describe most of my k-12 and undergraduate educational career.

Many people can't seem to grasp the differences in ways a computer could be used, and lump it all in with "data entry".

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Well why is this surprising?

A lot of people working in factories, plants and other shops undergo the same treatment with time. The issue isn't exactly with software professionals but with any job. Young blood is preferred, because they push longer for lesser money. They don't have families, they can take failure gracefully, they have tons of time to fail and recover.

As we age, we get families, we have kids, we need insurances for ourselves and family. We need to pay college fees, We need a home to settle in, we have mortgages, And then of course we always have bills to pay, food and clothes to buy. All this means everyone tries to settle down at some time. Instead of running a marathon at the speed of a sprint, we just like to push things as they are. This means we get held back, we play safe, we like to have permanent jobs.

This is what millions of people go though. They hit dead ends by 40. Because the expenses keep rising, and the corporate pay structures seem to reward only promotions on managerial levels. And if you don't get to be a manager you are basically done for! That's with every one, not just software professionals. And what remains after that is struggling to be employed based on skills which are very commonly available else where especially in a pool of people who are younger.

Clever people make their financial planning while they in 20-30. Get themselves enough cash to give themselves enough freedom to not worry about getting fired, non getting employed, being replaced, old age or never ever going to work again.

Get yourself enough money to not worry about money. Regardless of what ever profession you are in.

</comment><comment><USER57> This article is very short sighted and tries to address an issue that cannot be solved by the tools he has.

Let's start with the title. "Software Engineers Will Work One Day for English Majors".

How about "Software Engineers Will Work One Day for someone" because those two options are basically the same except that one is flame bait.

You have two pills you can choose from: Red pill is entrepreneurship; Blue pill is salary/contract. The red pill is the only way for above title to not be true. Blue Pill means you'll be working for someone. Either pill is fine it comes down to personal preference.

Ignoring entrepreneurship (because this article isn't the place for it); the article states that by age X, we will price ourselves out of a job because the newer model is the shinier model. So you shouldn't or be aware that there is a glass ceiling when becoming an engineer.

I'm going out on a limb here but, that is the wrong way to think. You are out of a job at age X because you've been sitting on your degree for 10+ years! Go F'n learn something and demonstrate that you are better and deserve that role + salary increase. You work for that "English Major/Human/H1-B Visa" person because they worked harder than you and stole your lunch.

Here is a real solution: Create/Find/Get a master's degree in leadership & management for people with a technical background. These technical people need the soft skills it takes to make it to the next level. Getting rid of a H1-B visa program doesn't solve the problem; it is just a stop gap.

In the end, you just need to update and learn new valuable skills.

</comment><comment><USER58> More hacker news, less flamebait submissions and flame comments, please.

</comment><comment><USER59> There's also another thing to bear in mind. I've spent most of my career in the games industry. The games industry as a whole is only about 30 years old. It's only now we're seeing programmers/artists in their 40s+. This is almost certainly true for most tech companies. Lets see how this holds in 30 years from now.

</comment><comment><USER60> There seems to be a ton of washed-up ex-IT sorts from America and Australia in China teaching English. The bosses are Chinese teachers of English, themselves English grads, so I guess the post title is quite accurate.

</comment><comment><USER61> In 20 years we'll see how right he is. My guess is he's dead wrong. If you look at the software development industry it's relatively new (mid 90s really) and expanding rapidly into every industry. That's producing a lot of heavy demand for software developers and if you think about it on a meta level it makes sense with so many things becoming digitized. With all this demand building up for a job that requires a certain mindset (hindering supply) I don't see this becoming a problem so long as the workforce keeps up its marketability.

</comment><comment><USER62> "This page is not available for mobile viewing at this time."

Are you kidding me?

<comment><USER34> It said 'over capacity' before, so I'm wondering if they're having server issues on the mobile version.

<comment><USER62> Nope, still moronically broken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> As a software engineer who is a theater major, I just have two points.

