Anecdotally, I've had the opposite experience. However, the raw data shows the difference. Scientific American did a great article on the data released by the DOT in the USA.
Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech. Then you'll learn how much the rest of the world sucks.
A lot of us here are earning in the top few percent of our countries households and we don't have to deal with any of the bullshit that people making 1/4th we do or less.
> Just wait till there is more supply than demand in programmers/tech.
Will this happen though? There's still a lot of work to be done, but principally I wonder if AI hype hasn't actually reduced the top of the funnel significantly. If non-programmers (i.e. those who might become programmers) believe the job "won't exist in six months", they are probably not going to set themselves up for that direction. Plus juniors starting work now will suffer from leaning on AI too much as well.
Overall I think it's counterintuitive. When I was growing up, it seemed obvious that my generation knew technology better than the last, and of course the next generation would be even more familiar. In practice though, kids these days are mostly phone-only. The ability to produce technological artifacts remains uncommon.
> Uber’s refusal to fingerprint drivers betrays that they know they have lots of criminals on their rolls.
Is it normal to be fingerprinted for a job? It would be seen as an incredible overreach here. Then again, so would a drug test. Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
Depends on context. In finance or anything concerning children, yes. You’re given autonomy where others are vulnerable. On a construction site, on a factory floor, or in an office, where you’re constantly supervised, no.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group
I'm more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints, than drivers are 'forced' to accept it, I suppose. Although I can't identify a clear harm or form of exploitation that would arise from Uber collecting prints, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe a better middle ground is the licensure part of the government does the fingerprinting. Although not all cities regulate Uber in this way.
> more concerned that Uber gets to farm fingerprints
Every job and volunteer role at which I’ve needed to get fingerprinted outsources it. When I’ve collected fingerprints for a job, my firm never got a copy, just the report.
> Uber drivers in particular seem a vulnerable group, which makes forcing this a bit 'icky'.
You seem to be redefining the word “vulnerable” to mean the opposite. Uber drivers disproportionately are men without full time jobs. That pool of people almost certainly has a higher likelihood of criminal behavior than the population as a whole. Assuming finger printing actually works (which I’m not sure), they’re exactly the people who should have more scrutiny.
I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
>The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
This is how the vast majority of compliance regulations work. You the law abiding person don't want to file bank paperwork, or whatever, yet you do because some smaller portion of the population would fraudulently rob the population blind if we didn't.
Well yes, that is how many things work, but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good. With banking, for example, I'd much prefer a low-touch technological solution. You could argue fingerprinting _is_ a low-touch technological solution, although I'm not sure it's particularly good at enforcing who is who at driving time.
>but it being common isn't a great argument for it being good
Then step up and deeply think about the situation at hand and all it's ramifications.
When you see Chesterton's Fence don't rip it out of the ground before you understand why it was built in the first place. Think of how you would make a system with the least problems (you can't solve all problems without infinite costs or infinite loss of freedom).
In roles where you're trusted with a lot of power over other people, absolutely. You won't get fingerprinted in a restaurant or store, but everyone in a hospital or a school should be.
In many countries, taxi licensing requires an ID/criminal background check, to ensure people with rape convictions don’t end up alone with drunk vulnerable people.
It may not require fingerprinting, but it’s certainly stricter than many jobs.
Driving for Uber isn't a job, it is a gig, which is different, and why Uber doesn't have to give benefits or pay like it is a job. Uber spent TONS of money lobbying and electioneering for this position.
> I mean vulnerable in the sense that fungible labor is vulnerable to the whims of the employer. In this case it might be for a good cause but in general the more leverage you give Uber over its employees, presumably the worse. Whether they have a higher propensity for crime, you're talking still about a very small minority of drivers. The law abiding ones still suffer the leverage from above.
reply