As a professional coder who also trained as a machinist I think it's worth explaining what CEOs mean when they say that they can't make goods in the US because there aren't enough machinists, engineers, suppliers, etc.
In Seattle, a coder with a few years of experience and a few management skills can easily earn $200k/y. A good machinist with the same years of experience and solid management skills earns maybe $75k/y. Of course there are exceptions on both sides, but this is the trend. /thread
Since the 70s the US has transitioned from treating the trades as a valid career path comparable with knowledge work to treating the trades as the also-ran category for people who couldn't get into or afford college. We defunded many shop classes in high schools and we amplified the message that after high school *all* of the smart kids go to a university to study some sort of knowledge work.
So what CEOs mean when they say that the US doesn't have enough machinists, engineers, automation experts, etc for manufacturing is that for decades they've avoided paying taxes for schools that teach the trades and they've avoided paying salaries competitive with expert knowledge work and they also don't like the direct consequences of their actions.
@trevorflowers That's a really top down authoritarian view of the country that doesn't really reflect reality.
There's not really a the US at all. There are who knows how many different governments, local, state and federal, involved in education making those decisions, and each government is composed of countless bureaucrats and politicians making their own decisions.
Further, you seem to be suggesting that throwing money at the problem would fix it, but that's obviously not true. We spend tremendous amounts of tax dollars on education, and those countless politicians and bureaucrats probably waste a good bit of it.
So it's an unhelpful over simplification to describe the country the way you do, the state of education the way you do. It's neither true nor does it present us with any real solutions.
In the end it really doesn't matter what CEOs say. Here. We keep electing and re-electing bad politicians who keep directing education to be mismanaged.
That's not all CEOs. That's on us.
@volkris @trevorflowers Any CEO who complains that he/she can't hire X but neither partners with trade groups, local schools or runs their own in-house apprenticeship program is an entitled child and should be ignored.
CEOs get to choose their own business model, and they have full control about whether they'll train their own workforce or rely on someone else to do it for them.
@grumble209 I honestly don't know why you're so obsessed with CEOs here.
But no, in general CEOs don't get to choose their own business models. That's just not how corporations operate in the real world.
@trevorflowers @volkris @grumble209
as far as i remember CEOs are the ones with the highest salaries, higher then presidents, and it’s been told that is because of their huge responsibilities and capabilities.
Strange that when it comes to problems that arise, suddenly they are not responsible for anything - but sure they keep being responsible for collecting their bonuses and shares
@lazyb0y yeah, that's the sort of picture special interest groups like to paint, but it's not really how CEOs work given the legal environment they operate in.
It makes for a good narrative that plays on peoples' emotions, but it's basically just manipulation.
Ask yourself, do you think a corporation WANTs to lose money? Probably not, right? So why would a corporation throw money at a CEO if they don't have to?
They'd lose money and give up profits if they did. So it's not a realistic story.
@volkris @grumble209 @trevorflowers
i dont describe „how CEOs work“.
And a corporation isnt a single person with a simple concrete clear will, not even for a concrete question as „do you want to lose money?“
It’s not „the corporation“ who tells me CEOs must get enormous amounts of money because their responsibility, it’s people who think the system must be like that, including economists and, surprisingly, CEO‘s , too.