1) College degrees are not vocational degrees and are not job guarantees. 2) When you talk about not being hired because you're not on top of "fad languages", what I hear is you're not being hired because you're not staying up to date in your field. I'm sure there are blogs by petroleum engineers who say they're being discriminated against because they're not up on this "fracking fad".

</comment><comment><USER64> Possibly worth noting, in view of the article's use of "English majors" to mean nontechnical managerial types: Jamie Zawinski was an English major.

</comment><comment><USER65> This doesn't have to be true. Goethe managed to stay fresh his entire life - even the poetry he wrote in his late years was seen as expanding the art form; if the mind ossifies over the years it's probably because one has grown complacent and stopped expanding, rejuvenating, overcoming oneself. A categorical statement about age is just an excuse, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER66> There's plenty to take offense to in this article, but perhaps it would be wise to take one implication to heart: as you progress, don't forget to improve your soft skills just as you improve your technical skills. Whatever you make of this, it would be folly to argue with the assertion that managing other people requires strong communication skills.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm a 25 year-old former Marine who thought he could take a shot at being a programmer when he exited the military. I never had any background in programming other than being interested in UNIX and Linux at a young age, so CS seemed like the logical choice for someone who had a GI bill to burn.

2 years and a lot of classes later, I'm realizing I'm too old to compete at this gig, and I should have started when I was _12_ , if I wanted to be taken seriously. The only thing I have any skill in is various computer related things, but not one thing in particular. I've developed a very basic knowledge of C++, but that's laughable really. So I'm stuck, unsure of what it is I should really be doing. I could get a dead-end part time job and continue my schooling, but it seems almost futile at this point. I was denied to the University of Florida, yes the school that recently killed-off their CS department in favor of Football funding. It was the top school in the state, but they wouldn't accept my transfer because I'm only now up to the Calculus 1 and Physics level (rightfully so I guess, that was my mistake). Being that I could only take those classes now, it would probably be another year at least, to get to where I could actually transfer to a real university. The only reason I've been able to do this is because of the GI bill that's been granted to me because of my time in the service, but that's running out and I don't have anything to show for it. Other than a General AA, which probably wasn't worth my time - despite planning ahead.

I keep reading stories and anecdotes about how this field is going, and I'm starting to become very unsure if it's something I need to stick with to prevail, or whether it's already too late. I can't find anyone that will tell me the truth - just those that placate with notions of "you can do anything you're just not trying hard enough," despite my 15 hour course-load. From my perspective it seems like CS is an unattainable feat unless you're fresh out of high school at the age of 17 with several dual-enrolled college courses under your belt. The competition is outrageous. Don't you think I want skills that are worth someone's money?

I read about how people with experience with Java, C++, C, C# and so fourth, at least having the ability to put multiple languages on their resume, can't find employment because they haven't done a formal project or haven't been a part of, and accepted, within the OSS community. This frightens me because my skill level is nowhere near where it needs to be to do this, and I highly doubt how much I can persevere with the time that I have left.

I used to open up my IDE with the prospect of learning new things and freshness being able to develop a more solid understanding of what I thought I could do for a living. While I finish out the courses I'm still in, it would appear now, as I reflect, that I'm only doing it to pass the course now, as my delusions of grandeur have faded.

Edit: Wow. Thanks for all your input. This will give me a better objective view to reassess my path. Again, thanks.

<comment><USER20> Well, the competition _is_ outrageous at the top end of programming jobs, also bear in mind that you are reading HN where many of the commentators are above average programmers who dream in code. However just because you might not land a job at Google does not mean you will not be able to create a decent career for yourself.

If you can get any experience working on OSS at all, especially on a reasonably well known project (not all of these are hugely technical, so you don't necessarily have to be some ninja guru). This will already put you ahead of the pack,many programmers use OSS but few actually contribute. You will also have the advantage that you will be able to work on real code and possibly get some mentoring which will help build your confidence.

