FIrst-time work: hurdles and quandries

 

     There is always a first time to get a paid job. There are first times for everything -- including the first breath we take after we are born. But getting a paid position is one of those types of firsts that are part of the ritual of becoming self-supporting.

     There are two parts of this -- finding a no-experience-needed first-time position and succeeding in obtaining such.

     For many companies, a degree (possibly Associate degree, more likely Bachelor's or above (or the non-USA equivalents)) is considered "paper experience". Some companies presently are starting to trade off paper experience with real-life experience. But real-life experience is rare to have that directly pertain to the skills/experience desired within a company if you are trying to find your first paid position. Sometimes, volunteer work is applicable.

     There are places that are considered to be nests for starting paid work. How many people in high positions talk about their first jobs at McDonald's? Or as a bagger in a grocery store? Not many restaurants still wash dishes by hand -- but, once upon a dark moon, that used to be a good first time situation. My first paid position was as a neighborhood lawnmowing person (an early, very limited, entrepreneurship) followed by newspaper deliverer (on foot).

     These jobs, associated with companies, have a couple of characteristics. First, there was a lot of turnover -- openings came up fairly frequently and if you could pass some basic requirements (cleanliness, polite demeanor, etc.) you could usually eventually get a job at one (perhaps not your first choice). Second, the pay was minimal -- in the past it was livable, in the present you had better still have other financial support.

     But how about the positions that are considered long-term career potential?  (This doesn't mean that you cannot have a long-term career at McDonald's.) First, those companies have to HAVE positions open for people with no experience. It might be in the "mailroom" (in electronic times, not as frequent) or janitorial areas -- but unless there is internal mobility that is not a good first step. But there may not be any non-experienced positions for the company. In that case, get your first experience at a different company where you can develop experiences that are relevant for the companies wherein you would prefer to work.

     For the second part -- finding and succeeding in obtaining an entry-level position -- there are different gauntlets to be run depending on salary/career/social ranking. At the lowest rankings (I'm not going to list them because the titles/positions are subjective -- let's just define them as low money with low potential advancement), qualifying doesn't apply much but finding, and being allowed to apply, becomes a matter of networking and luck. In the past, it was a matter of walking to each opening that was published in the classified section of the newspaper. Now, it is primarily word-of-mouth and potentially via social job boards. But luck (which I defined, and explored, in a recent blog) plays a large role.

     For a middle-rung position (living wage with some potential for advancement or mobility),  old-style searches still used the classified section of newspapers but job bureaus (places where you sign up to have your resume available for distribution or job matching) were frequently used. Once again, classifieds rarely apply anymore and social networking has become a much more important areas of discovery. (Job bureaus are still used.)

     On the high-rung side (moderately high initial salary with large potential in salary, position, and social ranking), there are still some entry-level positions. But, as I mentioned in a prior blog, there are many companies that try to demand experience for initial, first-position, jobs and many companies that require specific knowledge for these positions -- something that is truly unreasonable.

     High-rung positions are found via direct networking or via a symbiosis of recruiters and social networking. A recruiter for such positions might receive, or need to examine, 500 potential resumes in a day. They cannot spend much more than a couple of hours looking at them as they have other duties they need to do each day. 500 resumes in 150 minutes means there is an average of 18 seconds to be spent, ON AVERAGE, per resume. I am a moderately fast reader (I can read faster but with less retention/comprehension) at about 45 words in 18 seconds. This means that, on average, the recruiter will read the first four sentences of your resume. IF something in those first four sentences (or 18 seconds of scattered keywords that catch their eye during scanning) attracts their attention then you may win more time for examination.

     Eighteen seconds is not much time. The conclusion is to make those words count and focus on the beginning of the resume. So, if you don't have much/any experience to relate, how do you make those 45 words count in your favor? Job-relevant ACTION concluded with job-relevant RESULT. Or, job posting KEYWORD matched within relevant/reliable/consistent context. 

