If you think lifelong employment with the same company is normal for tech workers today, then you really don't know what you're talking about.
The other 90% doesn't run critical infrastructure services.
Yes, I guess you could say that, but I'd add the qualifier "nearly", or maybe even "remotely".
You're a rare exception if you managed to avoid lay-offs, plus staying in the same company (these days) generally means you're being woefully underpaid, because they'll give new hires better salaries than existing employees. Things were very different in the 70s than now.
With open-source software, a monoculture isn't that bad a thing, as the Heartbleed exploit has shown. When something bad is discovered, people jump on it immediately and come up with a fix, which is deployed very very quickly (and free of charge, I might add). How fast was a fix available for Heartbleed? Further, people will go to greater lengths to make sure it doesn't happen again. Look at the recent efforts to rewrite OpenSSL, and the fork that was created from it.
None of this happens with proprietary software. First off, the vendor always tries to deny the problem or cover it up. If and when they do fix it, it may or may not be really fixed. You don't know, because it's all closed-source. It might be a half-ass fix, or it might have a different backdoor inserted, as was recently revealed with Netgear. What if you think the fix is poor? Can you fork it and make your own that's better? No, because you can't fork closed-source software (and certainly not selected libraries inside a larger closed-source software package; they're monolithic). But the LibreSSL guys did just that in the Heartbleed case.
Finally, monocultures aren't all that common in open-source software anyway; they only happen when everyone generally agrees on something and/or likes something well enough to not bother with forks or alternatives. Even the vaunted Linux kernel isn't a monoculture, as there's still lots of people using the *BSD kernels/OSes (though granted, there's far more installations of the Linux kernel than the *BSDs).
America doesn't come close to dominating quality-of-living indices.
That's funny, I interned in a shipyard (making aircraft carriers) for a while, and all the tradesmen told us college-kid interns "finish your engineering degree! Don't wind up like us!!!".
Why the hell would you want to relocate to some 3rd-world shithole where you have to worry about K&R (no, not the Unix guys)?
Go look at the quality-of-living indices, and the countries which dominate them. They're not 3rd-world countries with low costs-of-living. If you want to live someplace where it's extremely safe, the government isn't corrupt, there's good public services (public transit, healthcare, etc.), it's going to cost you. If you have a medical emergency in a mountain town in Morocco, you're probably not going to survive.
I don't claim to be an intellectual. I've never claimed that. You claimed that, not I.
This is basically incorrect. This site is billed as "news for nerds", and has long been famous for being a hang-out for "nerds" and "geeks". "Nerd" is synonymous with "intellectual", though with more of a bent towards science, engineering, and other technical topics, rather than literature or other arts. So the OP's statement is entirely accurate; people here think of themselves as "intellectuals", or else why would they come to a site that supplies "news for nerds"?
I don't know about his "Expanding Vacuum Theory", but he is correct, IMO, about the people on this site; they think they're intellectuals (again, if you're not a self-identified "nerd", what are you doing here? Trolling or shilling?), but they're frequently at least as anti-intellectual and Luddite-like as the general US public.
While it may have worked out ok in this situation it is a very bad president. I do not want to be pulled over for no fucking reason.
I agree that Obama is a very bad President, but what does he have to do with this?
It's not hard to get boots that cost close to that, or more. Good hiking boots are expensive.
I'd been at my previous job for longer than 5 years, and more than once it was seen as a negative.
Really? What region/metro area have you encountered this attitude? I've got several less-than-2-year terms in permanent jobs, and I always get grilled on why I left those jobs. I'm in the NYC area (northern NJ, CT, etc.). All the companies here seem to have a big problem with anyone who doesn't stay at jobs for a really long time. The pay here isn't very good either, even though the cost of living is among the highest in the country. I'm looking forward to moving out.
Sorry, I mis-typed, I meant to type "NE" (northeast USA).
pay attention -- the question is why does a woman get less for the same work
Where is the proof of this? I haven't seen any. These numbers come from nationwide surveys of everyone in all professions, all lumped together.
I'm no expert on the teaching profession, but my understanding is that the salaries are highly variable by state, and that some states/districts are strong recruiters, going out-of-state to recruit good teachers. Obviously, this doesn't work out for someone who refuses to leave their hometown, but for someone who doesn't mind relocating, it can be quite lucrative. Also, job stability is something that teaching is usually well-known for, so California is probably an anomaly that way. Maybe she should look at relocating to a better state where the pay is higher and the stability much better.
Lay-offs in engineering are a fact of life, BTW. At least there, you can usually expect to get another job pretty quickly, depending on where you live, but if you think engineers enjoy highly stable jobs, you're sadly misinformed. As an engineer, you need to be able to relocate every 2-5 years, unless you stick to a very high cost-of-living metro area like Silicon Valley where your particular skills are in high demand and where there's lots of jobs in that area.