Also bear in mind that as a former Marine you will have experience in areas that the overwhelming majority of programmers do not. Even if these do not seem directly relevant it can sometimes be surprising where you may be able to find a niche.

For example you might want to also consider looking into the IT/Operations side of computing (running datacenters etc), I would imagine that a military level of organizational skills as well as being able to deal with pressure would be very useful there.

I know plenty of competent programmers who did not start when they were 12.

<comment><USER67> Thank you for your input. I'm not sure how to get into the Operation side of things, I might have to inquire with a career counselor about that path, if it's an avenue that I can take.

I'm aware that my time in is worth something, as I did obtain rank that probably looks _decent_ , but I'm slightly edgy as to how it will be received. (I was an infantry Sgt.) Some have some derogatory views of how we are and I'm reticent to mention too much. (Everyone thinks you have PTSD despite studies)

<comment><USER20> One way to get into operations (albeit not a pleasant one) is through helpdesk jobs. These are typically repetitive and low paid _but_ if you can get in with the right company and prove aptitude there is often a concrete career path.

It is important to get in with the right company though as many helpdesks are basically outsourced to the lowest bidder and end up being dead end script reading jobs (done those myself, do not recommend).

One company that might be worth looking at would be Rackspace (they host the website for the British Army so I would assume they are not anti-military) they are also a pretty large and growing company.

Another option would be to work with a small web dev shop. Usually they are not looking for uber-coders but for people who can produce consistent work on time. Also Linux knowledge (if you also know your way around Apache) tends to be very useful to these guys as they may be so small that they don't have a full time sysadmin on staff and are constantly being frustrated by the slow response times of their hosting providers support staff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Why would I work for one day for somebody with an English degree? Or did he mean to say "Software Engineers Will One Day Work for English Majors"?

Not that I'm worried either way. I'm a Software Engineer with a degree in International Relations and Chinese Language, which will probably be more valuable than an English degree.

</comment><comment><USER69> I don't see the big deal if it's just for one day. (The title was obviously NOT written by an English Major).

</comment><comment><USER21> I couldn't agree more: as a self-employed software engineer with degrees in literature and psychology, I am living proof that now (not one day, right now) programmers are working for liberal arts "managers" ;-)

</comment><comment><USER70> Looking at his personal website it seems like he might have other motivations <http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/matloff.html>

</comment><comment><USER71> "Worst article ever!"

At what point, in that repetitive myth that keeps getting recycled, do the english majors start taking over? They don't. And they won't. And I want my time back.

</comment><comment><USER72> > the very term "coding" evokes an image of tedium,

Wow, really? Is that what non-coders think coding is? Do people really think "coding" is non creative?

</comment><comment><USER73> Besides abstract reasoning, the most important skill for a software engineer is the ability to learn quickly.

I'm not sure the OP understands that fact.

</comment><comment><USER74> In this case you cannot really look at current practices and predict the future. For many of us in the "new programmer" category now, we will see an exponentially increasing lifespan as well as several other improved aspects of health and intelligence. In the limit, this may lead to age having almost no meaning.

Besides, English Majors?! I dare say that english shouldn't even be a major. A great academic in any field should be articulate in expressing ideas, in at least one language.

<comment><USER75> "A great academic in any field should be articulate in expressing ideas, in at least one language."

The idea that English departments exist primarily to produce skilled writers is a misconception. 'English' as an academic field is the study of English- language literature, and it's as serious and rigorous as any other field in the humanities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I am a 31 year old programmer. I fear the day I start becoming discriminated against because of my age.

</comment><comment><USER77> Peace out guys - this is awesome for existing SEs (but maybe not good for the economy)

</comment><comment><USER78> I wonder how the software devs feel about this at Bloomberg?

</comment><comment><USER79> Linkbait title and vapid article.

</comment><comment><USER80> what an discouraging article...fuck yea!!

