One of the problems with "coding" and the other jobs these classes target is that you can only teach so much. Either you have a logical mind capable of a million levels of abstract thought, or you don't. I'm in IT and we have a similar problem with people with no troubleshooting skills trying to get and hold onto jobs. Either development is going to have to get simpler than it already is, or people will need to really ramp up their overall ability levels.

I imagine the simplification side of this equation is going to be in the form of (surprise) AWS proprietary, AWS-only, super-easy SDK provided, It Just Works!-level PaaS services. Getting people used to using only these services by not teaching fundamentals would be a really good way to ensure future business. I work in a development shop on the IT aide of the house and everything is "serverless" now...when coding becomes Legos even more than it is now, then anyone can code. We're seeing this in IT too -- on the Microsoft side of the house, Microsoft has discontinued all fundamentals training like the MCSA/MCSE track in favor of how-to-drive-Azure services.

The reasons for all this aren't altruistic in the least. FAANGs and Microsoft hate having to pay Seattle and San Francisco inflated salaries for developers, and they know they can only push offshoring so far - both due to public opinion and the same law of non-infinite talent. Why pay $300K for a Google SRE when you can force it down to a $50K job by flooding the market with good-enough people?

One thing I wonder is if Chinese families actually want more children. Here in the US, we've become a lot less religious, some have become better educated, and some of us have become more affluent. All these factors translate to fewer children (also, same goes for the more educated and less religious poor -- kids are expensive.) I imagine China's population has also experienced a massive increase in overall wealth given their economic expansion, so it's possible they have the same probkem.

Either way, it's pretty much a given that they'll find a solution to whatever demographic crunch they're in. They have a huge advantage over countries like Japan and European countries that simply suggest increasing the population...they can directly make it happen. It's the main advantage of having total economic control over a thriving economy...you don't have to beg and plead with people to do things. You can just use the money and policy levers you have at your disposal to make things happen. Look at how China just plowed money into infrastructure in 2008 to stave off economic problems, and we can't even get 400-odd Congresspeople to agree to invest comparatively little. China's flavor of communism appears to be working better than those tried before. They can choose economic directions, move millions of people form the countryside into cities, etc. -- so I assume population increases won't be a problem.

No executive, no matter how public the failure and how critical the infrastructure is, will care about security until they're liable for it. Execs have a whole staff that deflects problems; they never see the fallout of their decisions to not invest in security. I think one of the best ways to externalize this is to turn IT/development into a branch of engineering and use PE licensing as a way to shift blame back to executives while shielding them to a degree they'd find acceptable. Proposals like "corporate death penalties" for security violations don't work because the executive class will just call up their lobbyists and buy their way out of trouble.

Computers and connectivity have graduated from "cool toys that enhance productivity" to "critical infrastructure that the modern world can't live without." At the same time, we still let money-chasing idiots enroll in "learn DevOps in just 4 short weeks" bootcamps as their only education into this field and celebrate the lack of standardized education. The way to encourage basic education is to adopt a licensing structure that at least makes sure people have the fundamentals down. So many newbies are coming into this field with zero concept of the basics and IMO that's just going to make security issues worse over time.

I think we should just take life-safety and critical infrastructure systems and apply licensed-professional rules to them as a start. Work on licensing people by standardizing their education/experience requirements. Give licensed professionals continuing-education responsibilities, and liability that will prevent them from signing off on stupid designs. That's the balance point -- the licensed professional needs the ability to charge a premium for good work, and the system needs to be in place that encourages good design methods.

I live in metro NYC and it's expensive. California, especially a 75 mile radius around San Francisco, is a mind-boggling whole new level of expensive. Just like metro NY, they're not making any new land so there's only so many places to expand. Even with that, I'm not locked into a bidding war for a tiny 3 bedroom house with no property going for over $2M, just so my commute's less than 2 hours each way. Bring this kind of money and this willingness to pay crazy money into any real estate market and it'll go nuts.

Austin's not exactly a sleepy little town, but one thing it has (not necessarily a good one either) is the ability to expand hundreds of miles in any direction. Traffic will suck and it'll become a massive sprawly mess as people buy $2M mansions on 3 acre lots (and pay $2000/year in property tax) with their SV tech bubble money...just look at metros like DFW or Atlanta with few natural boundaries. So I'm sure they can absorb the population -- not sure they'll like the result.

Where I live, during the height of COVID and even a little bit today, houses are going for crazy amounts because people still want to live in NY but don't need to live in NYC anymore. Same goes for people living close to the city moving further out -- if you have to do a horrible commute 2 days a week instead of 5, suddenly living 1.5 hours away isn't awful anymore. The prices are crazy because people literally are trading $2M apartments (and I think a lot of residents who don't have retirement savings are seeing this as their one golden opportunity to move to North Carolina or Florida or whatever.) I imagine something similar is happening in Austin...a sleepy cow town suburb suddenly becomes super-hot real estate because it's near Tesla's headquarters.

"Often, unions do not look out for the health of the company."

