It is not that simple. I crashed out of my first career (with student loans in a STEM field), then learned to program at age 27. I’ve been tremendously lucky and successful in the decade since then, lived in a tiny place in SF for years (with a growing family) while working big tech, and I’m only just now at a point I can get my family into a house.

I’m one of the lucky ones. Learning the skills is not enough, you have to get a very good job and work your ass off for a decade for it to amount to enough to comfortably afford the housing, education, and healthcare for a family.

A generation ago getting that kind of quality job was much easier and just having the job put you in the family-supporting income range.

haha, typical HN sentiment.

Don't me wrong, studying in-demand tech skills is great, but it's hardly a scalable solution.

> it's hardly a scalable solution

Isn't enabling and educating the population the original scalable solution to low growth?

No. The original scalable solution to low growth is government R&D seed funding spreading out into innovation in the consumer economy.

You're not going to get much growth if all you do is educate people. You also need to give them something to do, and that requires a national investment strategy.

This is exactly the difference between the insanely productive post-war economy, which developed and then commoditised electronics and computing, and the modern lazy bullshit job economy which is built on financialised gambling-at-scale and ad tech rather than game-changing creative invention.

True, well, probably in combination with other aspects..

But getting everyone into tech is a classic non-solution :) (It's kind of funny)