</comment><comment><USER81> He seems to have missed making the point in the title. Why would software engineers work for english majors? He thinks that a 20 something english major is a better manager for a software engineer than a 40 something software engineer?

Plus he seems to completely miss a separate alternative for software engineers over 35-- start their own businesses.

I think the perception that 40 year olds are not up to date on technology is laughable-- just look at how resistant 20-sometings are to erlang. This resistance or letting skills get old can come from two sources: First, some people just are kinda blub programmers who never want to learn something new. The second is that its possible to be pigeonholed. I was that way- forced to write windows software for years (several companies who had mac apps who hired me with the promise of working on the mac app then switched me to windows because I had windows experience) until I seriously de-emphasized that experience on my resume, and started outright refusing.

The reason companies hire people right out of college is really simple: They want engineers who are going to accept being over worked due to bad management practices. They think it is easier and cheaper to just hire out of college than to fix their broken processes. I've seen this everywhere - from Microsoft where the managers have some technical back ground but the company culture is broken- to Amazon where the managers are DMV rejects _and_ the company culture is broken. (notable exceptions exist in both cases, of course.)

It is cheaper to hire someone right out of college than to hire someone with 10 years experience... the problem is, "professional" management thinks both are equally productive. In my experience this is not the case.

I had to laugh when, in 2007, Zuckerberg was on the stage at Startup Weekend claiming that 20 year olds were more productive-- at the time he was too young to even know the difference! Standard issue youthful hubris, that.

<comment><USER82> "He seems to have missed making the point in the title."

I think his title was more of a gimmick to catch people's eyes; I think it worked.

"I think the perception that 40 year olds are not up to date on technology is laughable"

I strongly feel that this depends on whether the 40 year old likes programming for its own sake, or they feel that it's just part of a 'clock in' and 'clock out' job. It's also very difficult for many programmers that I've known over the years to step outside of the language that they started with, and start learning and heavily using something new. (Maybe it has something to do with aversion to risk and experimentation? For me, the ease in which a programmer can jump from one language to another, is a key test for their longevity in the field.) Of course this also holds for younger programmers; it's just that their skills are fresher and in my limited experience they tend to be more open minded both technically and to things like longer hours.

That said, I've known two programmers in their 50's who could kick any 20 something's ass in any of the latest tech. Sadly in my experience, they are very very rare.

<comment><USER83> "I strongly feel that this depends on whether the 40 year old likes programming for its own sake, or they feel that it's just part of a 'clock in' and 'clock out' job. It's also very difficult for many programmers that I've known over the years to step outside of the language that they started with, and start learning and heavily using something new."

I'm not so sure.

At one of my previous jobs I worked with a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who were used to assembly language, Jovial (it was an Air Force contract), and Fortran. They couldn't wait to transition to newer stuff because the old languages were so difficult.

On the other hand they were all really smart, so maybe you're right.

<comment><USER82> "They couldn't wait to transition to newer stuff because the old languages were so difficult."

I think this is just yet another really poor excuse for not learning something new, which further reinforces my point. There's no reason that any of them couldn't learn something new right now and years before. It's not like the middle class can't afford a really powerful computer. They've been affordable ever since the late 80's. You don't even need a powerful computer to program and learn something new. Nor do people have to pay to get access to new languages, and other related dev tools. Plus even the OS is free now. All you need is motivation to make time for it.

In their defense, this is a really hard habit to break and what makes it worse is that most people don't realize that they're addicted to one language. As for myself, I'm too addicted to the imperative paradigm even though I get my toes wet with functional from time to time since it's baked in with some of the stuff I use.

<comment><USER83> Okay, maybe I didn't make it clear.

The problem isn't that people weren't learning new stuff. Everybody knew the newer languages - how else would they know they wanted to use them?

Unfortunately, not everybody can drop everything and re-implement a large system in a trendy new language.

<comment><USER82> > how else would they know they wanted to use them?

