I actually feel bad for lawyers/law students. Yes, yes, cue the lawyer jokes, but what's happening to law is a perfect example of what's coming for basically all white collar work in the future. Hopefully I'll be retired or dead before it fully takes over. It's also a preview of what's happening in IT, accelerated significantly, so it should be taken as a cautionary tale.

It used to be that even doing an OK job in law school and passing the bar was an absolutely guaranteed ticket to permanent employment at the very least, and firm partner/country club lifestyle at the top end. From what I've read, the American Bar Association has done exactly what is being done in IT in the last 20 years:
- Increased the supply of new grads by accrediting more and more law schools.
- Decreased the equilibrium price of legal services by allowing offshoring of routine tasks as well as expert systems like the article is talking about. Apparently you needed to pay a full lawyer salary previously to have case documents reviewed for discovery, etc. Now new law grads are doing this job for Starbucks wages.
- Encouraging more and more people to get into the lucrative field of law, failing to mention the lack of opportunities.

Sound familiar? Tech executives complaining about a labor shortage fund extra educational programs, they offshore work, and they have the H1-B to fall back on.

Apparently, there are still insanely lucrative law jobs out there. Big corporate firms start their associates at $160K a year in New York, plus bonus. If you stay on that track, you will never want for money again -- you'll be well into the luxury lifestyle forever. BUT - there's a catch. You have to go to one of the top 14 law schools in the country, preferably Harvard/Yale/Stanford, graduate in the very top of your class, and do activities like law review on top of all that. Otherwise, you might as well not even go to law school, because you'll never make back your investment. There are tons of pissed off law grads in this boat -- I would be too if I were told there would be guaranteed riches at the end of the rainbow and wasted 3 years of my life plus bar exam preparation time.

Right now, the only professions that are safe are medicine and pharmacy. Mostly this is due to a very strong lobbying group (AMA) and the regulations/licensure surrounding the profession. I think it's definitely time to license the engineering/design side of IT and make the operations side a trade with all the protections that entails. I know I'd be a lot more comfortable if new entrants into the IT field went through an actual apprenticeship as opposed to a Ruby on Rails coder bootcamp or MCSE certification mill. Plus, having the actual engineers/architects licensed would bring personal liability into the picture and result in higher quality work overall. Time for the profession to grow up and get out of Mom's basement, so to speak.

"For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. "

There are no more mental health facilities the way you're thinking of them. All the institutions closed in the 80s and 90s. Now, you pretty much need to be Hannibal Lechter to get a mental health inpatient bed; you need to be so dangerous to yourself or others that the only choice is to keep you locked up and attempt to treat you. Prison is the new asylum for most mid-level mentally ill people.

When I can be bothered to install AdBlock on a machine, the responsiveness goes up significantly. I'm guessing most of the speed increase isn't in the downloading of resources, but the messy JavaScript that has to run in the browser to position everything.

On a related note, I also remember hearing something about when the new CEO of JCPenney took over, his team noticed that almost 1/3 of all network traffic coming out of their HQ was YouTube. That's a LOT of cat videos. It's enough trying to balance control and freedom on desktops; I can't imagine having to police the company Internet connection.

I read this whole thing as an end to the whole Windows 8 chapter. This whole thing started when Ballmer freaked out about the iPhone/iPad, and Microsoft immediately set out to turn Windows into iOS, make a tablet, and make a phone, just like Apple. Windows 8 and even Windows 10 to some extent is so heavily driven by the hope that people will be exclusively buying software from the Microsoft App Store, and tablets/phones from Microsoft. During the preview, those of us using traditional PCs complained bitterly that Microsoft wasn't undoing the whole touch-centric thing enough, dumbing down the operating system and getting rid of individual controls over the machine. The good upshot of this whole "Windows as a service" thing is that maybe now Microsoft will start folding in changes to focus it back more on PCs. Having them basically admit that the Nokia thing was a bad idea and that they're giving up on Windows Phone except in niche markets is a good first step.

It takes a lot for a large company to admit big mistakes, and usually they've burned through massive amounts of money and goodwill by that time. Look at HP's writedown of Autonomy, or Microsoft's writedown of aQuantive (or whatever they're called.) Or, look at IBM's near-death experience in the 90s, or Apple's for that matter. There's plenty of examples like that. The question is whether there's enough left to turn things around. Some companies do a good job, others are mixed. Apple is an obvious success story. IBM is currently selling itself off piece by piece, and trying to morph into some kind of white-shoe management consulting firm. They still have massive amounts of money (and revenue) to burn through, but I'm never going to think of IBM again the same way they were thought of before the 90s. We'll see if Microsoft ends up the same way!

