pdex

I would suggest looking into transitioning from graphic design into "Front End Web Development", which in a nutshell is what they call translating visual designs into the actual website that people see and interact with. It is empowering to be able to build what you design. I'd start with learning HTML5, sass & css, javascript, php and ruby/rails. Smashing Magazine has some decent tutorials, also begin reading/subscribing to some newsletters like the responsive design newsletter. HTML and sass/css is pretty easy and isn't really coding, but they are "gateway drugs" into javascript/php and learning web frameworks. I would look into learning how to "theme" websites for CMS (content management systems) like Wordpress (beginner) and Drupal (tricky), and perhaps magento for ecommerce. Javascript, php and rails will be the hard part as it will require a completely different mental mindset from what you're used to working as a designer. There are tons of free tutorials online, but paid online classes are hit and miss, if Udemy is every having a $10 sale that's not bad for grabbing some cheap classes (be warned not all the classes are good but for $10 you can't go wrong when it comes to getting a general introduction to a topic). Lynda.com can be a bit general.

It will be challenging but don't give up. The hardest thing to deal with in being self-taught in programming is documentation, it's usually written in "developer-ese" rather than plain english making it difficult to learn from. It may seem like you will be copying/pasting code you don't fully understand at first, but it gets better over time as you understanding develops.

If you happen to be female, I'd recommend joining up with Women Who Code and look for WWC meetups in your area, they have members who mentor newer members.

The standard of living/quality of live for the poor in the USA is better than being poor in other countries. People on the dole often have nicer shoes and accessories than I do (talk about financial priorities out of whack, but I digress)! Depending on the situation you're better off on the dole than working a low-wage job. However, In other countries being poor means no welfare, no shoes, no plumbing, no food, and no Louis Vuitton purses.

Oh yes, it's a popular anthem and It's fine if you have no expectation of climbing the socioeconomic ladder. Before picking a major it's common sense to discover salary and job market information before committing to one, it's a no-brainer. This info is free, available from a variety of sources and easy to get: no excuses! Life isn't a feel-good circle jerk where people throw money your way simply out of one's desire to be happy, I'm sure the parents of college kids featured in the article are acutely aware of that, so is it stupidity or delusion that causes them to perpetuate the myth?

>Are you unable to recognize that your experiences may not be in line with everyone else's?

Oh I agree, most of the poor had MUCH more money through financial aid and easier circumstances than I.

>Again, you're an edge case. "I had it rough so clearly there isn't an issue with racial minorities getting through college." This is a really close-minded thought process.

No, I had it rougher than most. Though, I'm not an edge case- I'm fairly typical for those of my ethnic and financial demographic: poor single mom, ghetto neighborhood, and crappy adult guidance. Perfectly typical. Furthermore I'm not the only kid from my neighborhood to make it, before I moved I ran into lots of other kids from my junior high. 30% are now in STEM jobs, with 50% in much better socioeconomic condition form which they were born in to. The other 50% I've not run into since. There were some who slipped through the cracks, like one jerkface who's dream in life was to be a gang member, then dropped out and lived his dream until he got shot, and another who decided it was more financially viable to take over his brother's drug dealing post than take a full scholarship to Fordham. There's more but in short you can't save them all from themselves, especially the ones who make it a choice to be a loser. Everyone has options and financial aid does put poor minorities on equal footing with the middle class for higher education. If it were a middle class kid who screwed up their life despite being given these same chances to attend college but squandered it (by dropping our or picking a crummy major) we'd call him/her a "loser" or a "screw-up".

>My first thought would be "Why this guy complaining about how hard he has it and then going to an expensive, over priced school?"

That's a ridiculous notion on your part. Your first thought should have been: "If this poor person from the ghetto made it though the most difficult of all financial scenarios in higher education, what's excuse do poor ethnic minorities (who get more financial aid) have?"

>Nobody is saying you didn't work hard or make good choices. Nobody is saying ethnic minorities can avoid working hard or making good choices. The point is that simply working hard and making good choices is not enough (hence the whole point of this article).