Maybe so, but "the health of the company" would be a lot healthier if the executives weren't getting paid 300 times what the average worker is getting. A unionized workforce would force companies to share at least some of their profits with employees in the form of better wages or conditions. I think that's what modern unions need to push back against more than anything...the main reason everything is so lopsided economically today is because we've internalized the idea that CEOs deserve $100M salaries and god-like treatment, and that the workers just have to sit back and deal with it.

"Companies know they need to keep employees happy."

Skilled or unskilled, I have never worked in an environment where the company cared whether I was happy. Outside of magical chocolate factory FAANG employers with insane profit margins, I can't think of a place that says "let's prioritize raises/benefits/better working conditions over a bonus for us!" At least with the cold war/mutually assured destruction scenario in place, both sides have to at least come to a compromise.

Yes, it's 100% a good thing. It's the only way you get pushback against a much more powerful force. I would much rather work in an environment where labor and management are at least honest with each other that they're working toward different goals. It's better than pretending they're all on the same team. Even if I were in management, I'd be happier knowing that there were only certain levers I could pull with the workforce...it'd make the hard task of managing humans easier.

This is the story that has to come out, but employers hold too many of the cards now. People who say they can negotiate an amazing deal on their own aren't the wheeler-dealers they think they are. Even highly skilled labor faces the threat of offshoring.

I've never worked in a union environment, but I know how much goof they've done for the average worker over the years. The problem is that people are fed a constant diet of anti-union propaganda -- telling them that if they just work harder they can be just like the executives. It's not going to happen for 99.9% of people.

I've also heard the argument from the employer side that goes something like, "Oh, we care about you and your well-being so much. We love having open and honest discussions with each and every one of you. If you run off and join the union, we won't be able to talk freely anymore. Wouldn't that be awful?"

I think that's a total BS argument. Keep things equitable by driving just enough of a wedge between labor and management...employers use that "happy family" thing to walk all over people, not give them raises that keep up with inflation, and get rid of people whenever they feel like it. Having employees take back some of the power in the relationship is required...the wealth divide is too big now for employers to care out of the goodness of their hearts; they can just declare bankruptcy and retire whenever they feel like it.

A unionization vote in Alabama would never work. People are much more conservative and dead-set against unions for the most part. These people are already primed by employers to hate the idea of unions. I've heard lots of arguments..."Oh, I can't shine as bright if I'm dragged down by my coworkers!" "Unions are for unskilled people, look at me, I'm brilliant at my job!" "If only I work just that much harder, I'll be just like my boss/the plant owner/Jeff Bezos! All these liberals are dragging me down!"

I hope one of the unionization drives succeeds -- because otherwise the owner class is going to take this as a sign that they've completely won and can do whatever they want to their workforce. Companies have spent decades trying to create a "one big happy family" culture to distract employees from the fact that they're not getting compensated fairly while the executives get to keep the difference. If I had to pick between the big happy family and some animosity between labor and management, I'd pick the animosity. Having a workforce the executives are slightly afraid of is a good thing. It doesn't have to be intimidation or slashing tires or whatever...just a subtle reminder every now and then that the bosses don't hold all the cards.

Anyone who votes against a union is not voting their self-interest. Is it really realistic that average workers are just temporarily embarrassed billionaires who will rise above all the other dummies just by putting in more unpaid work? Or would the average worker be better off with sane work rules, fair compensation and enough job security to not have to plan life in 6-month increments? Part of the reason the US was so prosperous in the 50s/60s was that more middle class households had good jobs, good compensation and the ability to buy houses/cars/education without taking on massive amounts of debt. Unions (and manufacturing work) helped make that happen...and could again. We need jobs for everyone regardless of skill that allow them to live reasonably well...factory employment used to do that. I graduated high school in the early 90s, and some of my classmates went right to an auto plant or similar -- versus today's situation where high school grads can string together 3 or 4 minimum wage jobs and that's about it.

"excesses and abuses"

Everyone says unions are evil but never cites any of these so-called abuses, or the ones they do cite are just kind of the way it works and a feature. One example I can think of is something like the unions grocery store workers belong to. If someone's working in a grocery store for their entire career, it's pretty clear they don't have a whole lot of other options. Having a seniority system and a pay progression for years of service is a benefit to the long term/lifer workers. Yes, the younger workers get laid off first and don't get the same pay as veterans, but this happens in non-union workplaces also. Non-union workplaces are full of the "lazy, goldbricking" union worker types as well -- they can just hide better through office politics. I've spent a career in tech and have witnessed a few times where people kept their jobs way longer than they should. One guy we worked with did no work, everyone knew about it, yet somehow it took over a year to get rid of him. And when I mean no work, I mean he would come in, watch YouTube all day and refuse to help with anything.

People forget that not everyone is a hard-charging type-A Silicon Valley startup founder looking to disrupt the world and make billions. Most people just want a normal job, want to be compensated fairly for that job, and have enough stability that they can plan their lives somewhat more long-term than 6 months from now.

"Are we really not considering that perhaps Amazon workers in Alabama do not want unions?"

Anti-union campaigns have a way of twisting things. No worker wants to be forced to stand 12 hours a day, have no bathroom breaks, be fired if they fall behind some unachievable quota, spend unpaid time being security-screened on the way out of work, or any of the other problems widely reported. Given this, you'd think that the union vote would be a done deal...my thought was that it would pass, and then Amazon would immediately close the warehouse to spite them.