     Since you don't have (by definition within this blog) the specific experience that you hope to gain as you do the job, your action/results pairs will be associated with qualities that indicate you can succeed in gaining the knowledge needed to do the job well. Such might be aspects of focus, inventiveness, communication capabilities, organization, endurance, leadership, or other character-related aspect that can be applied to perform well in the position. They may also be associated with volunteer skill-related aspects such as pamphleting, programming, selling cookies at a table, or such.

     A primary goal is to reduce, or eliminate, the factor of luck. This requires active networking and focus (both in application and tailoring per position). May the force be with you.

The Turing Test: Not enough?

 

     Of late, there have been declarations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) becoming sentient. And even louder protestations that it isn't true. Within computer science, there has been an assumption that this can be evaluated by use of what is called "The Turing Test". Created by Alan Turing, a British mathematician and considered to be a founding person in AI, in 1950 -- it was initially called an imitation test. The idea was that if you were unable to distinguish the conversation of a program from the conversation of a person the program could be considered sentient.

     This was in 1950. People conversed on a regular basis in 1950. The criteria of being able to distinguish a person from a program, by use of analysis of conversation, seemed reasonable. Forward the clock to 2022 and that criteria no longer seems to be sufficient. For those who say that AI has reached the criteria set out by Alan Turing -- they are probably correct. There are programs that speak language BETTER than an average person in that language. According to the Turing test, they are sapient. But, according to our current experiences of programs, machine learning, and AI -- it seems that it would be hard to consider them to have had a passing grade for sentiency.

     Which leaves us to the question, once again, of what is sentience? Some of the recent declarations indicate the appearance of emotions, desires. Are these what distinguish sentiency from mechanical responses? Of course, one can move to the religious, spiritual, and theological and say that what we are searching for is a soul. But, if it is a matter of a soul then we are in even worse shape for evaluation. There is no consensus as to what a soul is. If it does exist, where does it reside? If it does exist, is it immortal or connected to something associated with a living mind and only in existence as long as that mind and body exist?

     Science fiction and fantasy -- those genres of "what if" -- have approached such a subject for many decades. But general agreement, even less the matter of consensus, is nowhere to be found.

     If we use the criteria of a desire for survival and a desire for progeny then the state of AI has not been achieved. But, if those are to be criteria, should a goal of reaching such be striven for? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reflects many matters: human hubris, the difficulty of accepting others, fear of the stranger (xenophobia). But, as seen in the dystopia of the Terminator series, a desire for survival and progeny coordinated with a superiority in speed and execution may prove to be an ultimate competitor to the human species.

     So, let's move back to the start. If we use the Turing Test, alone, as a criterion for sentiency -- we are probably there. If that is not sufficient, what qualities should be measured -- and how should they be measured? And, in some situations, perhaps creating that which meets such criteria may be something that would be a mistake to achieve?

The Value of Repetition

 

     I have taken a number of Pimsleur® language training courses. The Pimsleur method is a system of delayed reinforcement of vocabulary (and some grammar) that has been used within the US Foreign Service departments for rapid language acquisition. The idea is that a word is introduced and the learner must repeat it -- perhaps within a phrase. Then, a short time later the word is presented again. And then after quite a bit longer (maybe 10 or 15 minutes) it is presented again. Finally, the word is made part of subsequent lessons for a while -- while performing the same process with new words such that each word is at a different portion of the language acquisition series.

     This works -- or the theory of it works -- because humans have both short-term and long-term memories and the ways that information is stored has different processes. These are chemical and neurological. These procedures aid the transfer from short-term to long-term memory.

     But repetition is also part of the cycle of humankind's works. Some are associated with mental processes and some with physical. Newsdesks at media centers have a circular file where a certain topic may be flagged for a new article (perhaps very similar to the last -- or perhaps incorporating new information) about a topic to be created and presented every so often. Perhaps once every five years. Perhaps annually -- especially if it pertains to an annual event (Christmas, 4th of July, Bastille Day, Thanksgiving, Boxing Day, spring planting, ...) Some might remember the previous article, or articles, on the subject but many more will not. Thus, it is useful.