Some are saying that working hard and making good choice don't matter, that is utterly false and wholly insulting to anyone who is self-made from humble roots. If you look at the article do you feel the parent who encouraged their kid to major in Theater was making a good choice? SERIOUSLY? Other than rehearsing the line "do you want fries with that" in preparation for a lifetime of failure, what good would that major do? That is a perfect example of stupid choices with dire consequences. I've seen lots of middle class college students make this kind of mistake as well. "Oh! I'm going to major in Medieval Instrumental Arts!"

I've known minorities who got more in free financial assistance in terms of loans and grants than the middle class white kids, and they had a much easier time affording college when it came down to funding due to the abundance of loans and grants for those who met the low-income and minority criteria. I got much less than the minorities because while being crap-poor from a single mother environment in the ghetto, I am not from what's considered an ethic minority. I do not buy the crap or the "poor me, poor me!" sob stories about how minorities are so disadvantaged when they had a HUGE advantage over me, and were better off than middle class kids when it came to college funding. Seen it, lived it, been there, done that. Oh and we're not talking community college or state university, we're talking the most difficult of all scenarios: a private university where your yearly tuition (just tuition) was just under 30k per year at the time, it is now over 36k.

While my family stressed the importance of education while growing up and the ghetto provided a great example of what I didn't want for my life, I didn't have familial support in steering me towards intelligent decisions- in fact I had numerous family members actively trying to sabotage my endeavors to go to college because they wanted me to start a family. I was 100% on my own in all respects, it sucked but hard work and smart decisions paid off for me.

I agree with you but the NYC tri-state area is a strange place and not a great example for the stratification effect. You're worse off in the NYC burbs in in many cases, one would think it would be the opposite but it's not. The amount of money it takes to break out of the middle class quality of life is more around 400k per year for the NYC tri-state area. In the burbs the houses are not nice or good for the price, they're overpriced and property taxes are outrageous- property taxes can actually be worse in the suburbs than they are for a Manhattan condo or coop. The commute is also a killer, while Metro North is somewhat reliable and on-time relative to other rail systems, the length of the commute is just brutal. At least while you're paying more per square foot in NYC you do get some convenience out of it, although this gets more complicated if you have kids. If you've got to worry about education for children, you MUST buy a coop/condo in a NYC district with good zoned schools, this isn't common and those district command the highest prices per square foot. If you can't afford those districts your looking at private school for the kids, and that runs 30-40k, somewhat less if you choose a Catholic school but still a huge chunk of your budget. Trust me, there are places you don't want your kids going to public school- and I'm not talking safety, this is in regards to the piss-poor quality of the education. You'd be better off home schooling in some places. The burbs do have better schools overall, but you're still stuck living a middle class lifestyle with a soul-sucking commute in the NYC burbs on 250k.

$250k in NYC and San Francisco does NOT offer an "upper-class" quality of life.

Tell me about it. $250k in Manhattan doesn't stretch very far.

Why do you think picking a major is a "next day" decision? High school students have years to think about it, furthermore high school guidance counselors have career and salary guidebooks available to anyone who walks through the door.

It pays off it you pick a major that trains you in a valuable skill, this is where the problem lies- far too many people are picking dumb majors, that's more the crux of the problem you illustrate: making bad decisions during a critical time of life (ex: majoring in Drama).

Yes, one also needs to be capable of making intelligent decisions for the future, majoring in Theater is not one of them (just an example).

I've also seen a lot of rich kids from college turn into poverty-stricken losers; character and work ethic have a lot to do with how well a student does regardless of their family's resources.

I went through far worse getting myself through college and yet I made it. Life isn't supposed to be easy.

I wonder who taught that person that it's sane or financially responsible to pick a major like that and harbor any expectation of getting out of poverty.

I like how the documentary investigated studies on nature vs. nurture. One thing I do admit is that it's very difficult to measure how much of it is genetics alone, since we can't raise kids in a lab isolated from the outside world to ensure 100% that there is no outside cultural or parental influence that may skew the results. That steps on some ethical toes as well. While it's gotten much better, there is still a great deal of culture, advertising, parenting, etc that can subconsciously influence gender roles. Although it looks as though you can only influence people so much, at innate genetic/biologic nature seems to want to resist.

