11 ms·

I think its because through experience people have figured out a lot of unspoken things about what its really like being an employee. They have figured out tha

by vfc1 8y ago

I think its because through experience people have figured out a lot of unspoken things about what its really like being an employee. They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work. They have figured out that there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment. They have figured out that its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive. They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. They have figured out that its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else. They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee. They have figured out that its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant. They have figured out that its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to trully furfill their dreams and ambitions. All of this takes a lot of time to figure out and piece together, it takes over ten years, and so the age 35 seems about right.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago
> They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. I used to keep wondering when I was going to get found out for not contributing to the company's bottom line like the other thousands of employees around me seem to do every day. But then I realised that everyone else is probably doing exactly the same. And either a) none of us are doing anything valuable b) a small % are the driving force or c) we are greater than the sum of our parts I hope it's c), feel like it's probably b), but maybe a) really is a real world scenario.
- koboll 8y ago
  If it wasn't c) the company wouldn't exist, even if b) is true. At my company I think it's true that a small % are the driving force, in terms of our central product, but the rest are important in that the company would be dysfunctional to the point of collapse if that small % also had to take care of the ancillary tasks they do.
- sjg007 8y ago
  There's a bunch of additional work required to maintain the product outside of developing it in the first place. The brilliant product developed needs to be refined, marketed etc.. and all of those have support structures in place which sometimes amount to "work". Reports, analysis, collate data etc... integrate with X, all work that may not be what you sell but support the organization to sell what you sell.
- rboyd 8y ago
  It’s B. Usually just can’t get rid of A because of politics. Enjoy the free lunches though.
- m-i-l 8y ago
  I used to (half) joke about another option: (d) it could be cost effective for a company to spend money hiring and wasting excellent talent if it prevents their competitors from doing something genuinely valuable with that talent.
  - Radim 8y ago
    Unlikely. No "talent" would agree to waste their life in such a scenario, worrying about "being found out for not contributing to the bottom line". That's kinda what makes them a talent — almost a tautology.
    - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
      I dunno, money talks
      - Radim 8y ago
        For a short while, maybe. "Excellent talent" means a strong inner drive, it takes something like an obsession to put in the grind to get there. The feeling of contributing and creating and playfulness and attacking new frontiers is non-negotiable. You lose it, you're no longer "excellent talent". No money can replace that (though life circumstances may force a detour — that's why it's almost a tautology, but not quite). "Being found out for not contributing"? You know you can do better.
        m-i-l 8y ago
        There could be cases where exceptional talent is kept motivated on exciting cutting edge projects, but those projects don't "contribute to the bottom line", either because the project is canned or doesn't generate enough profits (or cut enough costs) or some other reason. The chances are that these cases wouldn't be an intentional waste of talent, but if you've been around a while you sometimes start to wonder.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- skgoa 8y ago
  In my experience it's a combination of b) and c): most of the added value is generated by a surprisingly small number of "heroes" and everyone else is just there to support them. While the random office drone's contribution to the project's success is small, the fact that none of the "heroes" had to bother spending time and effort on that little side task enabled the team as a whole to solve the difficult issues quicker.
fallingfrog 8y ago
Couldn't have put it better. At some point you realize that as far as your company is concerned, you're just human capital. And, most likely when you leave to get a new job, nobody is going to notice all the good work you did, or care who you were. And it's not you that's going to get rich off all that work.
- wernsey 8y ago
  A "human resource". I always found that term to imply that we're just meat for the meat grinder.
  - hawkesnest 8y ago
    I've berated more than one manager over calling a human being a "resource" in a meeting. Electricity, hardware, furniture, office space, and the like are resources. you might get away with calling people "talent", but not "resource."
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I've berated more than one manager over calling a human being a "resource" in a meeting As long as your organization has an HR department (with that name), that battle has been lost on the organizational level and haranguing individual managers isn't going to accomplish much.
dgellow 8y ago
> They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work. Just to be fair, developing/maintaining/managing connections and the political side (negociation, argumentation, understanding of the social mechanics, etc) is hard work.
topmonk 8y ago
I think you might be over generalizing. Not all jobs are like that, surely. Also, any employee who thought that way would probably never rise far in their company, hence a self fulfilling prophecy.
- mrweasel 8y ago