     There is, of course, unnecessary repetition. I find that I tell people certain stories, or talk about certain topics, more often than they would prefer to hear. It isn't that I am trying to pester them -- I just don't know to whom I have already relayed the stories. If you are at the brunt of such, try to be patient as it is likely to happen with you as you age and there are more and more people within your life.

     There is also repetition of physical items. A city manager will have a map, or maps (nowadays probably digital), of the road systems or water systems or sewage systems that provide the lifelines of the community. Certain roads, and routes, will be flagged to be repaved every so often. Presumably, more heavily used roads are repaved more often. Less heavily used roads are repaved less often. Some roads, and routes, are not on any systematic cycle of repaving. They are paved only after a certain amount of active complaints or if people, who have the ear of someone important in the local government, complain. It is unfortunate, but true, that roads through areas of less income often fall into this latter category.

     The same can be done for water pipes or sewage lines -- but, because wear and damage is usually not obvious to detect, they typically happen only after some incident makes it necessary. That is why they tear up a road recently repaved in order to do water pipe renewal or repair. They aren't quite as unknowing as they appear -- they just value cost postponement over avoidance of undoing recent efforts.

     Another area of repetition is that of fashion. Fashion is a supplemental design factor to most items -- clothing, appliances, home decoration, etc. As such, the choices do not usually affect the functionality of the items -- although it is often true that fashion will value form, or appearance, over practicality. That avocado green appliance that you had in the 1960s may have a turn again at some point in the future. Will the leisure suits of the 1970s make another appearance? What about those 1940s shoulder pads in women's jackets and blouses? Who knows? But fashion designers certainly are willing to reuse something that was once popular.

     There is also something which might be considered repetition but might better be considered a premature attempt at introduction. Apple's Newton® of 1993 might not have been of great significance but the iPad® of 2010 certainly has been.

     Even these blogs have topics that occur more than once. I have been writing them for 16 years. Even if I do a search through my blogs,  the keywords may not be the same for the same general area. But, like the case with the news media, some topics may also be worthwhile to present every once in a while as they are topics which persist and for which new audiences may benefit. (Or perhaps I am just rationalizing my desire to talk about them.)

     Repetition can serve various purposes. Some are annoying. Some commercial. And some very practical.

Interviewing: Feedback, Exchanges, and Lack of Assumptions

 

     I haven't interviewed a lot in my life in spite of a fairly long, varied, career. Most of the jobs that I have had are situations where they have been coming after me. First post-college job was primarily based on academics. Later jobs were based on direct interactions such that they knew I was well-qualified before they even considered me for a position.

     But, that doesn't mean that I haven't ever had interviews. I have had more interviews that I would consider "bad" than those considered "good". Much of the aspects of "bad" interviews have been assumptions on my part. If something is important to the interviewer, I expect them to ask questions about it such that I can answer. If aspects are not well flushed out, I expect further questions.

     Such is an ideal world. Welcome to the real world.

     Once, I was in an interview when they asked me something that showed total ignorance of the subject about which they were asking the question. What should I do? It is doubtful that the interviewer wanted to be told that they didn't know what they were doing. Yet, an answer must be given -- preferably one that would be satisfactory to the interviewer. In my past history, I choked. I just didn't know how to answer a nonsense question. Perhaps it was a deliberate nonsense question to see how I would deal with it?

     In another situation, I was applying for a technical/programming position within a large company. I passed the preliminary interviews via phone and written tests. On to an in-person interview. Remember, I was applying for a technical/programming position. When I got to the interview, I found that I was being interviewed for a marketing position. The interviewer looked at my resume and didn't know what to ask me -- nor did I know what to ask them. I had some marketing experience (primarily pre-sale support) but had no desire to get a marketing position. How do you tell the company that they mis-matched you?