I don't think there's an answer to it either, but to me it looks like while biology and genetics do have some sway, so does environment and culture- enough where the current gender percentages probably shouldn't be quite so divergent. We're still a society in transition, and it wasn't very long ago where women weren't allowed to have career opportunities at all, it will be interesting to see how the numbers change in another generation or two.

I, too, must also thank you for that link. That is a very interesting documentary, I watched all 7 episodes. I do have to say that while it brings up a lot of good points, research and the validity of it is very difficult to verify at times. I was disappointed in some of the closed-mindedness that some of the "experts" seemed to have, although they may have been correct about some of the research being on shaky ground in terms of proof. A lot of research offers up correlations and anecdotal observations, but no actual scientific proof. However if you find a lot of anecdotal correlations pointing in the same direction it's begs for scientific study to see if there is proof or mere coincidence. Sadly many of those scientists didn't seem the least bit curious to find out if there was any scientific cause behind anecdotal evidence, especially if it conflicted with their political views. That was so disappointing! I would have expected a much different attitude from scientists and experts. But if political opinion is what funds research and determines which scientists get promoted, I suppose I shouldn't be quite so shocked. I do wish they looked into why non-western females had a higher rate of interest in STEM, they seemed to gloss over it and attributed it to "It motivates them because it's more lucrative", I don't buy that and I wish they investigated it more.

I am truly sorry, I misread your post.

I think you get most of it, I was trying to convey that if you say something to colleagues at the workplace that is too disrespectful, sexually suggestive, vulgar or sexist to mention in front of either of your parents, it's a good common sense "warning flag" that it's probably not safe for work. I struggle with this myself, having a dark sense of humor. I hate seeing the perfect set up for a raunchy/sick punchline going to waste, but I'd also like to keep my job :)

Politics is a bit of a gray area. It's very easy to make people uncomfortable without realizing it, it's just a shitstorm waiting to happen. I try to avoid it unless I'm speaking in private with a colleague who I know extremely well.

Sometimes management needs to be tactfully reminded that they have the power to correct these things, but they need to be made aware and it needs to be done tactfully. I can see how you regretted not speaking up in front of a majority who seemed to bless the bad behavior by indulging in it, but if it happens again you may want to speak to your supervisor in private.

We hired a new guy who needed some education from the management on how NOT to speak to female colleagues on the team. He was assigned to some projects with a female colleague of equal position and pay, and he spoke to and treated her like a subordinate although she was not. He was doing this unwittingly and meant no true harm, but it was very insulting. This was likely another case of a youngster who didn't have much experience working with women on a team. It was brought to the management and they spoke with this new guy and his behavior changed immediately, he's now much easier to work with all around and everyone is happy about it. But if no one spoke to the management about the behavior, it would have gone on unchecked and probably escalated.

There's lot of women who are more comfortable socializing with men and have hobbies or think about topics that might have once been considered "tom-boyish" that aren't considered so now (thankfully) and they can find a lot of common ground to converse with men.

The golden rule applies to everyone regardless of gender. Think of it like how you would speak to your mother or father (assuming one has a healthy, respectful relationship of course).

If you speak to a female colleague, is it something you can say to your own mother and be taken as appropriate? Same for if it were a male colleague, are the words appropriate to say to your own father?

If the answer is "No" then don't say it, I wish more companies would enforce this in their culture.

I've run into childish inappropriateness more than anything, phrases not indented to harass, but are extremely disrespectful, not funny, and easily taken the wrong way.

An example: 5 of us, one of them a female, were chatting in a breakroom when a male colleague joked about using a "fleshlight" to relieve stress (I am leaving out details to keep this short). He was straight out of college and didn't have much professional experience. The female in the group became visibly uncomfortable and left. Since the conversation was more about to know our colleague's hobbies outside of work, it was an incredibly awkward turn to the conversation. "Pfff, what's with HER?" the offending person asks as the female walks off, not knowing what he did, so another male in the group asked him if he talks to his mom "like that" about his fleshlight habit, it wasn't until then that he realized he was being inappropriate and he then apologized to everyone. He also sought out the female who left the conversation to apologize to her directly. He learned his lesson, but I've seen examples on BOTH sides of inappropriate talk that can alienate a person who's gender is in the minority of the group.