  The question is also if it has to do with the jobs, or work in general. I don't hate my work, I really like job actually. What I dislike is it taking up 37 hours of my week, that's starting to be to much, I got other stuff to do. When I was young it didn't seem to matter than much, I had plenty of time on my hands. As you get older, time moves to fast, and there's to little of it.
pasta 8y ago
I also think there is something different at work here. There are known stages in life at which you will think about who you are and where you want to go to. "Early Adulthood" is one of those stages starting around your 20th and ends around your 35th year. After this the "Midlife" stage starts. This is the stage most people start thinking about the deeper meaning of life.
jasonkester 8y ago
These sound more like a list of things you figure out in your 20s so that you can successfully work them to your advantage in your 30s. Also, if you embrace the "no job security" part above and don't sweat your "career" at any given shop, the rest of them stop being things you need to worry about. Let the other guys stress office politics and fear for their job if they take vacation. You're the guy who knows what this job market is like, and that you have options.
- sbarre 8y ago
  Spoken like an HNer who is incredibly lucky to be working in a field that has never-ending demand, and is probably good at their job. Just a heads up that the majority of people are not in your/our situation with regards to their employment.
  - jasonkester 8y ago
    Indeed. But we're discussing this here, with the audience you describe making up nearly all of us, so I didn't feel the need to add that caveat. So yeah, go us. Our gig gets better over time, while it appears that others don't.
    - xevb3k 8y ago
      The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area. The majority of users on HN are not in the Bay Area: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298905 People 35 and over, are somewhat likely to have families and find it difficult to relocate.
      - hobofan 8y ago
        > The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area. There are a lot of places where you get a job in this industry faster than you can say "Software Engineer", so it's definitely not only a Bay Area thing. NY/Berlin/London are just as bad from personal experience and as a rough estimate every city above 1mil population, is probably not too different.
Shivetya 8y ago
I do think the stress piles on once your obligations overwhelm you outside because so much is dependent on keeping employment. you over commit and feel trapped. Still one issue I did not account for was too much idle time while at home. I found that once I had something to do or more things I wanted to do that stress of the job lessened.
tabs_masterrace 8y ago
Well said. It can be very sobering, that’s why I personally have no intentions of quitting the startup / freelance life.
bonoboTP 8y ago
I feel these two are somewhat contradictory or inconsistent: > They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. > They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work If their work is not that important or necessary, isn't its true value also not too high?
- singularity2001 8y ago
  also in many companies >80% of profits(before payments) go into payments, so not that much exploitation there.
  - spdionis 8y ago
    I don't think that's what the word "profit" means.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  Yes and no. Maybe a better way of phrasing would be, their effort will never be appropriately compensated. The problem is that much of the economy is pure bullshit, and it takes brainwashing to make the thing run/make people want stuff that is really of no value. So, there are very few jobs that provide real value - other than keeping the hamster wheel moving.
  - bollockitis 8y ago
    I think the brainwashing is somewhat voluntary. When fighting for survival is no longer necessary, most people enter a state of perpetual boredom which, at its extremes, becomes depression and anxiety. An economy of ever-flowing distractions is a great way to pass the time while waiting to die. In the meantime, we build up these absurd fantasies of how we're going to be important or do great things as a way of justifying our existence, but neither the economy or society can support infinite heroes, so consumerism becomes rampant. People fight for status and recognition with their possessions, not their achievements. After all, most of us value the achievements of others more highly than we value our own, and we place "real" achievement far higher than we can reach and are never satisfied. Personally, as it relates to work, my job is boring, largely pointless, and will never amount to anything useful, but I try not to let that affect me. I try to always do my best so I am the judge of my "achievements," not others. I spent a week rewriting a terrible contingency plan for IT systems. It's a formality. No one will ever read it, much less put it into practice, but it's well done and I am proud of it nonetheless. Whether or not the hamster wheel moves is, to me, irrelevant. It can move or not move. I pride myself on performing the same regardless.
iamgopal 8y ago
and to top it all, They have figured out that they themselves are not much worth anyway, have to settled for whatever is at hands, to survive with the family of four.
singularity2001 8y ago
They have figured out that … cant you make them into bullet points for readability?
harperlee 8y ago
> They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee. A little bit too cynical for my taste. You make it sound as if companies serve no purpose other than extracting value from the employee to the company. Your work value inside the company is higher than the value of the work per se; the order that the firm institutes has a value for society, minimizing information, decision and transaction costs. That is why firms exist, and not only markets; a gig economy in which everyone is free to sell their work is worse. You could even argue that the power relations that the firm embodies for you end up also appearing in a market, without the securities of a job relationship (see Uber drivers and the like). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm Also, job security is not perfect, but it sure does exist.