     Another interview. Largely for management but with technical competency aspects required. We went into the interview and some questions were asked. I gave answers which were, admittedly, not complete as I was not highly experienced in the specific technical areas for which they were probing. The interviewer laughed it off and moved the questions to other technical areas. After the interview, I felt it had gone well. It hadn't. They had "written me off" in the first five or ten minutes and then proceeded to fill time for the rest of the 45 minute interview without ever trying to find out whether I could do the work.

     In yet another interview, I was asked how I had dealt with a specific type of personnel problem. Not only had I not experienced that type of personnel problem but my experiences had been the reverse of the interviewer's questions. Be prepared to answer questions on a "what if" basis. IF you had a particular situation, what would you do?

     It is easy to rant and rail about interviewers and interviewing but, once again, we are dealing with reality.

• Be prepared to tell them the information about yourself that you believe is applicable to the needs of the job -- don't assume they will ask you.
  
  
• If they ask nonsense questions, try to answer based on what you would say if they had asked a reasonable/relevant question. Don't directly tell them the question was nonsense.
  
  
• If they ask questions about which you have no experience, either say so and reply with information about a similar situation or be prepared to delve into a "what if" scenario and how you would deal with it.
  
  
• Probe for feedback -- "Is there something else you would like to know or something you need me to expand upon?"
  
  
• Ask questions. Ask questions about the job, the company, future directions, training, and how you would be evaluated. Unless it is a blind interview (you don't know with what company you are interviewing), research first.

     Above all, remember that an interview is mutual. They want to know if you are suitable for their needs and will be compatible with, and a positive force within, their business environment. You want to find out if it is a situation where your experience and abilities will be valued and, also, an environment in which you can continue to grow your career and yet have a rich personal life. While you should never try to insult an interviewer it should also not be a cause for concern to tell the truth as you see it because this may be an important aspect as to whether the position is for you.

     I have done more interviews than I have had as someone being interviewed. And, although I believe I know how to answer well in an interview, I do better at interviewing than at being interviewed.

     My interviews have primarily focused on the soft skills because, if they have the foundation, the tech skills can be learned. Soft skills are a lot harder to learn and can be quite painful to the teams while the person is learning them. Still, even with technical skills, I focus on what and why rather than how. A great mind is a great hire. A great mind with a great heart is a precious gem. I have hired some great folks who went on to continue to give back.

Gifting: An Intersection of Tastes

 

     What do I get Uncle John for Christmas? What do I get my mother for Mother's Day? What do I get for my significant other as an un-birthday gift? These types of questions often plague people who live in the consumeristic societies. In my more mature years, I prefer my gifts to be ones that help society and the earth rather than something physical that I will have to triage at some point soon in my life. But physical, social, spiritual, or event-oriented there is still a choice to be made.

     Sometimes, a choice is made strictly by budget. There is a pool of X.XX amount of money available for presents. Person A gets allocated Y.YY out of that budget. What is the "most" that can be purchased for that amount? That isn't inherently bad -- unless it is the only criterion that you have for the gift -- and will be a criterion for the gift whether that budget be time or money.  In cases where only budget  is considered, cash or a generic credit card might be better appreciated.

     But, for most, we want to choose a gift for someone. In order to choose a gift for someone that has a good chance of being appreciated and enjoyed, it is necessary to know the person. Do they have any hobbies? Do they already have a collection (and have not been heard moaning "why does everyone keep getting me GGGGG?")? Even more importantly, is there anything they need but cannot, or will not, get for themselves (in this case, there is a good chance that you won't be able to get it either -- but it is still a worthy criterion)? The better you know someone, the greater the likelihood that they will appreciate the gift.

     But, is that the only criterion for tailoring a gift for someone? Certainly, getting someone something that you would want to receive says something. But, it doesn't say much about the person to whom you are giving the gift. And, unless the person knows you especially well, they may not even recognize that you are, indeed, giving something that is a reflection of yourself. Getting a present based on your own needs, and desires, is perhaps better than a budget-only gift but not a lot better.

