5 ms·

Sure do.

by epalmer 10y ago

Sure do.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
overcast 10y ago
I thought I was busy with ~10.
- epalmer 10y ago
  It is not that bad. All are in a push CMS. We have a staff for content and UX. Many sites are small. Probably total 15,000 pages for all sites. These are univeristy sites so they are not complex apps. But there is a lot of backend code and middleware for pushing files to the CDN and to an xml database.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    All right. I'll be honest, I forgot what thread we were on, I was just in awe at all of the sites you run. My next thought was, "man, I wish I could use some guy like him, but he is just too expensive." One thing is for sure: there are definitely, 100%, no-questions about it, over 1 people who can be reached and who, at least for a few months, would take over 15,000 pages and 154+ sites. (An early 20s hacker). For under $30,000. That excludes nearly everybody: but not everybody. There is 1 person you can find who can do it. However, that one person is not going to be over 50. Over 50 people "aren't stupid" and are not going to do that for you for $30,000 and no other compensation. You can say under twenty people will be "stupid enough" that you can find someone to do it. But more accurately, they have different motivations. There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks. People's lives change over time. . . .
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      "There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks." That's patently false. Undervaluing your labor because your friends work in a poorly compensated industry makes no sense. If anything the money you are earning when you are younger is more important to secure for ROI purposes.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        All right: to the best of my current understanding, there is nothing wrong with ever taking a salary vastly under market in one's twenties, including literally performing CTO-level work worth half a million and equal to the work of many developers under you (or hell, even leading or directing them), for $30,000. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not a bad life choice. Especially if one's social life is also important and includes many other twenty-somethings in various professions. we're just going to disagree if you think otherwise - we don't have to get into an argument about it. In my world view not everything is about maximizing salary.
        kaishiro 10y ago
        I don't think you're wrong, per se, but barring that I'm really unclear on what point you're trying to make.
        logicallee 10y ago
        my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
        fuzzfactor 10y ago
        Seems to me that the number of retired engineers working as Wal-Mart greeters is actually more than one, and has been for a while.
        fharper1961 10y ago
        Why would they do that? Maybe they just want to get out of the house and do something useful? Otherwise if it was for $$$s, and they aren't poor without a safety net, seems like they'd be better off learning higher value skills and getting a better job.
    - otakucode 10y ago
      Once you find the person stupid enough to accept crap pay for doing something that earns you tons of profit - are you sure you found a person smart enough to do what you need?
      - hectormalot 10y ago
        There is a big difference between "how much value you create" and the percentage of that that you can capture for yourself. In the non-labor market airlines a great example of this. They create tremendous value for their customers (fast long distance transportation), but the industry as a whole is not very profitable. Same for employment. Many (hopefully most) employees generate more value than their salaries, but that does not mean they can negotiate for that value to be added to their salary. If there is someone else with similar capabilities willing to do the job at $x, then negotiating pay above $x will be difficult.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        accepting "only" $30,000 at the age of 22 is a lot less stupid than accepting "only" $30,000 at the age of 52. people's lives and motivations are vastly different, especially the most qualified, smartest people's lives.
    - carlisle_ 10y ago
      This is honestly the strangest logic I've read on this site. You're basically arguing for exploiting workers by undervaluing them and saying it's ok because people's lives change?
      - logicallee 10y ago
        it's just a descriptive statement about the market. for that matter, how many 50+ year olds even apply to be barristas at starbucks? perhaps nobody should work at a starbucks as a barrista, but we're not exactly going to blame everyone who does so in their twenties.
    - compiler-guy 10y ago
      The biggest problem with "Hire someone super smart at a vastly-under-market rate." is that some other company will come along tomorrow and offer them market, and the best case is that they give you two weeks notice before jumping ship. The worst case[0] is that they don't show up the next day and you are SOL. 0. Assuming they don't actively try to sabotage the company that has been exploiting them.
      - beachstartup 10y ago
        this is also the same reason why 'overqualified' is an actual concern. people at the bottom of the totem pole view money as simply a scarce resource -- when it becomes somewhat more abundant, you have other things to worry about and it becomes a means to an end of hiring and retaining good, reliable people. one way of doing this is not to substantially underpay someone who's worth a lot more on the open market, because eventually it will bite you in the ass.
    - pauljaworski 10y ago
      Is it just me or does this comment make no sense at all?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 No, it's just rational as an individual, yet it ends up driving down wages. If, as a group, this kind of pay was shunned, that wouldn't happen. Don't devalue your job, wait it out. Employers are in a better position to divide and conquer, than employees are to unionize.