However, the anti-union propaganda is quite effective. Also consider that Alabama's a red state with a pretty low level of education overall...they're pre-conditioned by the Republicans to hate organized labor anyway and are easily manipulated. You see this in every anti-organizing campaign. I see it in the tech industry all the time too -- I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the "I couldn't set up my trade show booth at the convention center until a union electrician came to plug my stuff in" complaint. They'll bring up every perceived negative thing about unions in an attempt to retain control of the bargaining. I think that unions are the best deal for the vast majority of workers -- any abuses are overblown and everything's a net positive in environments where workers have at least some leverage.

The sad thing is that the people voting against this don't realize that the only way for an average person to have a reasonably good life is to go back to those "Norma Rae" days. Sure, things are great if you're some web developer working for a FAANG or startup; you're making junior executive style money. However, it's very easy to forget how bad most people have it. Most people are stuck working a job they hate, often dangerous and stressful, without the benefits of union representation and the higher wages that come with it.

If I could, I'd roll back the clock to the late 80s/early 70s, before offshoring/imports, when factories employed thousands of people, all at very good wages, turning out goods 3 shifts a day. Anyone of any skill level could find a job, unlike today where your only hope of getting out of minimum-wage territory is expensive college education. The system worked better when wealth was more evenly distributed...even though the factory owners were super-wealthy, there wasn't as much animosity between the rich and the middle class because people had more stability and income than they do now. I disagreed with basically everything Trump ever said, but one thing he did get right was a desire to return to a manufacturing economy -- a 100% service economy just doesn't benefit everyone. Make it so that someone graduating high school who isn't college material can go get a high-paying job in a factory...the end result is that you'll have people who are more secure and therefore more likely to spend their money instead of hoarding it.

I worked for an airline a while back that had non-unionized pilots during its "startup" phase. I think the idea was that they'd bring in fresh eager young pilots from the military or regional airlines (where the working conditions are horrible) and get more concessions out of them than they would a unionized workforce. This is similar to how tech employers get their fresh meat^W^W employees from college where they're used to pulling all nighters and trading free food for extra hours at work. Anyway, I was in IT but was in the pilots' orbit a lot more than most IT folks. It took the pilots who wanted a union 3 votes over a period of years to get a union...and in this case I'm sure it was having to wait until a majority of the workforce grew up and realized that their employer wasn't one big happy family. This is even more important in aviation because seniority is everything -- you can't easily jump from airline to airline and keep your quality of life the same because you have to start at the bottom of the seniority order again. So, it was in their best interest to make sure they had some leverage against unrealistic demands.

During those votes, the amount of anti-union rhetoric you heard was extremely strong...the airline did everything right up to the legal lines they couldn't cross to subtly imply that life was going to be miserable once they "couldn't talk openly with one another." I'm sure Amazon did the same, except happening to drop something like, "Oh, did you see our latest line of picker robots? These should be ready in a couple of years...but we REALLY don't want to have to use them."

It doesn't have to be thuggish behavior like slashing management's car tires in the parking lot, but I do think there needs to be adversity between labor and management. Companies have spent years cultivating the happy family concept in the hopes that this will distract workers from the fact that they're getting a raw deal. Pushback on both sides is healthy. It's critical now that workers are basically powerless when compared to the organizations they're working for.

I think this is pretty good evidence that people have been totally brainwashed against unions and the abusive employers have won.

Everyone likes to say, "Workers don't need a union if everything's fine" and I kind of agree with that, except for the fact that an individual worker (no matter how much of a prima donna 10x-er they are) has very little power to bargain for a mutually beneficial deal for both. Even if you are a guru superstar rockstar full stack genius who lives at work and lives for work, you might forget that the vast VAST majority of people out there have horrible jobs that are made worse by bad working conditions, unrealistic demands and low pay.

I know that Amazon would have just shut down the warehouse had this succeeded, but I'm unhappy that it failed. This is because the company will take this as a signal that they can do whatever they want to their labor force and crack the whip harder. I think it's going to take pushing salaries back to minimum wage for everyone and making them work 7 days a week to get traction for getting any sort of balance back. If one of the most anti-union regions of the country even entertains a union vote, you can bet the working conditions are horrible...yet look at how they basically said they were willing to be abused.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. The backstabbing politicking middle managers have figured out a way to stay relevant and "add value"...by forcing people back to the office. Large companies have massive bloated reporting structures with middle managers who do nothing but babysit employees all day.

I figured a couple of old school employers would get together and hire McKinsey or something to do a study saying how unproductive WFH employees are, how badly their companies need to transform digitally and collaborate in an Agile fashion in an in-person setting. I already see stories in the business press sowing the seeds of doubt about WFH to insecure executives.

Oh well, it was great while it lasted. Back to soul-sucking commutes and life-wasting office politics. People just don't get that not all workers want the zany workplace with the preschool furniture, free food, beer fridge and Nerf guns. I would be perfectly happy never seeing the inside of another workplace again, yet doing productive work for one on better (WFH) terms.