I started in the mainframe COBOL world, and I've added COBOL search terms to job listing searches. Compensation is ridiculously low (I mean ~50K in SV itself).
I wouldn't look for COBOL gigs in SV. I would look in places where keeping up with the technological Joneses isn't part of the culture.
I live in New Jersey. NJ and NY has a considerable amount of COBOL deployed, in banking, insurance, payroll, etc., and especially by government organizations.
Compensation is still on the lower end, like $90k-120k/year, vs. $160k-200k for more modern tech jobs, but the competition for those jobs is almost certainly to be lower/less competitive, you're less likely to be laid off if you're even remotely competent and don't do something stupid like break the law.
To OP's original point, if you're looking for a non-management role and want to maximize your earning potential while simultaneously minimizing your employment churn risk, being a competent COBOL programmer earning $90-120k/year comfortably definitely fits the bill.
Of course, if OP's statement that they are "sick [...] of doing the same CRUD apps over and over again" then COBOL may not be a good fit: you certainly aren't going to be doing much in the way of innovating when supporting a legacy COBOL application, but you should be able to carve out a very consistent work schedule, find some decent work-life balance, and enjoy perpetual employment as long as you desire it.
You have be a consultant with 20 years prior experience with mainframe systems when they were the big thing to make any decent money, otherwise plenty of highly consecutive non tech firms are happy to place someone in a role for $50-$60k.
>manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare
The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
> Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation.
> Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way.
> The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority?
>85% of guns confiscated from criminals were snuggled in from the United States
Please don't spout utterly false stats. Give your source. (I'm guessing that you're misquoting the stat that 86% of handguns traced from Toronto crime scenes for which the trace was successful traced to the US, but that's an artifact of the excellent trace data and cooperation from the US DOJ).
Building near the coast is pretty useful to get access to seawater for cooling. You could build near the coast and not near known faults, but that doesn't prevent faults from being discovered later as happened to Diablo Canyon.
It's likely that if DCPP was to be relicensed they'd have to build cooling towers.
The environmental impact studies alone would likely take years, especially because Mothers For Peace, the Surfrider Foundation, the local Chumash band, and every other group under the sun would tarpit the project. They hate nuclear like Everytown hates guns, and no amount of logic will change their minds.
FWIW, I think the damage is done and DCPP shouldn't need to put in cooling towers — the output cove has different sea life than the ocean just a bit beyond it and has for decades. However, I don't make the rules.
>People just walked to a shop a block away for the things they needed.
Those days are gone because no small "shop a block away" can compete with the behemoths of Amazon, Instacart or major supermarket chains that deliver, or cloud kitchens with DoorDash or UberEats, not unlike how American fast food chains and Starbucks crowded out a lot of former native mom-and-pop cafes and restaurants.
What "existed for millennia" only had to compete with nearest such other small business in each direction. Now, they're competing with the world's supply chain.
Just look at a traffic cam in any "walkable city" where vehicles still run and count the brand names crowding the streets doing trips that just didn't happen even 20 years ago.
>The question was "have been prosecuted" not "convicted."
Nobody registers as a sex offender without a conviction. Why is that not obvious to you?
>Why do you doubt the citation?
The cited article doesn't even say that charges were ever filed, so there's nothing to "doubt". Beyond that, a local TV news "reporter" is not likely to understand law any more than you do.
>Judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional in a ruling from 2008, considering that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves as obscene and prohibit their sale. However, with a GOP majority in the House and in the Senate, the law remains in the books. So yes, under Texas law, it is not allowed for a person to own six Dildos
Somebody doesn't understand how law works. Unless they are playing semantic games and only a minority of the 5th Circuit ruled it unconstitutional (or the ruling was later overturned by SCOTUS), the Court overrides statute law, and the law is unenforceable.
So, no, it isn't illegal, and the article is premised on a lie. And look how many commenters here get triggered by one lie.
It's just like there are thousands of deeds that have racial/religious covenants on them, but those clauses are invalid even if the deed is not changed, because case law.
Name any three blue counties with Republican county sheriffs.