- intended 8y ago
  No this is correct. It’s about the mythical alpha. You can get the 1950s average unit of work out of a person, and maybe get 100 gidgets made in a day. Or you can figure out how to optimize the assembly line and reduce pee breaks and get the most out of those things you have to pay to employ. So now in the 2000s, you make 5000 widgets a day, employ fewer people and have identified more places where you can reduce costs to improve shareholder value. All the fancy lunches at the googleplex and so on, they’re a way to differentiate and keep expensive workers at work. If a firm found a way to keep high end workers for cheap, then they should do that because that’s their job - to optimize and get the benefits of those optimization’s to shareholders. In short be a shareholder, not a worker.
  - ttwtf 8y ago
    "If a firm found a way to keep high end workers for cheap" What is a "firm"? Most executives in a company optimize for they own benefit, not for yours, not for the "firms". There is a famous article frm HBR. How to manage your boss https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-your-boss https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-your-boss (paywalled but I am sure you can find it for free on the net). You have to make your boss happy. In some cases this may be done by an outstanding performance. In most cases it is done by being a good talker, walking overtime, look busy, give him a blow job under the table, whatever. But it is rarely connected with your real job performance. And again, how to measure performance? Performance for the company or performance for your superior?
titzer 8y ago
Well, damn it. Now you've done it. Jeebs, go get the bag, we got a cat loose in here! chaos
throwaway77384 8y ago
I think I snapped somewhere around the age of 28. Went from the "exciting" world of digital agencies to the most administrative public sector job I could find. Now, at least while I am away from home, I can work on my own projects and learn things, rather than properly wasting away slaving over someone else's completely meaningless pursuit of profits.
pc86 8y ago
Do most of these things really take 10+ years to "figure out" though? > its much more about connections and office politics than hard work Whether or not it's "much more" depends as much on your employer and your field as anything else, but nobody should reasonably expect that employment is a pure meritocracy where your work product is judged in a vacuum irrespective of how much people enjoy working with you or how much objective (and subjective) value you can bring to the business. > there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment Why would there be? Nobody I know is signing employment contracts or working in Civil Service positions. > its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive This is entirely dependent on employer. We have a handful of developers who spend maybe 25 hours a week physically in the office but they are as productive as anyone else. > the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary This will depend heavily on industry, employer, project, and seniority. If you're an entry level dev and not particularly skilled in what you're doing yet and new to the industry you're going to spend a lot of time learning which will pay dividends 15 years later but is not objectively important to the specific project you happen to be working on. > its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else I have never seen or heard this in any of my jobs, with the exception that a lot of the folks recently from India that I've worked with seem to take it as a point of pride that they let a huge chunk of their PTO expire every year. But I think that might be cultural as none of the Indians that I work with currently who have been here for a while (5+ years) do that, they use all their vacation every year just like everyone else. > they are never going to get [paid] the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee Well a business doesn't exist if it pays out 100% of profit to every employee. It's actually pretty easy to be a contract developer so if someone wants to handle all the administrative nonsense in order to squeeze out a few more thousand dollars a year they can do so. I've been underpaid and overpaid (overpaid is certainly better) but nobody's ever tricked me into earning less. Negotiation is a thing, if you can prove there is an extra $30k in value in a position/promotion, prove it. If it makes business sense to pay more for talent, start a business and do it. If it actually makes a difference, you'll have a competitive advantage. > its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant This is objectively false and weakens all of your other arguments (some of which are reasonable). > its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to [truly] [fulfill] their dreams and ambitions If anyone ever told you that the purpose of employment is for you to "truly fulfill your dreams and ambitions" they're an idiot, a liar, or both.
wernsey 8y ago
Funny, round about the time I turned 35 I stumbled upon Erik Dietrich's Defining The Corporate Hierarchy [1] blog. It cynically divides corporate workers into sociopaths at the top who step on other people to get where they are, idealists in the middle who don't realize they're being stepped on and think they'll eventually get to the top through hard work, and then pragmatists at the bottom who come in in the morning, do their work, and find meaning in their lives elsewhere, like family or hobbies. I found myself much more relaxed at work when I realized that I would be better off as a pragmatist (though YMMV). I have since left the corporate world for a smaller company, and I'm much happier at work now. [1] http://www.daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy http://www.daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > and then pragmatists at the bottom who come in in the morning, do their work, and find meaning in their lives elsewhere, like family or hobbies. How do those pragmatists deal with the fact that, summing job, commute and sleep, over 2/3 of their lives is not part of the purpose?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Diplomacy is the art of saying “Good dog” until you get to the rock. I save religiously (~80% of my income) to one day be financially independent. Until that day, you put on a smile and do your job to the best of your ability, not working a moment per day longer than required. No one is coming to save you but you. Have an exit strategy. Buy your time back for yourself.