I've been doing the Insider Preview thing ever since it was available, and my feeling is that something as important as an operating system should have a fixed-version servicing model. It's great to get new features over time, but could result in headaches for IT. Microsoft has said they will introduce a "long term stable" branch, but my opinion is that mixing features and fixes in the update stream is just going to lead to a mess. If they set the LTS branch root at this RTM point, and never update anything, you can bet that people are going to pressure IT to switch them to the rolling upgrade model. Now, if they keep the LTS branch primed with Service-Packs-that-are-not-Service-Packs, then this is different. The problem is that I can't see them doing this since Service Packs have traditionally reset the extended support clock. I'm assuming Server 2016 is going to be a little more stable than Windows 10, but who knows? This Windows-as-a-Service thing is a big shift.

I know we're all supposed to be running our workloads in The Cloud, preferably Azure, but I think Microsoft is ignoring a key part of its customer base. There are still a lot of use cases for solid on-premises OS deployments on physical, local machines. They're not mainstream anymore, but they exist, and trying to force people out of that model is just going to drive Linux/BSD adoption. Not every corner of the world has high-speed Internet connectivity available at reasonable prices!

Also, as people have pointed out, RTM is not the milestone it once was. No one is pressing millions of installation DVDs anymore. But, RTM did mean that all the showstopper bugs were taken care of, and the concept of "ship it, we'll patch it later" just didn't work. All I do know is this -- Microsoft is toast if Grandma can't upgrade her Windows 7 box she bought at Best Buy with zero issues.

One of the problems with the for-profit college market is that they prey on unsophisticated people. Corinthian Colleges was just forced to shut down by the Dept. of Education because their graduation and employment rates were so abysmal. Unfortunately, they know non-traditional students often see education as the only way out of a bad situation, and know exactly how to take advantage of that.

A lot of people say it's the fault of the student loan program, but the reality is that these institutions are simply selling an unsophisticated person a dream, and cashing their student loan checks that could have easily gone to a community college or state university for a better result. They also take advantage of former military people separating from service, since they earned partial payment of their education expenses by serving.

I have never seen anyone with a University of Phoenix degree who I would consider "college educated" simply because the programs they offer don't actually do that. There's plenty of Internet stories about what actually passes for coursework and former instructors talking about how they can't fail anyone and are forced to try to retain students so those loan checks keep coming in.

I guess things really are different in Europe with respect to employment. I understand Spain is having economic troubles now, but you are very lucky your wife has the choice. In the US, most women who take time off to take care of children are branded unemployable, and often treated worse than a non-mother with a long-term gap in their employment.

It's a legitimate concern for my wife and I. She has a good job that pays well, but is very inflexible and involves a long commute. My oldest kid is going to be entering school next year, and the younger one is only 2 years behind that. I would love for her to have the choice to stay home and work a more flexible job or just take care of the kids. The problem is, once she pulls that trigger and decides to leave, getting comparable employment again is extremely hard. We could get by on one income, but frankly having the financial cushion allows us to actually save, and enjoy life at the same time. Without that second income, there would be some pretty deep cuts since we live in an expensive area and have other high fixed costs. So yes, we've definitely talked about it and are both coming to the same conclusion -- that leaving is a one-way choice and it would severely reduce our retirement savings, etc. Not that she won't eventually do it...the sad thing is that it's a permanent reduction in income.

Whether she wants to go back to coding, or do something different, she should be happy she has this choice. If she doesn't like development, a systems analyst or PM would be a good choice. An analyst with half a clue on how some of the stuff she's specifying works is a huge plus.

Unfortunately this most likely won't get seen because the news feed has moved on, but here goes...

The pressure in most companies is for more experienced workers to move into management. However, think about the last awful boss you had. Unless they were an MBA (the corporate equivalent of a commissioned officer, who didn't actually do the job before and was just appointed fresh out of business school,) that person most likely was an individual contributor. People who are great workers often get promoted, and that's where the problem begins for a lot of them.

The skills that make a successful tech worker absolutely do not translate to management. It's a completely different job. You go from making machines and code do what you want to politics and constantly begging people to do things. This is similar to project management - it also boggles my mind why a techie would want to be a project manager. There, you get secretary duty that also involves all the politics and begging with no authority. Unfortunately, most large companies' HR frameworks aren't set up to reward techies with a career progression that doesn't involve management. I work in one that does, but you are still expected to have some supervisory duties as you get further up the chain.

I currently have a "senior lead" position in a very small team, and I have made it very clear to my boss that I have no desire to go any further into management. Corporate politics is toxic, and personally for me it is a very hard shift from doing my best and getting my own work done to being judged by the quality of others' work. People are not predictable, and any attempts to control their actions will brand you for life as the "evil boss." And to dispel one myth, yes, there are horrible bosses who do nothing, but that person who sits around all day and does meetings instead of work is usually shielding you from everyone else's crap so you can get work done...at least that's how I work, and I have to do part of our team's work in addition.