By reading blog posts and articles about new 'hotness'. I often want to use something without having previously used it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> There's a persistent myth that needs to be put down:

It doesn't get at all harder to learn new technologies when you get older. In fact, it gets a whole lot easier.

There's an old saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks", and this is true, to the extent that any cliche can be, when referring to people becoming set in their ways. For many professions, where the technology doesn't' change, this is true. For programmers "set in your ways" simply describes the method by which we pick up new technology since that's what the profession is all about. (I prefer books to youtube videos, for instance.)

Learning new languages and new technologies and new platforms is a whole lot easier now than it was 20 years ago, in part because the technology for delivering information is a lot more available (hell the internet alone is a huge impact) but also because, having learned a dozen languages the next language is a lot easier to pick up.

<comment><USER11> I'm 31, and I have coworkers in their late 30s and early 40s, working in a large multinational with legacy systems.

The truth is, while it doesn't get that much mentally harder to learn new technologies, it is very hard psychologically.

For someone used to a large paycheck, to being the go-to guy in the technology and set in their 9-to-5 ways, to get out of their comfort zone, and admit that what they know is no longer relevant is scary as hell, especially for those with families.

So, rather than update themselves and make up all that lost ground from getting too comfortable, they'll try to keep in place the old legacy systems only they can maintain.

I got caught in that trap too, one of my main responsibilities is maintaining a Forte 4GL system ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forte_4GL> ).

While I've kept myself relatively up to date, it was on Microsoft .NET technology only, and I'm still a few years behind. I wanted to supplement my income, and took a look at the online marketplace, and it confirmed what Hacker News was already showing me: my skills are useless, I don't know Ruby, Javascript, the open source stacks, Amazon Web Services or anything currently relevant and in demand.

I can either try to switch into management, or accept I'm obsolete and take a large pay cut (or try to improve myself on the side, probably by trying to do a startup) if I want to stay relevant.

<comment><USER84> I'm 36, and you sound exactly like me when I was 31. Same situation, surrounded by a team who was on average 10 years older than myself married with children, working on mostly legacy stuff. Nobody seemed to really care much about their jobs, just wallowing in skill rot. When I was 32/33 or so I was offered to go into management.

I turned down that management offer, kicked butt where I could and got promoted to a principal engineer. It was at that point I realized I was in a dead end job, went nuts in my free time reading book after book, tutorial after tutorial... and two years later finally summoned the courage to do a Rails project pro-bono on the side for a small local marketing firm; for about 4 mos I was putting in 60-70 hour weeks between my day job and side gig.

Now I have another Rails project lined up for a NYC fashion site that pays about 15% more per hour than my day job and I've been contacted for no less than 5 full time Rails positions, one of which I interviewed for and turned down. The demand for this stack is fierce. And you know what? I'm madly head- over-heels in love with the latest and greatest the web has to offer (ie. meteor.js gives me goosebumps, and at the very least in the near term I want to do a front-end mvc project ala backbone). I'm not great - _yet_ \- but I feel like for once I'm really in the game. It's exhilarating. I feel more alive than I have since my early 20s. This NYC contract is about to be signed, and once that happens I'll be saying goodbye to the windows world altogether, join a co-working space, build a network, go to local tech meetups, etc, to ensure I have a steady stream of work. It also helps to have at least 6 mos of savings in the bank to mitigate risk.

Seriously, go thru easy/free books like Learn Python the Hard Way, Eloquent Javascript, Michael Hart's Ruby on Rails Tutorial, the tutorials on the W3C site. You should be able to do all that in a couple months, and that's probably 50% of the battle (okay - there's alot more, but once you have some foundation the rest will be much easier).

EDIT: Wanted to mention about the full time Rails positions, 3 were for small startups, 2 for larger companies. Naturally the small startups you can expect to take a pay cut if you're mostly maxxed out in your compensation in your respective area. But the 2 corporate Rails gigs the recruiters wanted to put me in at or slightly above my total compensation package at my current job (partly due to those being a mixed environment and needing someone with both C#/C++ and Rails skills).