    - d46ft7gy8hu 8y ago
      I've worked with so many people that satisfy themselves with this lifestyle. Frankly, I'm envious. I simply cannot be happy that way, I've tried, I failed. I cannot live in the suburbs, I probably cannot have a stable family life, I will not commute. Instead I decided to accept that I cannot burry my desire to be on top, doing things others look forward to in the future, I'm trying to find ways to be sustainably excited about constantly being out of my comfort zone with new things. I've left jobs paying over $1 million / year to do something that barely breaks even to chase this, and ironically it always seems to end up delivering another well paying venture with too much of the things I don't enjoy doing at the other end. It's immensely productive and counter intuitive all at once. I'd love to find something that lasts, but instead I feel destine to cycle over things that initially I love, and eventually despise for what I've turned them into.
ttwtf 8y ago
That is probably the time when you become a ghost rower.
ttwtf 8y ago
I can also give you a different calculation. 1. Working hours. I know people in Europe that have 35 or 37h per week guaranteed. 40 hours is normal in the US and most of the time you work much longer. 1 hour lunch break is obligatory. It is too long, I can not eat for one hour if I bring my own lunch. It is too short to go the the gym too. 2. Travel. Sometimes I had to travel a lot. You board the plane Friday evening, you are back home Saturday at 5pm and Monday you start again at 8:30 pm 3. Commuting. It is difficult to live close to work. Basically 1 hour commute each way is guaranteed. And while this is no time on my companies clock, it is on mine. So you easily get 60 hours a week. Depending where you live, you pay 30-50% taxes, 20% sales tax in Europe etc. If you move abroad and work from your laptop, the whole game can change. Working hours, commute, taxes, purchasing power...
andrepd 8y ago
>They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee. It's at "almost", it is the definition of being an employee. Marx was right about that. Employee-owned companies ftw.
bitL 8y ago
Even owners/founders get discarded these days... It's full on Game of Thrones on all levels.
mikeschmatz 8y ago
They have achieved their early goals and found out that they were fakes implanted by the society. Now they are left in a vacuum surrounded by a bunch of responsibilities.
Dave_TRS 8y ago
This list reminds me that employment simply a trade off, and a fair deal that most are willing to accept with eyes wide open. You want a steady paycheck immediately, so you sign up for what you hope will be a sort of friendly "master-slave" relationship where you do a good enough job to not get fired, accept the office politics, accept that someone else gets all the upside, and give up a large chunk of life instead of pursuing your own business, hobbies, spending more time with family, etc. This should not be a surprise to anyone, but I suppose its easy to be overly optimistic as a young person and become frustrated when reality sinks in.
hnisgroupthink 8y ago
It's funny how this is said on HN while at the same time another top thread is trashing crypto. Hint: Crypto is the thing that saves us from this. We aren't using it properly.
cool-RR 8y ago
> They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work. Maintaining relationships with different kinds of people is work. It's hard and meaningful work. > They have figured out that there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment. There most definitely is job security. Some people have lots of it, some have very little. There is no 100% job security, if that's what you were hoping for. > They have figured out that its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive. Again, spending time with people in a social environment is a meaningful thing to do with one's life. > They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. It's not surprising that the majority of the product / code is not that important or necessary. If you are a good teammate, you might be an important or necessary part in your teammates daily lives. > They have figured out that its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else. "many", "lose", "it's". I'm pretty close with my teammates, and I've never heard of any of them giving up any of their vacation time to get respect from our boss. > They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work, and that is almost the definition of being an employee. I think that you if you'll try to give a definition of what you call "true value", it could be reduced to an absurdity. > They have figured out that its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant. I wish every person that said that would get to spend a couple of weeks as an actual slave, and would then report on their impressions. > They have figured out that its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to trully fulfill their dreams and ambitions. Anyone wants to take on this one?
- spiderjerusalem 8y ago
  > Again, spending time with people in a social environment is a meaningful thing to do with one's life. Totally agree on that one, but I would rather that social environment is not overlapping with all sorts of economic power dynamics. I would much rather hang out at cafes and public places and spend time outside economic contexts based on shared interests such as literature, art, music etc.
techiferous 8y ago
Such a powerless attitude. And these things are presented as if they are objective truths that one day programmers will eventually "figure out" rather than a subjective, and very disempowering, perspective.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by vfc1 8y ago

