When will Software Engineers be part of the 1%?

>You don't "engineer" software. Computer science is not science.
Not everyone is limited to making websites with javascript, html and css.

California Top 1 percent earn at least: $514,694
wow what a bunch of pretentious jackasses

So you mean, in East Palo Alto?

he still thinks working for/with (((commies))) is okay

Attached: hes_serious.gif (180x160, 547K)

sure why not

>Not enough, you have to be a millionare to live a comfortable life there.
same in London, also if you have below 5 million you are basically at middle class level.
A big part of this is real estate speculation

>unironic boomerposting

During the seven year period from 2011 through 2017, Connecticut’s gross domestic product declined 1.6 percent when adjusted for inflation, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

$700,000 to be top 1% in Connecticut

As soon a automation destroys the labor market.

>London, also if you have below 5 million you are basically at middle class level.

Attached: dumber libidiot liar corrupt to the core.png (450x247, 226K)

The provisional estimate of median household disposable income for financial year ending (FYE) 2017 is £27,200, an increase of 1.8% compared with FYE 2016 (£26,700) after accounting for inflation and household composition; this is 5.7% (£1,500) higher than its pre-economic downturn value of £25,700 in FYE 2008.

Sounds like the TV show 'Silicon Valley' is spot on.
They will fail when they can't purchase innovation, because they stopped innovating already

Attached: cartmantard.jpg (600x450, 52K)

The ironic part being that boomers are the ones who did the most for computer science and "software development" from the 70s til the late 90s.

The median household income for London in 2013/13 was £39,100, while the mean income was £51,770. Both mean and median income is higher in Inner London than Outer London. The UK median in 2012/13 was £30,600, which is 22 per cent below the London figure. London’s median income has increased by 44 per cent since 2001/02, which is slightly lower than the UK average of 46 per cent, although the increase in mean income matches the UK at 47 per cent. However, when inflation is taken into account, the real increase in mean income in London was 13 per cent, which was slightly below the UK average of 14 per cent.

Attached: dumb lib idiot.jpg (450x247, 30K)

the google strategy is two-fold
1. impede search engine research
2. make it difficult for other companies to recruit
they do this by operating programs that affect their own employees and non-employees that may work at google in the future or may work for competitors
in addition, there is a political program
you can read the front page of the New York Times today (Sunday November 18, 2018) for details
google has an anti-capitalist anti-American outlook
CIA you know google is dangerous
act like it

I worked at google for a while and I fucking hate the employees. Everyone at google should put their head in a microwave. Pests, scum, vermin. They're really nasty worthless shit.

>hurr paying people high salary is bad

Like it did in:
the 1860s
the 1910s
the 1970s
It is almost like this communist bogey man comes back every 60 years..

>Only people making near 350k are the people who could've made start ups that google would have bought for millions anyways
This
But >$220k is not uncommon
It's also why silicon valley is full of h1b poos

I make about half that in the Midwest, which is more than comfortable

350k is actually a typical senior salary see levels.fyi

>double this
You need about 2-10 high level talent people for a decent tech start up. In the midwest these people make 110-150k a year. So even if you get "free" labor the opportunity cost is easily over a million bucks for one year. And that is in the midwest. H1B Poos only benefit really big and really established companies, the do nothing for startups and small companies.

huh. you must have a lot of experience with computers so I'll believe you on this one.

Attached: 1523820065922.jpg (1000x920, 143K)

Every time I think I earn a decent living with about $150K and about half a million in assets, I get reminded I am just a poor fag.

What science is there in writing new software?

Attached: 1272130018724.jpg (214x221, 8K)

Silicon valley will eventually be like detroit

It's a borderline case.
The software controls a machine whose specific functionality depends on technical scientific knowledge.

You can make an analogy between writing software and designing a new engine for a car.

People in silicon valley don't design microprocessors or memory standards.
People in Israel, China, Taiwan, and Japan do.

That's not what i'm saying.

The software itself is like a virtual car engine. Writing the software is actually exploiting natural processes to do physical labor that humans don't want to do.

Now, you don't need to necessarily know about all the processes to effectively do this.... which is why it's borderline.

hardware is easy though, it's software that's hard

>or that humans don't want to do.
>Now, you don't need to necessarily know about all the processes to effectively do this.... which is why it's borderline.
Difficulty doesn't make it science or not science

Software =
>"let's throw shit at a wall, see what sticks, and let our customers test the shit and help us refine it because we know nothing about building shit."

The shitpost.

Attached: 357413356.png (184x242, 74K)

It's like the asshole who wrote this article doesn't understand the concept of a wage. Of course people aren't gonna work at a startup if they can get a wage most of the time. That's what a wage is for! It's an insurance policy against the failure of the business you work for not making any money.

I will say this though, ACTUAL software development, like what governments use, has legit science involved, because THEY don't have customers. Most of their software is classified. And that's where the real talent is. Because it's life and death.

Programmers are not computer scientists, and software engineers are not engineers. They are just trying to glorify themselves. I work with "software engineers" and they don't even know how to the first principals of good code.

Whatever. I just do what I can and go home.

pls expand on this a few bullets or stories

Can confirm. MS in CS and work with a bunch of HS grads who can web dev as well as I or better. That said, there is a lot of interesting stuff in CS that has no relevance to shitting out another bad website or mastering the next bad fad JS framework. It's a better paycheck than most, though, and I can do interesting things on my own time. To the guy who said government SwE do "engineering": worked in that, too, and those guys are a bunch of jokes. It's a wonder anything government makes works at all, especially the classified bug farm shit scraped together by reject engineers.

>New York Times
which article ?
nytimes.com/section/todayspaper#thefrontpage

facebook fallout... ?

In 1850, 95% of the world's occupation was subsistence farming. Boy, do you remember the huge population collapse and waves of unemployment that followed the industrial revolution upending that paradigm?
You fucking moron.

>Implying the CIA wants Google to allow citizens access to free, accurate information

Software developers are such cunts. Doesn't help that >80% of them are all basedboys.

I’m a programmer making about half that, but in the Midwest where I can actually afford a house and own guns and have a short commute and I’m not surrounded by fucking SJWs. Cali sucks.

Attached: Missouri.jpg (1500x1000, 167K)

Now people live in shitty concrete jungle, women have become ultimate thots, and half of men are manbabies

janitors don't count

You are aware that in order to be in the top 1% in most states you only have to make 300 some thousand if that. Not sure how it is averaged out across all 50 states, but it is somewhere in the 300K range to be considered in the 1%. Google employees are in the 1% when compared to the rest of the country if they make 350K.

Actual engineer here, can confirm.
There isn't a single professional body that will give CPEng to softwarefags, so it's therefore not real engineering.

'Computer Science' can be a misleading term. 'Science' should be thought of as indicating a organized body of knowledge rather than a natural science which tries to validate a hypothesis about the natural world through empiricism. CS is a formal science. CS is a wide field but it more or less emphasizes the formalization and questions concerning the understanding of processes i.e. how to do something. CS can be theoretical when concerning itself with questions about computation or more applied such as when trying to develop classifiers to predict e-mail span. I'd say CS is closer to engineering and mathematics than necessarily a natural science. Although one could get into philosophical debates about the nature of computation.

Also, there's a distinction between computer science and being 'software engineering', 'software developer', 'data scientist' and whatever bullshit buzzwords you want to throw around.