I'd be more irked by the comment she made about your balls hanging down your pant leg. Sounds like sexual harassment to me, if it were me wouldn't let a boss speak to me in that fashion- male or female.

You're offended by the term, but I assure you I'm being quite objective- the "safety measures/training wheels" clearly exist. Why is it that you feel it's not suitable for developers? I'm curious because I never said that, but you did.

On the other hand suffering builds resilience and character.

https://ptgi.uncc.edu/files/2015/01/Positive-outcomes-follow...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023034961045755602...

https://webfiles.uci.edu/rsilver/Seery,%20Holman,%20&%20Silv...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201111...

Hmmm... Funny you mention that. I'm better off, happier and much more appreciative of life the than majority the "rich" kids I've run across as grown ups- and I earn more, too. I wouldn't consider the subset of rich kids who inherited wealth to be successful at all, they're riding on their parent's coat-tails and have done nothing for themselves. In the end I'm far tougher, adaptive, creative, and decisive that those who grew up on easy street- so while I was brought up in poverty I'm a much better off and equipped for real life.

There is a silver lining to humble roots. Shame on those who diminish all things other than wealth.

>I mean, have you been to a developer conference lately? That wasn't a Microsoft conference? Did you happen to see any Macs there?

I haven't been to a MS developer conference and saw a mix of platforms at all other conferences I've been to. Have you actually watched apple's product launches? Ever notice the media consumer is whom they are marketing to?

>OS X has shipped with a complete Unix shell since 2001. Pretty much every dangerous command you can think of on Linux will execute the same way in Terminal.

There is so much more to an OS than terminal, so it's not all that matters. I suppose if one only worked 100% out of terminal and nothing else it would be a non-issue.

Rather, a brain raised by parents who don't foster brain growth and reinforce bad decisions what we're concerned about. Poverty is incidental hence the correlation but not proven to be the cause.

Like what? That would make for interesting discussion. Unfortunately, throwing money at the generational poor won't change their culture.

How does society ensure that parents are providing proper mental stimulation for their growing children? Crafts, puzzles and books can be incredibly cheap. But even if these are given away for free will they be accepted or shunned for TV and video games?

How does a society fix bad parenting? There's parental rights involved that limit how far that can go. For example, we can't declare a parent unfit just because they're poor, and we can't force them to raise their children in better ways.

How does a society intercept and prevent parents from imprinting generational poverty culture on their children? This is a problem for children of other income brackets as well where the parents are absent and don't teach their children how to be smart, responsible adults. I knew quite a few people in college who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths that are now in poverty once their parents cut them off and they weren't taught how to make it on their own.

For children it is true that they have no control over the income level which they are born into, but that changes in adulthood when one has autonomy. Adults capable of making decisions that can change the course of their lives, whether they do that or not depends on their choices.

Personal responsibility has a great deal to do with it, I think the low income is largely incidental. If the parents have learned through generational poverty to reject the importance of education, critical thinking, mental stimulation, learning and creativity then I doubt these parents would have become financially successful or have a brain running on all cylinders.

One way to increase brain growth is mental stimulation and learning, and children are very dependent on their parents to provide such. When it comes to genetics, unless you're taking about inherited mental disabilities or developmental delays can certainly account for some lack of brain growth. Otherwise it's largely environmental.

If a family embraces the negative values of generational poverty chooses to imprint their children with the same intellectually repressive values/lifestyle upon their children, then the children would not be exposed to any brain-building activities or stimulation. What do you think the brain development differences would be between a kid who watches TV vs. one that's given a 1k piece jigsaw puzzle instead?

Luckily there are some parents in low income brackets that heavily invest in their children's learning and character development because they want them to have a better life. Some kids find mentors and support outside the home. Poverty doesn't doom any child, but it can make learning how to make better choices in life far more difficult if they don't have anyone who can teach or motivate them. Difficult, but not impossible.

I'm another child of poverty, grew up in a ghetto. All things were equal with the exception that my family placed a high value on education and they were highly involved and active in my learning.