> funnel tech workers into government work
Government work doesn't pay well, so it will never be as prestigious as Stanford or MIT.
EDIT - previous title had the headline part where it said it will "rival Stanford and MIT"
Government work doesn't pay well, so it will never be as prestigious as Stanford or MIT.
EDIT - previous title had the headline part where it said it will "rival Stanford and MIT"
Sure, an FBI Criminal Profiler earns a tiny fraction of what a google dev earns. But one can take serial killers off the street, and the other just makes ads more annoying.
A Social Worker earns almost nothing, but they get to help the most needy of people get the help they need. A FB engineer earns 10x the pay, but just makes ads more annoying.
A teacher earns almost nothing, but they get to teach the next generation of society. An Amazon engineer earns 10x the pay, but just finds ways to sell you more stuff you don't need.
No one goes into government work b/c the pay, they do it for reasons they find more important.
Any interaction that I've had with a recruiter when considering looking.
Me: "I'm not interested in working on ad tech or a bank, etc. I'm interested in privacy companies, green technology, conservation, etc."
Recruiter: "I have a job with Investment Bank X that I think may be interested in."
That phrase is roughly equivalent to how large corporations thank "essential workers" during the pandemic. It's marketing. It's an excuse to underpay and leave workers without sufficient support.
The meme that never dies. Advertising funded tons of tons of businesses on apps and on web, employed hundreds of thousands directly and created a large economy.
Disclaimer: Former google, current facebook employee, working in ads.
Can you elaborate more on how invasion of Iraq helped in increasing quality of life for an average citizen?
I think the only point, why you are seeing this "growth" is that you have an oligopolic structure which is just skimming money (mainly to the benefit of the 0.1 percenters) without creating any additional value compared to the traditional way of doing advertising? Or how again are you increasing available income with your smokescreen of targeted ads?
EDIT: actually I think wikipedia captured it perfectly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking - and no, financing some productive webbusiness (which there are?) with a minuscule fraction of the ad money or following personal spleens of the founders/crazy people is not altering the outcome.
Google display ads takes a fraction of revenue and passes the rest to publishers. Same with audience network.
Digital advertising lowered the barrier significantly to making profit for lots of digital businesses. It enabled lots of physical businesses to get recognition and discovery in one way or the other.
Not sure why this is not clear, but happy to discuss more.
I'm also not sure, if I understand this correctly, but 32% (or 1 third) seems like quite a big "cut" for any service to me - but apparently ratios changed with the internet which allows placing these ads at such a low cost :) https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en
So, do these "digital businesses" create anything, or just skim money? Just because you've built a network of rent-seekers, this doesn't really change the concept.
Also could you explain how physical businesses actually benefit from the "new kind of ads" in a more concise way compared to the weasel-wording "one way or the other" - is more product sold because of ads in a certain area (doubtful, because ads won't change available income), does the percentage of advertising spend go down, when all business go "online" (doubtful as well, or how can you generate growth beyond the growth of the economy, which is the declared target of most adtechy-enterprises?!). So this is frankly neither clear to me nor apparently to you (nor anybody else I suppose), but these are the hard questions society has to answer, before accepting "adtech" as a productive sector of the economy.
I would go so far to say you have harmed the business models of tons and tons of apps by setting up an expectation that apps should be "free".
Disclaimer: Former Google employee.
The fundamental difference between these things lies in the fact that a lot of government work comes with higher levels of responsibility and ownership in terms of the way in which you want to do your job.
There's tremendous demand to join things like the US foreign service officer program because as these people move though their career, there's basically an unwritten promise that they will have a legitimate impact on US state department policy for the countries they work in. Something that will only really ever be true in the world of government enterprise software work if you're the PM.
(1) you will likely get lots of resources to do things that your typical private sector organization doesn't prioritize, like longer term research.
(2) Nobody thinks a job != your career anymore; you could start out with a few years in government service and get education & experience on their dime, then move into the private sector. As more opportunities to get started get harder to find or aquire, this will be a huge motivator.