<comment><USER85> Be careful.

"Now I have another Rails project lined up for a NYC fashion site that pays about 15% more per hour than my day job"

Contracting is vastly different than being an employee. Your employer pays considerably more than 15% more per hour for you (employer portion of taxes, portion of health insurance , etc.) As a contractor you'll be responsible for those expenses.

<comment><USER84> That 15% is not taking into account base salary (I'm including bonus + 401k matching)... it's more like 25% if you look at it that way ;). And this is a pretty entry level rate... in a year from now I know I'll be able to command at least 50-70% more.

Health insurance can be had for barely more than the cost of fuel I was using in my daily commute, which is $200/mo. Yes, I have to do my own taxes, and yes they'll be a bit more, but as a sole proprietor I can also deduct many expenses. It's pretty much a wash. I firmly believe people make a bigger deal out of this than it is, it's a fear thing.

But this is beside my point, I'm transitioning out from Windows dev, and it doesn't have to be some huge sacrifice like many make it out to be. I have a plethora of full-time work I can take in front of me if I wish, I decided the 1099 route makes more sense for me at this moment in time.

<comment><USER86> The starting point for your contract rate should be the thousands number of your salary multiplied by 1.5

i.e., if you make $50k a year, charge $75/hr. If you make $100k/year, charge $150. How much do you think an associate attorney at a law firm that makes $150k per year is billed out at? CPA? Management consultant? All of these professionals are generally billed out at a median rate of nearly $200/hr. And the top end is astronomical, like $800/hr or more.

The hardest part about software consulting/contracting is learning to say a polite "fuck off" to the people not willing to pay your price. Everything else is easy. Making some money is the easy part. Earning respect is the difficult part.

"No less than 5 offers" - CHARGE MORE MONEY. As an engineer it is your responsibility to the craft to increase the prestige and respect of the job.

<comment><USER84> First and foremost, I named my price on this contract, which will be 27 hours per week average for the first 3 months, then option to renew for another 3 months. By your metric I should have asked almost 3x as much. But I'm not charging for a principal .NET guy, I'm charging for a jr. Rails dev. Put it another way, I'm probably at 1/3 the speed of a sr. Rails dev. There will be a day... so in a way, perhaps by this scale I took a huge pay cut against the risk. More than the $$, I get tremendous amount of value from this experience. It's my first paid 1099 (well not quite, but in this space it is). I get to work with a top-notch client and design firm, and I have a very sr. guy on retainer the client pays for for my use to help out on areas I get stuck and review all my code (FWIW, he is actually the one who introduced me to this client, we worked together on the prior project as well).

I also have another client who wants me to bid shorter term work (they did offer at a rate that's 40% higher) but I told them to hold off for now because I want to get used to the new contract first and make sure I'm comfortable with the cadence.

Key point - I will consistently be raising my rate, but for now I'm making almost as much as my day job and working much less hours, and I need to get out there network, get good, etc... and the rest will come. I'm approaching this in a way that aligns with my own principles. I'm not trying to be a bottom feeder in this market. I just am getting my feet wet with a minimal portfolio and simply happy to be in a position that I can make the transition into something I'd much rather be doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> The element of truth in this article is that wisdom is not only not valued by many companies' management, it is actively despised. What they want from a software developer is a cog in a machine, not someone who has enough wisdom to to see how things would be much better if over the long term fundamental changes were made.

After years of doing the same stupid things year after year without ever thinking very deeply (due to such thinking being of no value in that environment), the cog gets burned out, slow, and stupid, and is then easily replaced with a younger cog.

</comment><comment><USER88> Either that or programmers will have to play catch up and become fully literate.

</comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a very bad assessment of software engineering forgetting the cursial reason why older programmer have trouble finding job. The fact is that computer science is only really been a legitament profession for maybe 40-30 years. When it first was taught no one could of predicted the speed at which software engineering would become a dominate force in the world's economy nor seen how fast technology changes. So in the begginning computer science was viewed like math, physics, or any science it was taught so that you learned the basic first then you learned the newer and more innovative things. This is no longer the case. Yes most programmer will experience c/c++, some may even lean x86 and MIPS, but we now know that computer science require a constant change. It is no longer acceptable to just know c/c++ you must learn new languages all the time. Whether you decide to learn node,js, ruby, scala, or what ever cutting edge languages we are not groom to pick up languages in 2 weeks if needed to. Most great programmer are taught to teach themselves the newer technologies to stay relevant. Something I see my professor in college never really learned.

<comment><USER47> Just a tip: basic grammar and spelling contribute more to your long-term professional success than you might guess.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Doing a master in CS with engineering background? - <AUTHOR> I hope to get some advice regarding my career choice.
I got a Batchelor in engineering(robotics) and I am currently half way though my master of Computer Science.
I am considering dropping out and looking at jobs. Main reason is because this feels like a job, except I am not getting paid. I work about 10 hrs a day right now, given classes, lab work and TA.
I'be had a year long internship so I did get to see what a more corporate environment is like, and there is little difference in my experience.
In terms of opportunities down the road, will finishing the masters (1 year left) be worth it compared to working for this one year?
I intend to work at startups and smaller for the next 5 years at least, and move into a more entrepreneurial direction.
I live in Canada, and doing undergrad and grad at top 5 uni in the country (did not change schools). I've also worked in this lab in undergrad so I have 2 years of research experience now, but no publications.
Any advice would be great. Cheers <comment><USER2> If you want to work you should work. In terms of benefits from a master's I'd say you get a bit of financial bonus and your resume gets passed over less often.

But if you're going to be working at startups, it's way more important to just know what you're doing (i.e. get jobs under your belt). My advice is: If you think the master's is helping you do that better than work, then keep at it, otherwise, start applying / interviewing and see where it takes you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your career trajectory can be amplified with each job stepping stone, so the higher you start the better. Finishing a masters can help you land a better job.

Basically, unless you land a spot in a top company, you might be better off finishing. Otherwise you can quite possibly hop from one mediocre job to another with little growth.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think the most sensical advice would be to finish the latter half of your Masters & then start job hunting.

With a Masters in your CV, you would be having added value in the market any time of the day. Plus, it will be a big booster in getting you a job easily.

If you drop out midway through, that's gonna make employers raise their eyebrows.

</comment><comment><USER5> Finnish what you start. Do it for yourself. Expectations will be met later, you'll be working your entire life, don't rush on it.

In conditions parity, a candidate with masters degree is better than a candidate with no masters degree. So there you have it.</comment>


What is the problem with droughts in California? - <AUTHOR>

Why are ppl complaining about the droughts? Seems like you have all the ingredients for desalination: sun + seawater.<p>Am I missing something? <comment><USER2> Scale. Building all of the 17 planned desalination plants would decrease the water deficit by 0.54 million acre-feet (MAF), but the actual shortfall is around 10 times that. It'll also take years to bring those online.

You can try out solutions like that here, in the 'California Water Challenge' game: [http://www.cawaterchallenge.org/responses](http://www.cawaterchallenge.org/responses)

</comment><comment><USER3> Desalinization is expensive.

A lot of the places undergoing severe drought aren't near the coast. Transporting water uphill is even more expensive, both in energy costs to pump and in construction, right-of-way, and repair costs.

The new cost model is not compatible with some of the current economic systems. Cattle ranching requires a lot of water. It's not obvious that the cost of building a replacement system is justified.

You might as well as "why are ppl complaining? Why don't they just move?"

Both are expensive, though the latter also has emotional and civic costs that are harder to measure than desal water.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's not desalination, that's salt production. :)</comment>