7 ms·

Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. In my case, my motivation has always been trying to make a positive impact on the world r

by ryao 11y ago

Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. In my case, my motivation has always been trying to make a positive impact on the world rather than money. I have turned down plenty of job offers, including ones that pay better than I am paid now. I even spent two years unemployed because I felt that that being an independent OSS that worked for free allowed me to have a greater impact on people's lives than I could have at any of the jobs that had been offered to me during that time. That gamble paid off because it enabled me to help lay the groundwork for adoption of ZFS by major Linux distributions at a time when the amount of development to make ZFS production ready on Linux was more than employers were willing to stomach. The integrity of the world's data is better off because of it and in hindsight, nothing else that I could have done would have had such an impact. My OSS development had started as a hobby, but at some point, I began to realize that it could make a positive impact on the world and focused entirely on it, with ZFS taking the bulk of my time. That serendipitously resulted in job offers where everything I do would be OSS and I could continue working on the ZFSOnLinux code as part of it, which I had not anticipated. I was lucky enough to have supporting parents that I could fall back on for me to pursue that. Not everyone does and a certain amount of money is definitely important, especially for those with dependents. If people who need it find they are not compensated well, they can find an employer that does compensate them well. Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic.

butterfi 11y ago
Working on interesting problems and being paid a fair and competitive wage are not mutually exclusive.
- ars 11y ago
  Not directly related to what you said, but this "a fair and competitive wage" jumped out at me. What's a fair wage? It's a competitive wage - it's a wage similar to what other people doing that job get. What's a competitive wage? It's a wage high enough that you are willing to work there, rather than somewhere else. Or in other words, both conditions already happen automatically. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    No, that's not true in the least.
    - ars 11y ago
      You are going to have to give a better argument than that!
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    > Or in other words, both conditions already happen automatically. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism. Not necessarily. Two scenarios come to mind: 1) Collusion among employers. This necessarily disrupts the "ideal" marketplace. It has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen. The result is, perhaps, fair wages that are not truly competitive. The employees are captive (depending on their financial abilities) in the local market and forced to accept unfair or uncompetitive wages for their work or go without. 2) An abundance of workers can result in competitive, but unfair wages by driving down the pay needed to keep an office or business staffed below fair (I read fair as alternatively what the job is actually worth or what is needed to live). An employer can offer a competitive rate 50 cents above others in the area, but that doesn't mean it's a fair wage.
whatok 11y ago
> Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. Source?
- cortesoft 11y ago
  I find choosing how to spend my money to be an interesting problem.
- ryao 11y ago
  At the risk of stratification bias, I do not know anyone who has chosen money over the ability to do interesting things. Recruiters also like to pitch how interesting their problems are.
CaptainSwing 11y ago
> Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. I think that you overestimate the ability of workers to exert an influence by switching jobs, but also, and perhaps more seriously, assume that the only strategies for workers getting fucked over are individual strategies. Collective struggles are what can change things on a more fundamental level, and great gains have been won through the organised withdrawal of labour.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I would not bet too much on the ability of collective struggles to solve individual problems. I still think that this is at the heart of Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". both the movie and the book. And it has taken on the patina of timelessness and universality in my experience
  - CaptainSwing 11y ago
    A wage relationship, or a pensions deal, is not an individual problem, it is a collective problem of the whole workforce. Sorry, I don't know this movie/book, but I will check it out.
- ryao 11y ago
  Organized labor creates an opportunity for collusion between management and the union leadership. My grandfather was a union worker who his colleagues selected to represent them. Management offered him the opportunity to make several times what he makes as part of a deal that would give the others negligible increases. He declined, but I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude. Knowing what happened to my grandfather, I do not doubt it. If you have an employer that intentionally undervalues you, they are going to aim to use the union to ensure that they continue to do that. If collectively people overvalue themselves, they tend to get their positions terminated by outsourcing. If people think they are underpaid, they should each ask management to correct it. If management does not value all or some of them enough to do that, those that are undervalued are better off leaving for greener pastures. That being said, after a certain amount of income, more income does not equal happiness. Rather than be a slave to trying to get more, I am inclined to ask myself if what I am doing is worthwhile, if what I make is over the minimum required for happiness and if what I make is fair under the Nash Equilibrium. If all are yes, I am fine with it. Others might be happier if they do that too. If they are working in an industry that pays below what is necessary for happiness (and this probably increases with dependents), they should find another career.
KirinDave 11y ago
Alternatively: technology workers have historically come from affluent backgrounds where they can absorb small deviations in wages. Other supporting evidence: the popularity of privately held company stock on an unspecified valuation and solution schedule being considered not only a reasonable trade for real money, but in fact demanded.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
> Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. You're projecting. I want to be paid fair market compensation for the hours of my life I'm spending at work and not with my family. Your employer values money over anything else, so while workers are ignoring their value, they are doing what they can to drive your costs down. Look at the white collar jobs that have stagnated in terms of compensation or were outright eliminated in the past decade. > If people who need it find they are not compensated well, they can find an employer that does compensate them well. Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. What if you aren't compensated well because employers have realized they can pay below market value for your labor? What if that becomes an industry trend because other employers have no incentive (strikes, worker solidarity) not to and every incentive to cut costs? What if you live in a market that isn't tech hub? Offers for $30k-$60k/yr for a job you'd be paid $90k-120k/yr in SF for isn't unheard of. We're in a boom and we get to enjoy relatively high wages and good working conditions. That won't last forever.
- ryao 11y ago
  Last year, I turned down an opportunity to co-found a startup where I had been promised >$1 million a year in compensation (many times more than I make), but I would not have been spending my time at work on OSS. I declined because getting things done for the greater good is worth more to me than any sum of money. The Nash equilibrium suggests that focusing on the greater good is the best for everyone. Not to mention, I find focusing on the greater good to be more rewarding than the blind pursuit of wealth.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    There's a big difference between the blind pursuit of wealth and an employer purposefully screwing you out of money you deserve.
ones_and_zeros 11y ago
Ah this is such a fascinating mindset. Do you think that if software professional worked together they could not achieve a) Fair compensation b) Interesting problems c) Dedicated time for ALL software professionals to contribute to OSS? Imagine if there were an entire profession of people just like you dedicating time to OSS? Imagine where we could be now in that reality...
- ryao 11y ago
  I do not see how. You need to want to do it and if you want to do it, you will find a way. Not everyone cares about OSS enough to want to do it.
  - ones_and_zeros 11y ago
    > I do not see how. Yes, your tunnel vision had been previously established... Have no fear, special snowflakes like yourself will be much welcomed in a software developer professional organization.
tsunamifury 11y ago
Re-read up on what was being done. CEO's were blocking the ability for workers to switch jobs by agreeing to not make offers to those who wanted to leave. You would have been essentially black-balled.
- ryao 11y ago
  The incident involving CEOs colluding was handled by the legal system, not coercion through strikes. Refusing to compete on employee compensation is also rather different than refusing to pay as much as people should get. It also appears to be the case that Verizon's employees are overpaid rather than underpaid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488829 The total benefits for a Verizon technician on Long Island are $160,000 a year while the median for this region (across all professions) is about $50,000. Until today, I had never heard of a job for a technician that reached 6 figures. These high salaries might have triggered Verizon's change of focus to wireless from wired and investment in 5G. The strike is probably going to accelerate Verizon's shift to wireless, which requires fewer employees and is non-unionized.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Please read up on the difference between 'total benefits' and 'salary' before posting this kind of thing.
dsr_ 11y ago
I like ZFSOnLinux, so thanks to you and your parents.
- ryao 11y ago
  I am happy to hear that. :)

