Their company is an Eastern European 'SaaS' company whose main product automates blog network deployments so marketers can run campaigns that spam Google's ranking algorithm. SMH. You got banned because you're a spamware company.
Then he would have published on PLoS instead of getting 300 paper rejections. The cream rises to the top. It's bureaucracy that artificially stops it. Genius happens in spite of it, not because of it.
I think the main drive of the article is "just don't even try to move here" which is very anti-competitive. Sounds to me like writers in NY have a hard profession, and do not want more people competing with them for lower wages.
Being intentionally vague about income metrics by diffusing it among a population. State senator salaries are publicly available, so really more than anything making the point that I'm not some keyboard warrior making $1 over the median wage, trying to give advice. Hopefully it comes across as useful to some. Apologies for my lack of context.
OK, so when they have a section titled "San Francisco is not for you", you pay attention, you read the programming, you accept it as truth, and then you work until you are 73. YMMV. Good for you. Good luck.
Also, I agree. Emergent population behaviors do not equal a cabal. Nevertheless, emergent population behaviors exist. Humans work in their own self interest. NY is a big city with a lot of competition.
And their endowments... and tax payer subsidized student debt programs... and rich people paying $10m to skip the line... not sure I would characterize that as clinging to life support. I would say though, that it's a giant waste of money and an efficient market gives ZFs about how much money you wasted.
_Assuming_ there are no other applicants for the job, you are correct. However, as Jeff Atwood would say, "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
Allowing yourself to take advantage of the fact that you don't have eye-wateringly high, ivy league levels of student debt, and therefore can offer better cost efficiency is a BIG advantage. If you ALSO have massive debt and require massive pay, without a degree, well, yeah, you're screwed both ways. Same solution though: work extra hard.
I think what I hear you saying is not to take a 30% cut on wages that have stagnated. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you should take a swing at that $300k/yr 'elite' job, not the leftovers patronizingly displayed in the NY Times article. If you can do that job for less than $300k because you don't have $250k in student debt, that's what the free market calls a competitive advantage. You should be empowered to use your advantage, not discouraged like this article attempts to do.
Also, my Dad grew up on a shit farm, forced to work for free until he escaped as a teenager. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Work hard, get smart, get rich, in that order.
And by 'good jobs' they mean 'anything near a decent wage'... for dropouts. This is one of the most patronizing, anti-competitive articles I've seen in a long time. If you want evidence of coastal elitism, read this article as exhibit A.
As a dropout who learns faster on youtube than in a classroom, and making more than my state senator's entire family, let me give everyone reading this advice: Don't be scared away by elites protecting their jobs in large cities. Come in at 70% of the price, excellent work ethic, and give them a run for their money. Most Americans live in a country that values cost efficiency over credentials. We hold meritocracy above bureaucracy, and it should be celebrated not discouraged.
So what happens when your company's roadmap consists of technical slop and they won't pay you to learn things like differentiable programming? Do you think they're going to pay you to write Vue.js until you retire?
This strategy might work for a few years, but is a long-term career hazard. You are in charge of raising your own bar.
In high rent areas of the country, like New York, don't count on proving anything about the independent bookstore model that has been bankrupt for 20 years. Maybe first focus on the things you can control, like not chasing the world's largest book seller out of your city. Maybe start with that. With 25,000 more techies walking around, I'm sure the local market demand for books would increase not decrease.
In my best Wipro-excuse voice: "... see, thing is:..."
... they have a process for everything. It's just a very convoluted, silo'd, circuitous process that takes several days to get anything done, with several steps including: throw a support ticket over the wall, and let a subprocess pick it up. On and on we go, until we have a lax process that is impossible to fix, on to which, all we can do is pump more, cheap, low skilled talent. But hey, it's creating a middle class somewhere.
Surely you're referring to Microsoft's team's time to implement failover to the product offering, not time every customer spends on implementation???
FTA: "if _you_ are an engineer working on a small thing, say datacenter automatic failover component" (emphasis added). Pretty sure he's talking about EVERY customer spending months to turn on fail-over.