     An ideal is a gift that is an intersection of tastes. In this way, the gift is something the other person wants, or needs, and it is something that you, yourself, consider to be of value. This intersection moves the gift from the transient occasion to something that can provide a greater bond, or link, between the two of you. That bond might be romantic but, in no way is it limited to such. The bond of mutual appreciation could be within a friendship, business relationship, or within the world of charities.

     A gift that is given with mutuality allows later discussion, an opening for further expansion in the future, or a better understanding all around.

Optimal work: Striving for the best with the least

 

     Work too much. Work too little. Have too little information.  Have too much information. Have not enough help. Have too many doing too much when not wanted. Too little pressure to complete. Too much pressure to complete. Too few tools. So many tools it becomes overly complex.

     There are all types of factors that are involved with being productive. Those factors are usually on a sliding scale and, often, they may be interdependent. The most challenging aspect is that every person has a different set of "calibrations" -- what they need for optimal work -- and may have to find those conditions through iteration rather than analysis.

     People often do this accidentally as they move through their careers. In much of the technological world, we have trained ourselves to ignore indications from our bodies as well as our psyches. What do we need versus what do we want? Am I actually still hungry or am I eating as a placeholder for something else? Will I really be able to be productive working another three hours or will I end up redoing the work in the morning after I have collapsed for a number of hours? We often don't know.

     We look for ways that our environment will provide us a framework to help us through these choices. There is nothing wrong with such a framework and companies that are endeavoring to provide such should be appreciated and applauded. But, in the end, what is good for one person may not be good for another and it still needs to be absorbed, and understood, by the mind and body.

     This is the point at which observation skills and experience come into play for leaders. Evaluate by results AND by the observed stress and happiness level (recognizing that some are really good at hiding such from themselves and others). Keep lines of communication clear. Err on the side of less pressure, information, and workload. Listen.

The way you frame goals will mold how you achieve them

 

     "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." "I want our team to win the contract." Are these two statements the same thing? I don't think so. There are so many ways a team can win a contract but stating "I want us to win" puts the situation into a win/lose category.

     There are two (probably more) ways for the "win the contract" scenario to come about. The first is that your team wins. The other is that the other team loses.

     There can be a concentration on hoping the other team does things such that they lose and ways to make the other team lose. The focus is a negative one and energy is spent concerning the other team.

     Their lead worker gets hurt, an important paper gets mislaid, your team steals important confidential information from them that gives you an edge, your team gives false information about the other team that influences the purchaser's opinion and decisions, you promise things you cannot fulfill knowing that the other team wouldn't make such promises, and so forth.

     These may be "skills" and "techniques" that you can use many times in the future, but they do not make your team better. They do not make your product better. It may improve your "bottom line" in the short-term but they do not make your team continue to improve for the long haul.

     How about the other way -- "I want our team to work our hardest and do our best." First, it may still end up being a win/lose but it does not preclude the possibility of win/win. Next, how do you achieve these goals? The goals of "working our hardest and doing our best"? You are now concentrating on your own team efforts. That doesn't mean you close your eyes and ears to what the competition is doing -- that is a legitimate part of work. But you are concentrating on your own team. Keeping realistic work/life balance in mind and the reality that overextending is counter-productive, you try to make each 8 hours of work include 8 hours of useful work. And, within that work time, you want to help your team function at their best. People work according to their strengths, overhead is minimized, obstacles are removed, and coordination and communication is made as directly useful as possible.

    You can, of course, substitute in the words appropriate for other competitive situations in life -- personal, business, political, and so on.

     At the end of the period, you will have gotten the contract or not. But if you have worked hard and done your best then you won't have any regrets. You can shake the hands of your competitors, smile, and say "Congratulations. Wait until next time." And sleep well.

Failure: How does it help to lead to success?

 

     There are a lot of memes about failure. I normally give them a like, occasionally an insightful. Most people would agree that failure is only a stumbling block towards the future. Yet, I have a well-worn NASA t-shirt reading "Failure is Not an Option". What gives? Isn't that contradictory?

