[GTALUG] Boeing India software engineers

[Gary]

No, I think YOU have misunderstood. When I download lectures I do so for 
the sole purpose of entertainment and nothing more; I'm a senior 
citizen. My thinking was that those individuals who enjoy science and 
engineering can still indulge that interest and yet support themselves 
with jobs that are unlikely to be outsourced. The alternative case of 
spending a lot of money on a science or engineering degree to learn 
science, which is their passion, just does not make sense because the 
hope of establishing a career in the field before it gets outsourced is 
unfounded in view of the fact that places like India have very talented 
people who can do the job, do it better and work cheap!
/gary




On 19-03-13 11:28 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:21 PM Gary via talk <talk at gtalug.org> wrote:
>> Well, as I had indicated in an earlier email, it is a fact that from a
>> U.S. census 74% of those with STEM degrees do not work in STEM. This is
>> my authority.
>>
>> However, even IEEE says that the "tech shortage" is just a myth:
>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
>>
>> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/13/how_the_myth_of_a_canadian_skill_shortage_was_shattered_goar.html
>>
>> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-myth-of-the-tech-talent-shortage-why-its-a-much-smaller-problem-than-vendors-say/
>>
> Gary,
>
> I think you misunderstand what Alex says. How is it different saying
> "only vocational training is worthwhile because spending money getting
> an academic degree is useless" from "you don't need vocational
> training, you can learn plumbing from youtube?". That is the ignorance
> he is calling out.
>
> I can attest to that. These are some very specialised fields. I have
> worked with some very smart people, who have reinvented 50 year old
> research because they don't have the academic CS background, and
> refuse to learn from those mistakes. This is why you see software
> becoming slower again :-).
>
> Dhaval
>