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

> They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. I used to keep wondering when I was going to get found out for not contributing to the company's bottom line like the other thousands of employees around me seem to do every day. But then I realised that everyone else is probably doing exactly the same. And either a) none of us are doing anything valuable b) a small % are the driving force or c) we are greater than the sum of our parts I hope it's c), feel like it's probably b), but maybe a) really is a real world scenario.

koboll 8y ago
If it wasn't c) the company wouldn't exist, even if b) is true. At my company I think it's true that a small % are the driving force, in terms of our central product, but the rest are important in that the company would be dysfunctional to the point of collapse if that small % also had to take care of the ancillary tasks they do.
sjg007 8y ago
There's a bunch of additional work required to maintain the product outside of developing it in the first place. The brilliant product developed needs to be refined, marketed etc.. and all of those have support structures in place which sometimes amount to "work". Reports, analysis, collate data etc... integrate with X, all work that may not be what you sell but support the organization to sell what you sell.
rboyd 8y ago
It’s B. Usually just can’t get rid of A because of politics. Enjoy the free lunches though.
m-i-l 8y ago
I used to (half) joke about another option: (d) it could be cost effective for a company to spend money hiring and wasting excellent talent if it prevents their competitors from doing something genuinely valuable with that talent.
- Radim 8y ago
  Unlikely. No "talent" would agree to waste their life in such a scenario, worrying about "being found out for not contributing to the bottom line". That's kinda what makes them a talent — almost a tautology.
  - albertgoeswoof 8y ago
    I dunno, money talks
    - Radim 8y ago
      For a short while, maybe. "Excellent talent" means a strong inner drive, it takes something like an obsession to put in the grind to get there. The feeling of contributing and creating and playfulness and attacking new frontiers is non-negotiable. You lose it, you're no longer "excellent talent". No money can replace that (though life circumstances may force a detour — that's why it's almost a tautology, but not quite). "Being found out for not contributing"? You know you can do better.
      - m-i-l 8y ago
        There could be cases where exceptional talent is kept motivated on exciting cutting edge projects, but those projects don't "contribute to the bottom line", either because the project is canned or doesn't generate enough profits (or cut enough costs) or some other reason. The chances are that these cases wouldn't be an intentional waste of talent, but if you've been around a while you sometimes start to wonder.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
skgoa 8y ago
In my experience it's a combination of b) and c): most of the added value is generated by a surprisingly small number of "heroes" and everyone else is just there to support them. While the random office drone's contribution to the project's success is small, the fact that none of the "heroes" had to bother spending time and effort on that little side task enabled the team as a whole to solve the difficult issues quicker.

fallingfrog 8y ago

Couldn't have put it better. At some point you realize that as far as your company is concerned, you're just human capital. And, most likely when you leave to get a new job, nobody is going to notice all the good work you did, or care who you were. And it's not you that's going to get rich off all that work.

wernsey 8y ago
A "human resource". I always found that term to imply that we're just meat for the meat grinder.
- hawkesnest 8y ago
  I've berated more than one manager over calling a human being a "resource" in a meeting. Electricity, hardware, furniture, office space, and the like are resources. you might get away with calling people "talent", but not "resource."
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I've berated more than one manager over calling a human being a "resource" in a meeting As long as your organization has an HR department (with that name), that battle has been lost on the organizational level and haranguing individual managers isn't going to accomplish much.

dgellow 8y ago

> They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work. Just to be fair, developing/maintaining/managing connections and the political side (negociation, argumentation, understanding of the social mechanics, etc) is hard work.

topmonk 8y ago

I think you might be over generalizing. Not all jobs are like that, surely. Also, any employee who thought that way would probably never rise far in their company, hence a self fulfilling prophecy.

mrweasel 8y ago
The question is also if it has to do with the jobs, or work in general. I don't hate my work, I really like job actually. What I dislike is it taking up 37 hours of my week, that's starting to be to much, I got other stuff to do. When I was young it didn't seem to matter than much, I had plenty of time on my hands. As you get older, time moves to fast, and there's to little of it.

pasta 8y ago

I also think there is something different at work here. There are known stages in life at which you will think about who you are and where you want to go to. "Early Adulthood" is one of those stages starting around your 20th and ends around your 35th year. After this the "Midlife" stage starts. This is the stage most people start thinking about the deeper meaning of life.