     Failure is not an option. This doesn't mean that failure cannot happen. When you are putting together a list of scenarios, there are paths -- things that occur -- which deviate from success. What do you do when you reach a scenario of "failure", or non-success? You start initiating methods of surviving or restarting or recovering or overcoming the problem(s). In data tree terminology, failure is never an "end node". In non-computerese -- failure just means you try something different, you don't allow it to stop you.

     So, failure is not an end goal. How can "non-success" be of benefit? In any plan, or design, there are likely to be multiple places where things might not go as desired. People leave. Prototypes don't work. Money gets low or runs out. A hurricane hits the building. You have such a huge surge in customers it is not possible to keep up with deliveries -- damaging your reputation and allowing competition a window in which to gain ground. Many, many things can happen. No one can anticipate every possibility -- and too much preparation for unlikely possibilities can be counter-productive by using resources better used elsewhere.

     You are moving along on your plan. Something happens to cause you to have to try to find a solution quickly. You don't find the solution quickly enough -- you "fail". The next time you start proceeding on a plan, prior experience (which, hopefully, you have thought long and hard about) will help you to avoid, or ameliorate, the possibility of the same problem occurring. That doesn't mean that no other problem will occur but as you iterate you can become more adept at addressing problems quickly and have more experience that can be used -- either directly or indirectly.

     Someone who has the same problems occurring time and time again is not learning from it -- and should probably find a different line of work (this can also apply to social or personal situations). Someone who has not succeeded multiple times may, or may not, be someone on the edge of making it their goal-line the next time. Their precise situations should be carefully examined before committing yourself to their plan.

     A local university thinks that it is terrible, and will reject students, if it has taken them more than twice to pass a course. Totally illogical and absurd. First, there are many reasons why a student might not pass a course -- pandemic, illness, inept professors, overcommitments, etc. There are probably more reasons not directly in the student's control why they might not pass than reasons in their control (not smart enough, not dedicated enough, ...). I have interviewed, and hired, a lot of people throughout my career. I wouldn't penalize someone for passing a course the first time but I would be more impressed with someone who persevered until they succeeded. Not only have they reached the desired objective but they showed the dedication needed to overcome obstacles. The same logic can apply to anyone, or any situation.

     And that pretty much summarizes the use of failures. Failures allow a person to learn. If a person takes a test but is not told in what areas they did not do well in, they have lost the potential to learn and improve. That is true whether or not they achieved a "passing" score. Failures allow them to learn. Some failures are self-evident. Others have to be described and explained but lack of knowledge of them can be fatal to growth and improvement.

US taxpayer-paid post-secondary education: why is it needed now?

 

     I ran across a message the other day which basically said "I worked very hard to pay for my school costs and my parents worked hard and we all worked hard to pay off student loans and I don't see any reason why current and future students shouldn't have to do the same thing."

     I can empathize -- that's a lot of work that had to be done -- a lot of sacrifice. It should not have been required or necessary but it was.

     But things are different now. For one thing -- as my children love to remind me -- the times are not the same as when I was going to college. In 1975-76 (my first year of college), it cost $540/yr, on average, for tuition and fees at a public university ($2290/yr for private college.) For 2018-2019, that cost for public university was $10,280/yr and private university was $35,830/yr. Now, of course, because of inflation, that $540/yr would be $2521/yr (4.47x inflation factor between 1975 and 2018). But $2,521 is still 1/4 of what it costs per year in 2018. University costs have gone up four times as much as inflation. Or, take minimum wage -- which was $2.10/hr in 1975 and $7.25/hr in 2018 (these are unadjusted dollars -- if you use inflation-adjusted dollars, minimum wage went DOWN). That is, minimum wage went up by a factor of 3.45 in the same period that the cost of college went up by a factor of 19.

      So, tuition and fees within the US have risen extremely over the past 50ish years and growth in wages and the ability to pay has not come even close to catching up.

     This does not include room and board. I haven't found a good analysis of that cost but, for my son, room and board at a public university is about 130% of the tuition and fees. So, a grand total of about $24,000/yr. Because of general increases in costs for private schools, a 220% cost total for private giving about $78,800/yr.

