3 ms·

Working as an employee is not without risk. There is the risk that you'll invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan in an employer who squanders it all and

by mcbits 10y ago

Working as an employee is not without risk. There is the risk that you'll invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan in an employer who squanders it all and leaves you jobless without notice instead of an employer who puts your abilities to good use and recognizes the value that you create. The risk is partially mitigated by receiving a paycheck during those wasted years regardless of the employer's competence.

clarkmoody 10y ago
> invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan ... and leaves you jobless If you are not an equity holder, that sentence makes no sense. In a standard employment arrangement, you are selling your time for your salary. The job is not your property; it was created by your employer. Also, you got paid for that 10-50% of your productive lifespan. What else are you expecting?
- mcbits 10y ago
  As an employee, your time and skills are your personal capital (your means of production). The way you invest that capital has risk like any other investment. Again, this is partially mitigated by salary. But as an employee, you probably don't expect to earn your negotiated starting salary for the next 40 years. You enter the relationship expecting some form of advancement, bonus, or other rewards in relation to your performance over time. Those expected returns don't manifest when the employer turns out to be a bad employer. Employers are not the only ones taking risks.
  - clarkmoody 10y ago
    Returns to your productive capital being less than expected is quite different than being jobless. Though that is the worst-case outcome. Asking about those advancement opportunities up front is very important during the interview stage. Getting it in your contract is even more important. I agree that the employee takes risks when choosing an employer. I was confused about the scope of upside expectations.
vacri 10y ago
And software developers are different from literally any other kind of employee in this regard... how?
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  At a company, devs and come and go and they are just people working in a job. The difference is that at this time in history, there's a huge shortage of us. A company can hire as many secretaries as they need, and its a lot easier to hire directors and vps. But if you can't hire enough devs, a company that builds software isn't going to be able to do anything. The acute shortage is the difference. If there was a big shortage of say people with business skills, then they'd be worth more, or sales. Good sales and biz dev is always valuable. But there's not really a shortage of them, in the same way that there is in software. To give an example, I worked at a startup. We had millions to pay salaries. We were paying 150-200k in salary. We couldn't ever grow over 5. We wanted to hire about 20 more. We had plents of designers, office managers, and leaders. Devs were far more valuable than a new hire in those other areas, because we were short. I left after a while, we couldn't ever hire anyone to work on a group I was supposed to lead.

by mcbits 10y ago

clarkmoody 10y ago

> invest 10% or 50% of your productive lifespan ... and leaves you jobless If you are not an equity holder, that sentence makes no sense. In a standard employment arrangement, you are selling your time for your salary. The job is not your property; it was created by your employer. Also, you got paid for that 10-50% of your productive lifespan. What else are you expecting?

mcbits 10y ago
As an employee, your time and skills are your personal capital (your means of production). The way you invest that capital has risk like any other investment. Again, this is partially mitigated by salary. But as an employee, you probably don't expect to earn your negotiated starting salary for the next 40 years. You enter the relationship expecting some form of advancement, bonus, or other rewards in relation to your performance over time. Those expected returns don't manifest when the employer turns out to be a bad employer. Employers are not the only ones taking risks.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  Returns to your productive capital being less than expected is quite different than being jobless. Though that is the worst-case outcome. Asking about those advancement opportunities up front is very important during the interview stage. Getting it in your contract is even more important. I agree that the employee takes risks when choosing an employer. I was confused about the scope of upside expectations.

vacri 10y ago

And software developers are different from literally any other kind of employee in this regard... how?

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
At a company, devs and come and go and they are just people working in a job. The difference is that at this time in history, there's a huge shortage of us. A company can hire as many secretaries as they need, and its a lot easier to hire directors and vps. But if you can't hire enough devs, a company that builds software isn't going to be able to do anything. The acute shortage is the difference. If there was a big shortage of say people with business skills, then they'd be worth more, or sales. Good sales and biz dev is always valuable. But there's not really a shortage of them, in the same way that there is in software. To give an example, I worked at a startup. We had millions to pay salaries. We were paying 150-200k in salary. We couldn't ever grow over 5. We wanted to hire about 20 more. We had plents of designers, office managers, and leaders. Devs were far more valuable than a new hire in those other areas, because we were short. I left after a while, we couldn't ever hire anyone to work on a group I was supposed to lead.