jasonkester 8y ago

These sound more like a list of things you figure out in your 20s so that you can successfully work them to your advantage in your 30s. Also, if you embrace the "no job security" part above and don't sweat your "career" at any given shop, the rest of them stop being things you need to worry about. Let the other guys stress office politics and fear for their job if they take vacation. You're the guy who knows what this job market is like, and that you have options.

sbarre 8y ago
Spoken like an HNer who is incredibly lucky to be working in a field that has never-ending demand, and is probably good at their job. Just a heads up that the majority of people are not in your/our situation with regards to their employment.
- jasonkester 8y ago
  Indeed. But we're discussing this here, with the audience you describe making up nearly all of us, so I didn't feel the need to add that caveat. So yeah, go us. Our gig gets better over time, while it appears that others don't.
  - xevb3k 8y ago
    The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area. The majority of users on HN are not in the Bay Area: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298905 People 35 and over, are somewhat likely to have families and find it difficult to relocate.
    - hobofan 8y ago
      > The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area. There are a lot of places where you get a job in this industry faster than you can say "Software Engineer", so it's definitely not only a Bay Area thing. NY/Berlin/London are just as bad from personal experience and as a rough estimate every city above 1mil population, is probably not too different.

Shivetya 8y ago

I do think the stress piles on once your obligations overwhelm you outside because so much is dependent on keeping employment. you over commit and feel trapped. Still one issue I did not account for was too much idle time while at home. I found that once I had something to do or more things I wanted to do that stress of the job lessened.

tabs_masterrace 8y ago

Well said. It can be very sobering, that’s why I personally have no intentions of quitting the startup / freelance life.

bonoboTP 8y ago

I feel these two are somewhat contradictory or inconsistent: > They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. > They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work If their work is not that important or necessary, isn't its true value also not too high?

singularity2001 8y ago
also in many companies >80% of profits(before payments) go into payments, so not that much exploitation there.
- spdionis 8y ago
  I don't think that's what the word "profit" means.
grasshopperpurp 8y ago
Yes and no. Maybe a better way of phrasing would be, their effort will never be appropriately compensated. The problem is that much of the economy is pure bullshit, and it takes brainwashing to make the thing run/make people want stuff that is really of no value. So, there are very few jobs that provide real value - other than keeping the hamster wheel moving.
- bollockitis 8y ago
  I think the brainwashing is somewhat voluntary. When fighting for survival is no longer necessary, most people enter a state of perpetual boredom which, at its extremes, becomes depression and anxiety. An economy of ever-flowing distractions is a great way to pass the time while waiting to die. In the meantime, we build up these absurd fantasies of how we're going to be important or do great things as a way of justifying our existence, but neither the economy or society can support infinite heroes, so consumerism becomes rampant. People fight for status and recognition with their possessions, not their achievements. After all, most of us value the achievements of others more highly than we value our own, and we place "real" achievement far higher than we can reach and are never satisfied. Personally, as it relates to work, my job is boring, largely pointless, and will never amount to anything useful, but I try not to let that affect me. I try to always do my best so I am the judge of my "achievements," not others. I spent a week rewriting a terrible contingency plan for IT systems. It's a formality. No one will ever read it, much less put it into practice, but it's well done and I am proud of it nonetheless. Whether or not the hamster wheel moves is, to me, irrelevant. It can move or not move. I pride myself on performing the same regardless.

iamgopal 8y ago

and to top it all, They have figured out that they themselves are not much worth anyway, have to settled for whatever is at hands, to survive with the family of four.

singularity2001 8y ago

They have figured out that … cant you make them into bullet points for readability?

harperlee 8y ago

> They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee. A little bit too cynical for my taste. You make it sound as if companies serve no purpose other than extracting value from the employee to the company. Your work value inside the company is higher than the value of the work per se; the order that the firm institutes has a value for society, minimizing information, decision and transaction costs. That is why firms exist, and not only markets; a gig economy in which everyone is free to sell their work is worse. You could even argue that the power relations that the firm embodies for you end up also appearing in a market, without the securities of a job relationship (see Uber drivers and the like). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm Also, job security is not perfect, but it sure does exist.