     But, college is still worth it, right? The investment will pay one back in income over the post-graduation years? Well, the answer to that is -- it depends. In spite of words of appreciation, beginning teachers are not paid well -- an average of $39,000/yr just starting out as a secondary school teacher in the US. On the other hand, a computer science bachelor's degree in the US (not true in other countries) may bring in $94,000/yr as a cybersecurity analyst. And students that land a job on Wall Street might get $300,000+/yr.

     Assume that you went to a public school and borrowed to get your degree. It cost you $100,000 ($330,000 for private). At 5% interest (may not stay that low for long), you will pay about $6,441/yr ($21,155/yr for private) to pay it off in 30 years. For a starting secondary school teacher, that would be about 1/6 (or 55% for private) of their GROSS salary -- not even allowing for taxes, medicare tax, social security, local taxes, etc. Maybe possible but very hard to do. Not nearly as hard for the cybersecurity analyst and pocket money for the Wall Street person. But, what about the many who are not able to use their degrees in a directly applicable career area? What about those who are getting minimum wage and working full-time (unusual -- most minimum wage jobs are part-time)? That $15,080/yr means that payback of the student loan is about 43% of their GROSS wages. Not doable -- period.

     And -- say that your family has been saving like mad for your entire life and you were able to pay for college without taking out any loans. The cost is STILL about the same as having taken out a loan because the money you saved and spent on college could not be used in other ways to increase the capital. You save the interest from the college loan but are down the cost of not having been able to use the money in other ways.

     We have now covered both the extreme rise in cost for post-high-school education in the US as well as the lack of adequate increase of income to pay for it. Is it worth it? Well, for the individual, once again, it depends on where their career path takes them. For a lot  -- probably most -- of the students -- no. They will probably pay more for their education that the increase in their wages justifies. That did not used to be the case -- it is now.

     How about being worth it to society? Probably. Our world of work continues to change. Unskilled labor has a much harder time finding jobs (and even harder finding jobs paying a living wage). Opening positions require a higher base level of education. Without that education they are likely to be unemployable and that means a dependency on families or taxpayers. Once again, we are talking about investment -- but this time it is investment by society FOR society.

     So, paying for our own post-secondary education in the US is farther and farther out-of-reach for more and more families and is no longer cost-effective as an investment. BUT, it is cost-effective for the country as a whole to have better educated, skilled, people within the economy.

Weeds: The survival of the inconvenient

 

     Weeds. What in the world are weeds? They always seem to be disliked -- almost a synonym for unwanted. But what are they really? I would propose that weeds are plants/things that prosper better than other plants/things that we WANT to cultivate.

     People can admire, and enjoy, the benefits of dandelions -- dandelion salads, dandelion wine, dandelion vinegar, dandelion soap, ... But, if you want a yard full of Kentucky bluegrass and, instead, you have half of the yard with little yellow flowers turning into floating seed farms then that is when the definition of "weed" comes into play. We are (many of us, anyway) willing to poison ourselves, and the environment, with glyphosates in order to gain a measure of pretended control over our yards to get rid of that persistent survivor.

     There are the tradeoffs of economics. If you can sell tulips for $100/bushel (I'm making up these numbers) and dandelions are only worth $10/bushel -- IF you can find the appropriate market and transfer the dandelions in fresh enough condition -- then you do what you can to focus your resources on raising tulips and denying the dandelions the right to survive.

     But there may also be the affront to our pride. It is OUR yard and we want that Kentucky bluegrass to run from sidewalk to house. So, when dandelions (and possibly crabgrass, and sand burrs, and thistles, ...) decide to invade, we marshal our resources and try to have our own choice win out in the battle of the yard.

     Note also that those "weeds" -- those undesirably successful plants/things -- may have negative aspects too. In such cases, we might be forgiven our dislike of them. I remember not being able to walk barefoot through the lawn because of the proliferation of sand burrs. Designed to attach to feathers and fur in order to spread throughout the universe, they don't feel that good to bare feet.