by ryao 11y ago

butterfi 11y ago

Working on interesting problems and being paid a fair and competitive wage are not mutually exclusive.

ars 11y ago
Not directly related to what you said, but this "a fair and competitive wage" jumped out at me. What's a fair wage? It's a competitive wage - it's a wage similar to what other people doing that job get. What's a competitive wage? It's a wage high enough that you are willing to work there, rather than somewhere else. Or in other words, both conditions already happen automatically. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  No, that's not true in the least.
  - ars 11y ago
    You are going to have to give a better argument than that!
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  > Or in other words, both conditions already happen automatically. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism. Not necessarily. Two scenarios come to mind: 1) Collusion among employers. This necessarily disrupts the "ideal" marketplace. It has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen. The result is, perhaps, fair wages that are not truly competitive. The employees are captive (depending on their financial abilities) in the local market and forced to accept unfair or uncompetitive wages for their work or go without. 2) An abundance of workers can result in competitive, but unfair wages by driving down the pay needed to keep an office or business staffed below fair (I read fair as alternatively what the job is actually worth or what is needed to live). An employer can offer a competitive rate 50 cents above others in the area, but that doesn't mean it's a fair wage.

whatok 11y ago

> Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. Source?

cortesoft 11y ago
I find choosing how to spend my money to be an interesting problem.
ryao 11y ago
At the risk of stratification bias, I do not know anyone who has chosen money over the ability to do interesting things. Recruiters also like to pitch how interesting their problems are.