intended 8y ago
No this is correct. It’s about the mythical alpha. You can get the 1950s average unit of work out of a person, and maybe get 100 gidgets made in a day. Or you can figure out how to optimize the assembly line and reduce pee breaks and get the most out of those things you have to pay to employ. So now in the 2000s, you make 5000 widgets a day, employ fewer people and have identified more places where you can reduce costs to improve shareholder value. All the fancy lunches at the googleplex and so on, they’re a way to differentiate and keep expensive workers at work. If a firm found a way to keep high end workers for cheap, then they should do that because that’s their job - to optimize and get the benefits of those optimization’s to shareholders. In short be a shareholder, not a worker.
- ttwtf 8y ago
  "If a firm found a way to keep high end workers for cheap" What is a "firm"? Most executives in a company optimize for they own benefit, not for yours, not for the "firms". There is a famous article frm HBR. How to manage your boss https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-your-boss https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-your-boss (paywalled but I am sure you can find it for free on the net). You have to make your boss happy. In some cases this may be done by an outstanding performance. In most cases it is done by being a good talker, walking overtime, look busy, give him a blow job under the table, whatever. But it is rarely connected with your real job performance. And again, how to measure performance? Performance for the company or performance for your superior?

titzer 8y ago

Well, damn it. Now you've done it. Jeebs, go get the bag, we got a cat loose in here! chaos

throwaway77384 8y ago

I think I snapped somewhere around the age of 28. Went from the "exciting" world of digital agencies to the most administrative public sector job I could find. Now, at least while I am away from home, I can work on my own projects and learn things, rather than properly wasting away slaving over someone else's completely meaningless pursuit of profits.

pc86 8y ago

Do most of these things really take 10+ years to "figure out" though? > its much more about connections and office politics than hard work Whether or not it's "much more" depends as much on your employer and your field as anything else, but nobody should reasonably expect that employment is a pure meritocracy where your work product is judged in a vacuum irrespective of how much people enjoy working with you or how much objective (and subjective) value you can bring to the business. > there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment Why would there be? Nobody I know is signing employment contracts or working in Civil Service positions. > its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive This is entirely dependent on employer. We have a handful of developers who spend maybe 25 hours a week physically in the office but they are as productive as anyone else. > the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary This will depend heavily on industry, employer, project, and seniority. If you're an entry level dev and not particularly skilled in what you're doing yet and new to the industry you're going to spend a lot of time learning which will pay dividends 15 years later but is not objectively important to the specific project you happen to be working on. > its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else I have never seen or heard this in any of my jobs, with the exception that a lot of the folks recently from India that I've worked with seem to take it as a point of pride that they let a huge chunk of their PTO expire every year. But I think that might be cultural as none of the Indians that I work with currently who have been here for a while (5+ years) do that, they use all their vacation every year just like everyone else. > they are never going to get [paid] the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee Well a business doesn't exist if it pays out 100% of profit to every employee. It's actually pretty easy to be a contract developer so if someone wants to handle all the administrative nonsense in order to squeeze out a few more thousand dollars a year they can do so. I've been underpaid and overpaid (overpaid is certainly better) but nobody's ever tricked me into earning less. Negotiation is a thing, if you can prove there is an extra $30k in value in a position/promotion, prove it. If it makes business sense to pay more for talent, start a business and do it. If it actually makes a difference, you'll have a competitive advantage. > its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant This is objectively false and weakens all of your other arguments (some of which are reasonable). > its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to [truly] [fulfill] their dreams and ambitions If anyone ever told you that the purpose of employment is for you to "truly fulfill your dreams and ambitions" they're an idiot, a liar, or both.

wernsey 8y ago

Funny, round about the time I turned 35 I stumbled upon Erik Dietrich's Defining The Corporate Hierarchy [1] blog. It cynically divides corporate workers into sociopaths at the top who step on other people to get where they are, idealists in the middle who don't realize they're being stepped on and think they'll eventually get to the top through hard work, and then pragmatists at the bottom who come in in the morning, do their work, and find meaning in their lives elsewhere, like family or hobbies. I found myself much more relaxed at work when I realized that I would be better off as a pragmatist (though YMMV). I have since left the corporate world for a smaller company, and I'm much happier at work now. [1] http://www.daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy http://www.daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> and then pragmatists at the bottom who come in in the morning, do their work, and find meaning in their lives elsewhere, like family or hobbies. How do those pragmatists deal with the fact that, summing job, commute and sleep, over 2/3 of their lives is not part of the purpose?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Diplomacy is the art of saying “Good dog” until you get to the rock. I save religiously (~80% of my income) to one day be financially independent. Until that day, you put on a smile and do your job to the best of your ability, not working a moment per day longer than required. No one is coming to save you but you. Have an exit strategy. Buy your time back for yourself.
  - d46ft7gy8hu 8y ago
    I've worked with so many people that satisfy themselves with this lifestyle. Frankly, I'm envious. I simply cannot be happy that way, I've tried, I failed. I cannot live in the suburbs, I probably cannot have a stable family life, I will not commute. Instead I decided to accept that I cannot burry my desire to be on top, doing things others look forward to in the future, I'm trying to find ways to be sustainably excited about constantly being out of my comfort zone with new things. I've left jobs paying over $1 million / year to do something that barely breaks even to chase this, and ironically it always seems to end up delivering another well paying venture with too much of the things I don't enjoy doing at the other end. It's immensely productive and counter intuitive all at once. I'd love to find something that lasts, but instead I feel destine to cycle over things that initially I love, and eventually despise for what I've turned them into.