Sure do.

by epalmer 10y ago

Sure do.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

overcast 10y ago

I thought I was busy with ~10.

epalmer 10y ago
It is not that bad. All are in a push CMS. We have a staff for content and UX. Many sites are small. Probably total 15,000 pages for all sites. These are univeristy sites so they are not complex apps. But there is a lot of backend code and middleware for pushing files to the CDN and to an xml database.
- logicallee 10y ago
  All right. I'll be honest, I forgot what thread we were on, I was just in awe at all of the sites you run. My next thought was, "man, I wish I could use some guy like him, but he is just too expensive." One thing is for sure: there are definitely, 100%, no-questions about it, over 1 people who can be reached and who, at least for a few months, would take over 15,000 pages and 154+ sites. (An early 20s hacker). For under $30,000. That excludes nearly everybody: but not everybody. There is 1 person you can find who can do it. However, that one person is not going to be over 50. Over 50 people "aren't stupid" and are not going to do that for you for $30,000 and no other compensation. You can say under twenty people will be "stupid enough" that you can find someone to do it. But more accurately, they have different motivations. There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks. People's lives change over time. . . .
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    "There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 doing a job that's worth half a million, when your friends are earning $20,000 as barristas at starbucks." That's patently false. Undervaluing your labor because your friends work in a poorly compensated industry makes no sense. If anything the money you are earning when you are younger is more important to secure for ROI purposes.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      All right: to the best of my current understanding, there is nothing wrong with ever taking a salary vastly under market in one's twenties, including literally performing CTO-level work worth half a million and equal to the work of many developers under you (or hell, even leading or directing them), for $30,000. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not a bad life choice. Especially if one's social life is also important and includes many other twenty-somethings in various professions. we're just going to disagree if you think otherwise - we don't have to get into an argument about it. In my world view not everything is about maximizing salary.
      - kaishiro 10y ago
        I don't think you're wrong, per se, but barring that I'm really unclear on what point you're trying to make.
        logicallee 10y ago
        my only point is that the supply at that price is greater than 0 - that some people will do it. who are in their twenties. you won't find someone even over thirty willing to do it though. it's a descriptive statement.
        fuzzfactor 10y ago
        Seems to me that the number of retired engineers working as Wal-Mart greeters is actually more than one, and has been for a while.
        fharper1961 10y ago
        Why would they do that? Maybe they just want to get out of the house and do something useful? Otherwise if it was for $$$s, and they aren't poor without a safety net, seems like they'd be better off learning higher value skills and getting a better job.
  - otakucode 10y ago
    Once you find the person stupid enough to accept crap pay for doing something that earns you tons of profit - are you sure you found a person smart enough to do what you need?
    - hectormalot 10y ago
      There is a big difference between "how much value you create" and the percentage of that that you can capture for yourself. In the non-labor market airlines a great example of this. They create tremendous value for their customers (fast long distance transportation), but the industry as a whole is not very profitable. Same for employment. Many (hopefully most) employees generate more value than their salaries, but that does not mean they can negotiate for that value to be added to their salary. If there is someone else with similar capabilities willing to do the job at $x, then negotiating pay above $x will be difficult.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      accepting "only" $30,000 at the age of 22 is a lot less stupid than accepting "only" $30,000 at the age of 52. people's lives and motivations are vastly different, especially the most qualified, smartest people's lives.
  - carlisle_ 10y ago
    This is honestly the strangest logic I've read on this site. You're basically arguing for exploiting workers by undervaluing them and saying it's ok because people's lives change?
    - logicallee 10y ago
      it's just a descriptive statement about the market. for that matter, how many 50+ year olds even apply to be barristas at starbucks? perhaps nobody should work at a starbucks as a barrista, but we're not exactly going to blame everyone who does so in their twenties.
  - compiler-guy 10y ago
    The biggest problem with "Hire someone super smart at a vastly-under-market rate." is that some other company will come along tomorrow and offer them market, and the best case is that they give you two weeks notice before jumping ship. The worst case[0] is that they don't show up the next day and you are SOL. 0. Assuming they don't actively try to sabotage the company that has been exploiting them.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      this is also the same reason why 'overqualified' is an actual concern. people at the bottom of the totem pole view money as simply a scarce resource -- when it becomes somewhat more abundant, you have other things to worry about and it becomes a means to an end of hiring and retaining good, reliable people. one way of doing this is not to substantially underpay someone who's worth a lot more on the open market, because eventually it will bite you in the ass.
  - pauljaworski 10y ago
    Is it just me or does this comment make no sense at all?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > There's nothing stupid about working for $30,000 No, it's just rational as an individual, yet it ends up driving down wages. If, as a group, this kind of pay was shunned, that wouldn't happen. Don't devalue your job, wait it out. Employers are in a better position to divide and conquer, than employees are to unionize.