CaptainSwing 11y ago

> Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. I think that you overestimate the ability of workers to exert an influence by switching jobs, but also, and perhaps more seriously, assume that the only strategies for workers getting fucked over are individual strategies. Collective struggles are what can change things on a more fundamental level, and great gains have been won through the organised withdrawal of labour.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I would not bet too much on the ability of collective struggles to solve individual problems. I still think that this is at the heart of Boris Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago". both the movie and the book. And it has taken on the patina of timelessness and universality in my experience
- CaptainSwing 11y ago
  A wage relationship, or a pensions deal, is not an individual problem, it is a collective problem of the whole workforce. Sorry, I don't know this movie/book, but I will check it out.
ryao 11y ago
Organized labor creates an opportunity for collusion between management and the union leadership. My grandfather was a union worker who his colleagues selected to represent them. Management offered him the opportunity to make several times what he makes as part of a deal that would give the others negligible increases. He declined, but I have met union workers who complain that the union leadership and management collude. Knowing what happened to my grandfather, I do not doubt it. If you have an employer that intentionally undervalues you, they are going to aim to use the union to ensure that they continue to do that. If collectively people overvalue themselves, they tend to get their positions terminated by outsourcing. If people think they are underpaid, they should each ask management to correct it. If management does not value all or some of them enough to do that, those that are undervalued are better off leaving for greener pastures. That being said, after a certain amount of income, more income does not equal happiness. Rather than be a slave to trying to get more, I am inclined to ask myself if what I am doing is worthwhile, if what I make is over the minimum required for happiness and if what I make is fair under the Nash Equilibrium. If all are yes, I am fine with it. Others might be happier if they do that too. If they are working in an industry that pays below what is necessary for happiness (and this probably increases with dependents), they should find another career.

KirinDave 11y ago

Alternatively: technology workers have historically come from affluent backgrounds where they can absorb small deviations in wages. Other supporting evidence: the popularity of privately held company stock on an unspecified valuation and solution schedule being considered not only a reasonable trade for real money, but in fact demanded.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

> Technology workers tend to value interesting problems more than money. You're projecting. I want to be paid fair market compensation for the hours of my life I'm spending at work and not with my family. Your employer values money over anything else, so while workers are ignoring their value, they are doing what they can to drive your costs down. Look at the white collar jobs that have stagnated in terms of compensation or were outright eliminated in the past decade. > If people who need it find they are not compensated well, they can find an employer that does compensate them well. Trying to force an employer that does not value you like they should to behave otherwise instead of finding one that does is masochistic. What if you aren't compensated well because employers have realized they can pay below market value for your labor? What if that becomes an industry trend because other employers have no incentive (strikes, worker solidarity) not to and every incentive to cut costs? What if you live in a market that isn't tech hub? Offers for $30k-$60k/yr for a job you'd be paid $90k-120k/yr in SF for isn't unheard of. We're in a boom and we get to enjoy relatively high wages and good working conditions. That won't last forever.

ryao 11y ago
Last year, I turned down an opportunity to co-found a startup where I had been promised >$1 million a year in compensation (many times more than I make), but I would not have been spending my time at work on OSS. I declined because getting things done for the greater good is worth more to me than any sum of money. The Nash equilibrium suggests that focusing on the greater good is the best for everyone. Not to mention, I find focusing on the greater good to be more rewarding than the blind pursuit of wealth.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  There's a big difference between the blind pursuit of wealth and an employer purposefully screwing you out of money you deserve.

ones_and_zeros 11y ago

Ah this is such a fascinating mindset. Do you think that if software professional worked together they could not achieve a) Fair compensation b) Interesting problems c) Dedicated time for ALL software professionals to contribute to OSS? Imagine if there were an entire profession of people just like you dedicating time to OSS? Imagine where we could be now in that reality...

ryao 11y ago
I do not see how. You need to want to do it and if you want to do it, you will find a way. Not everyone cares about OSS enough to want to do it.
- ones_and_zeros 11y ago
  > I do not see how. Yes, your tunnel vision had been previously established... Have no fear, special snowflakes like yourself will be much welcomed in a software developer professional organization.

tsunamifury 11y ago

Re-read up on what was being done. CEO's were blocking the ability for workers to switch jobs by agreeing to not make offers to those who wanted to leave. You would have been essentially black-balled.

ryao 11y ago
The incident involving CEOs colluding was handled by the legal system, not coercion through strikes. Refusing to compete on employee compensation is also rather different than refusing to pay as much as people should get. It also appears to be the case that Verizon's employees are overpaid rather than underpaid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488829 The total benefits for a Verizon technician on Long Island are $160,000 a year while the median for this region (across all professions) is about $50,000. Until today, I had never heard of a job for a technician that reached 6 figures. These high salaries might have triggered Verizon's change of focus to wireless from wired and investment in 5G. The strike is probably going to accelerate Verizon's shift to wireless, which requires fewer employees and is non-unionized.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Please read up on the difference between 'total benefits' and 'salary' before posting this kind of thing.

dsr_ 11y ago

I like ZFSOnLinux, so thanks to you and your parents.

ryao 11y ago
I am happy to hear that. :)