>best bet for your future
The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates. Once you get to that situation there's no system that will not cause most everyone to be unhappy.
The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates. Once you get to that situation there's no system that will not cause most everyone to be unhappy.
Flash forward to the 2010s and there are too many entry level accountants/financiers/managers in training, and too few software professionals. Even in fields with some shortages it's not a given that you will have bargaining power e.g. Nursing.
All of these professions do just fine, even the ones in which there's "oversupply". What these professions don't provide is readily available opportunity for someone of substantially below median intelligence and work ethic to make a very nice living with little more than token effort as is the case in software, or any other "hot" industry (in a cooler industry they plateau much closer to entry level).
I disagree that you can make a nice living room with "substantially below median intelligence" in software. Getting into FAANG+ is hard and plenty of people never even finish their degree or get a related job.
I think you have no idea what people with "substantially below median intelligence" are like.
This gets to a core issue with our system. Employers want an over supply to drive down wages and the easiest way to get that is misinformation.
> The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates.
>And as usual, those with the better information and means to switch paths or take multiple shots will be the ones who can come out ahead.
I feel a person should care more about their own happiness than how other people are doing.
Additionally, if you’re wealthy enough, going into a passion project is the viable option. It’s what privilege affords you- doing what you are passionate about. I wished everyone had this.
Seriously? In the late 1990s, I was in middle school. My grand parents sat me down and told me to work towards a degree that makes a lot of money. They had lists of "typical starting salaries, by college degrees". We picked the top 3, and I started working towards those. I later reassessed and picked the top 1 - Electrical Engineering.
In 2010, I got my BSEE, and my starting salary was more than the average US salary.
Looking back, it was a hard road, but I get paid enough to provide for my wife and kids, and our life is good.
And people from poor and/or rural backgrounds? I only got those discussions because I tested well enough that my future potential was considered a societal matter and educators unrelated to me were brought in to inform both me AND my parents. None of my classmates, siblings, or cousins had that benefit.
My point is that whether or not something is 'simple' depends very much on what resources you (and your group/family) have at hand. For example, I was coding in elementary school, so from my experience the idea that coding could be difficult to learn doesn't make sense. But it obviously is/can be difficult depending on background.
And never mind if somebody is from an abusive home (like I also was): If mom's passed out drunk and depressed on the couch and middle school you is running after your younger sibling (me again), mom and dad aren't giving you college or earnings talks.
It's not a kid's fault for not knowing these things, although at least now bright kids with no adults can use the Web to help and look up this information.
There are three negatives in this sentence, and I'm having a very difficult time telling what it is saying (and I tried several times to track through the parity flips required). Anyone mind translating it for me?
It's not that difficult and using the three negatives makes sense.