     When we want to plant a particular crop in a field, the first step is to clear out everything that existed there before -- which was probably a viable ecology built up over time to live the best for the environment -- both weather and varieties of plants and animals that existed in that area. We do our best to eliminate all of the old and that which continues to survive, we call "weeds".

     The same can happen within societal and business cultures. We want to change an aspect of that culture -- eliminate past biases or practices, change orientation of business development, change to a different product line, allow for change in business needs or circumstances, etc. And the old culture will continue to permeate, with old behaviors and attitudes popping back up.

     Within a different, perhaps older, culture those would be acceptable but, within the desired modified culture, they are "weeds". If there is a commitment to the new, then the old must be pruned if they cannot be modified. In their time, they were acceptable and appreciated -- remember that when pruning and modifying.

Simplicity: the benefits of lack of complexity

 

     I have been around computers a long time. Long enough to remember when 64K of memory (in total -- not RAM) was considered a large system. Long enough to have to toggle in a boot program for the paper tape reader to allow the main program to be run. Long enough that, between queuing up for the card punch, waiting for your program to be executed by the mainframe, and then getting the printouts from the run -- you might be only able to run your program three times in an eight hour period.

    (Not as long as the true pioneers like Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing, Kathleen Booth, Wang An, Grace Hopper and such. Please forgive me if I left out your own favorites.)

     Now, I'm not going to say those days were "better". I like getting streaming videos (though I will never be in favor of the many meetings that could have been done with a few memos and emails). I like reliable email networks, transmission, and reception. I like online shopping. I like having much of the transcribable data of the world available with searches and networked museums, libraries, and academies.

     But there were some advantages arising from the lack of options and complex systems.

• With very limited memory, it was necessary to write efficient code.
  
  
• With slow turnaround, it was necessary to try to anticipate every problem, and edge condition, that your program might encounter -- in advance as part of the design.
  
  
• It was relatively easy -- and usually necessary -- to understand the basics of the entire system from the power that entered the hardware to the hardware components to the initial boot program, the peripherals, and the way the operating system works.

     I am a generalist because I WANT to continue to be a generalist. There are rarely paid positions posted for generalists. So, it was necessary to focus on some area. I became a telecom/datacom specialist. As I continued my career, I found that people interactions became more and more interesting and so I started to try to become the best servant leader that I could be -- a goal that I will never reach but which will continue to be out there as a target.

     But, at heart, I am still a generalist -- now extended to include the people (people's actions and interactions, UI, UX, etc.) Being such is conceptually very useful -- but job listings are virtually non-existent. Creation of new types of products usually requires knowledge of multiple areas (and, often, sciences) brought together. Generalists can be of great use in such.

     Nevertheless, the economy continues to move towards complexity and specialization.

     Within a computer app that faces a human user, a goal is to present a simple, intuitive, interface. Complexity of possibilities makes that much harder and, in part because of legal issues, every version of a particular program (word processing, spreadsheets, voice apps, video apps, ...) has to have a different interface (sometimes just a bit of a diversion, sometimes completely different).

     The goal is still to make it simple for the user to use without sacrificing flexibility and functionality. When that is achieved, it is almost definitely a balancing act with extreme complexity "under the hood". One could say the complexity is of the system as a whole. When the user-side becomes simpler, the provider-side becomes more complex. This often applies to mechanical objects, and other systems, as well.

     But what about those advantages of a simple program? They move from necessities to desirabilities. I would say that it is STILL useful to write efficient code. It is DEFINITELY (especially in terms of security in our current world) useful to anticipate problems, edge conditions, and vulnerabilities as part of the design. And, in order to create new types of programs, I am of the opinion that knowledge of the complete system is of considerable usefulness.

     Most examples have been concerning computer systems since that is my field. But such can be applied to civil engineering, mechanical engineering, business structuring, and so forth. There will be advantages with simple systems and complexity will involve trade-offs between various components.