ttwtf 8y ago

That is probably the time when you become a ghost rower.

ttwtf 8y ago

I can also give you a different calculation. 1. Working hours. I know people in Europe that have 35 or 37h per week guaranteed. 40 hours is normal in the US and most of the time you work much longer. 1 hour lunch break is obligatory. It is too long, I can not eat for one hour if I bring my own lunch. It is too short to go the the gym too. 2. Travel. Sometimes I had to travel a lot. You board the plane Friday evening, you are back home Saturday at 5pm and Monday you start again at 8:30 pm 3. Commuting. It is difficult to live close to work. Basically 1 hour commute each way is guaranteed. And while this is no time on my companies clock, it is on mine. So you easily get 60 hours a week. Depending where you live, you pay 30-50% taxes, 20% sales tax in Europe etc. If you move abroad and work from your laptop, the whole game can change. Working hours, commute, taxes, purchasing power...

andrepd 8y ago

>They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work,and that is almost the definition of being an employee. It's at "almost", it is the definition of being an employee. Marx was right about that. Employee-owned companies ftw.

bitL 8y ago

Even owners/founders get discarded these days... It's full on Game of Thrones on all levels.

mikeschmatz 8y ago

They have achieved their early goals and found out that they were fakes implanted by the society. Now they are left in a vacuum surrounded by a bunch of responsibilities.

Dave_TRS 8y ago

This list reminds me that employment simply a trade off, and a fair deal that most are willing to accept with eyes wide open. You want a steady paycheck immediately, so you sign up for what you hope will be a sort of friendly "master-slave" relationship where you do a good enough job to not get fired, accept the office politics, accept that someone else gets all the upside, and give up a large chunk of life instead of pursuing your own business, hobbies, spending more time with family, etc. This should not be a surprise to anyone, but I suppose its easy to be overly optimistic as a young person and become frustrated when reality sinks in.

hnisgroupthink 8y ago

It's funny how this is said on HN while at the same time another top thread is trashing crypto. Hint: Crypto is the thing that saves us from this. We aren't using it properly.

cool-RR 8y ago

> They have figured out that its much more about connections and office politics than hard work. Maintaining relationships with different kinds of people is work. It's hard and meaningful work. > They have figured out that there is really no job security, and they could be one layoff wave away from unemployment. There most definitely is job security. Some people have lots of it, some have very little. There is no 100% job security, if that's what you were hoping for. > They have figured out that its much more about face time and spending long hours at work rather than actually being productive. Again, spending time with people in a social environment is a meaningful thing to do with one's life. > They have figured out that the majority of their work, to their surprise is not actually that important or necessary. It's not surprising that the majority of the product / code is not that important or necessary. If you are a good teammate, you might be an important or necessary part in your teammates daily lives. > They have figured out that its important not to take too much vacations, because its an opportunity to loose the little work they have to someone else. "many", "lose", "it's". I'm pretty close with my teammates, and I've never heard of any of them giving up any of their vacation time to get respect from our boss. > They have figured out that they are never going to get payed the true value of their work, and that is almost the definition of being an employee. I think that you if you'll try to give a definition of what you call "true value", it could be reduced to an absurdity. > They have figured out that its all a system of serventry not too different from the medieval relation between master and servant. I wish every person that said that would get to spend a couple of weeks as an actual slave, and would then report on their impressions. > They have figured out that its a system that they are being grinded through and discarded, and that they are condemned for life to making someone else rich, never getting a chance to trully fulfill their dreams and ambitions. Anyone wants to take on this one?

spiderjerusalem 8y ago
> Again, spending time with people in a social environment is a meaningful thing to do with one's life. Totally agree on that one, but I would rather that social environment is not overlapping with all sorts of economic power dynamics. I would much rather hang out at cafes and public places and spend time outside economic contexts based on shared interests such as literature, art, music etc.

techiferous 8y ago

Such a powerless attitude. And these things are presented as if they are objective truths that one day programmers will eventually "figure out" rather than a subjective, and very disempowering, perspective.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]