Personally, I'd recommend making yourself as technically valuable a possible, getting a huge broad skill set, and becoming a consultant if you have no desire to work with people. You'll save a lot of people headaches who would have to work with you as a manager. If you hate your job, it will translate over to your personal life and you will end up miserable even if you make slightly more than a regular worker.

Yes, it's easy to just grant FQTV miles arbitrarily, but airlines do somewhat treat them like currency. Also, the old-school domestic airlines (AA, UA, DL, hey, are there really only 3 left???) rely heavily on business travelers so it's in their best interest to not water down their programs. But you are right - unless they specifically block out inventory, they won't lose money, especially for a one-off bug bounty payment.

Look at FlyerTalk forums sometime. All those consultants working for the Big 4, or traveling salesmen, or midlevel corporate executives are on there complaining constantly about a perceived slight or loss of benefit. I know a bunch of consultants who easily fly 40+ weeks out of the year. I can definitely see someone being upset about service if they have to endure that much flying, but there are some people who really take it to an extreme. One example would be just missing a status level unless you happen to book an around-the-world trip by the end of the year, and literally sitting on the plane for 48 hours to rack up miles. I guess I'd be a little upset if I did a mileage run and then couldn't get anything for it, but still...

It's even more interesting now with Delta. DL has decided they actually want to sell first class seats to paying customers, so they're reducing the price from, say, 8x economy price to 3x economy price. That really stirred up a s**tstorm with heavy Delta flyers -- suddenly it's a million times harder to get a free upgrade unless you're Platinum Elite. I'm a moderate flyer, never enough to even get the first status level in a FF program, but I always just end up buying tickets over the long run with what I rack up. That seems to work for me....that and hotel points -- taking a family of four on a trip is easier with the occasional free hotel night Marriott throws me.

"Rapid growth lets you gloss over lots of nasty systemic problems, but infinite growth is not possible."

We'll see. In the mid to late '80s, Japan was supposed to take over the world. I'm guessing one of the reasons they couldn't make this happen was the population size and relative cultural isolation. (The other part was the financial bubble that made the growth possible, but that's another story.)

I see two different things in China that could make a difference -- a massive population advantage, and a central government willing to do anything to advance the cause of the country. They're pouring money into infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and keep growth running, and it's all being done with no dissent due to their structure. We just can't do that in the US -- any government spending is considered wasteful and socialist these days. China seems to be more willing to play the long game.

The Foxconn thing is interesting though. It really sounds like a central committee member told the CEO to keep his mouth shut about getting rid of his workforce. Massive unemployment can lead to a very unstable population. Even if it's menial factory work, giving everyone something to do and keep them out of trouble is key.

Most of the traditionalists don't hate Apple products -- I don't, I have an iPhone and a MacBook at home. The problem is that Lenovo just saw Apple as the design leader, when the reality is that they are the design leader _in the market segment they're famous for catering to._ ThinkPads are workhorses, boring solid business laptops that people in that segment like. Turning them into a consumer-focused MacBook clone to chase some kind of hipster cred that is exclusively the domain of Apple made them not appeal to those who liked their boxy solid nature.

It's just interesting that Lenovo is even thinking about walking back their design choices. Their design blog has a post from a few years ago that basically tells people they need to get over the loss of the old keyboard because it's not coming back. They touted the new clicky trackpad as an awesome new thing even when their customers told them it was awful. The fact that they're even thinking about a "ThinkPad Classic" line is a big shift, kind of like Microsoft deciding to walk back at least some of their poor design choices in Windows 10. I just hope they don't decide to charge $4000 for the privilege.

Please Lenovo, take my money. :-)

Seriously, this may end up a very good example of a company finally getting the message and listening to what customers want. I have been a huge ThinkPad fan for ages, even when they were made by IBM and impossible to afford unless your company bought one for you. The last three generations of ThinkPad T-series models have taken away the traditional IBM keyboard (although the replacement is still half-decent), TrackPoint buttons and LED indicators, probably in an attempt to look like a MacBook Pro. The last model (T450/550) restored the buttons on the TrackPoint, but still lacks the lower physical buttons on the touchpad.

All this time, all the traditionalists have bitterly complained and taken their money elsewhere. I'm living with the T540p now, hate the touchpad but I can't find another non-rugged laptop that can take the daily abuse it gets. (Funny note - being a product engineer for our company, I just had a meeting with a bunch of product managers last month. Each one of them had an identical MacBook Air. I hauled out my monster ThinkPad, and they said, "Heh, we need to get you a new laptop.")

It's kind of like Windows 8. Yes, _most_ people like shiny flashy things; that's why Apple products sell well. But there's another market segment that appreciates solid design and functionality. Alienating these people, who have just as much money to spend as the shiny flashy people do, is a good way to lose customers!

Agreed. I graduated in 1997, and I think back then it was still possible to find work that made any degree from any reasonable school worth it. Liberal arts students have always had problems, but at least there were some teaching jobs available and companies were willing to take a chance on someone who wasn't a perfect fit. For example, I got a chemistry degree and used my part time tech support job to land my first "real" IT job. These days, you really have to think about it. Graduating in a field where you can find work is almost always a guaranteed win over not going, or worse not finishing. But, going to a private school and running up massive debts you can't pay back to get a degree that isn't marketable is an even worse decision than it once was, given the vast sums of money involved.

Just like the tech boom we're seeing now, I think the "everyone needs to be in college" boom will calm down somewhat. Tuition can't go up forever, and if people aren't getting an ROI they won't pay for it anymore. Being a state school grad, I've always wondered whether the Ivy League connections network you buy for your $50K+ per year is actually worth it. I know that's where all the investment bankers, big law firm partners and management consultants come from, but are you guaranteed success with a Harvard, Yale or whatever diploma? I don't think that's the case.

An even more extreme example is law school. The Bar Association basically gutted entry level law jobs, allowed offshoring, etc. all while opening new law schools and encouraging people to practice. Now, the only way to make any serious money as a lawyer is to work for a big law firm, and those firms only hire the top 10% of the class from the top 14 law schools in the country. So not only do you need to go to the best schools -- you need to be better than all your peers. Otherwise, you waste $250K+ and three years of your life...literally flushing it down the toilet, no recovery possible, etc. That's the worst ROI in education ever.

Believe it or not, trades are a good idea. They're not outsourceable, and if you live in a state with reasonably strong unions, commercial construction will provide a very stable living. Plus, apprentices get paid while learning. There's going to be a ton of steamfitters, carpenters, welders, etc. retiring, so anyone who isn't cut out for higher education should get in on it. You'll get a stable living...no six figure salaries without massive overtime, but no feast or famine either.

News reports like this are reminiscent of 1999-2001. There was a CS boom back then too, as well as a host of pop-up "IT bootcamps" and intensive developer/web design classes. This was to support the initial build-out of the Web and some of the advances in systems work that this drove. Now, it looks like Google is trying to juice CS enrollment further and keep the boom running longer.

One problem with this is that we in the IT and dev fields through the first boom have experienced what happens when people motivated solely by money or the desire to be in on the next big thing get pushed through education. Colleges are seeing it now in other fields too -- Petroleum Engineering majors were getting six figure starting salaries before the bottom fell out of the oil market recently. The hard reality is that supply and demand will even out any temporary spikes fast. In this case, Google, Facebook and a bunch of others are bumping up supply by egging people on to study CS and advocating H1-B cap increases. It's obvious they just want to produce gobs of cheap code monkeys to do basic web'app programming, not the world-changing computer science that makes a lot of these things possible.

I agree that you can't just "do what you love and the money will follow" anymore, and that's a shame. But the worst thing would be to go into a field solely for money, figure out you hate it or aren't good at it, and spend 10+ years BSing your way through. I clearly remember MCSE bootcamp graduates who couldn't do basic tasks, and worse, didn't want to figure it out.

"Why not learn to wire a house or install plumbing? Why is every program trying to over-saturate IT?"

Well, if you look at some of the sponsors, and how much lobbying they do to support the reduction of salaries either by increasing supply or allowing cheaper labor, there's one answer.

One of the problems with IT, both development and systems sides, is that is straddles the line between a trade and a profession. No one in the field wants to think they work in a trade -- they wear a collared shirt to work, work indoors in an office, etc. But honestly, the _real_ way to increase skill levels is to set up a guild system and train apprentices. Split the design and operations sides up, make design a professional engineering job, and formalize the career path on the operations side.

Seriously, to use your example, this is how the IBEW and plumbers' unions ensure that they have people who can take over when their current workers retire and maintain a level of skill. Kids out of high school get a union apprentice position, work for a few years at reduced salary and are set up for life. They might have a much less exciting career path without huge meteoric rises in salary, but they can pay their bills and raise a family. In my opinion, that's a lot better than the feast-or-famine mentality we have now. Employers are happy because they pay apprentices less, and it could be a way to reduce the dependence on H-1B labor while growing a talent pool.

I doubt any of this will happen until it's too late. Techies lean very Libertarian and associate unions or guilds with corruption. Hopefully enough examples of employers making life miserable for unprotected workers will change some minds before there's nothing left to save.