3 ms·

Throwaway obvious reason. All of this stems from you caring about your job and the status it gives you. After being burned twice on two startups that went on

Throwaway obvious reason. All of this stems from you caring about your job and the status it gives you. After being burned twice on two startups that went on to Series B's, I'm done. I no longer give a shit about my employer or if they live/die. I clock out at 5pm on the dot. I clock in whenever. Pay me, I'll get your features out and that's that. No I don't care about your estimates, no I don't care about your stock, no I don't care about your company's potential. Pay me, and I'm out. That's that. My most recent gigs I choose the path's with the least amount of stock and most amount of salary. I no longer give a shit.

john_moscow 8y ago
BTW, that's your reason behind ageism in tech.
- vim_mercenary 8y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment? I have no bias against older developers. I think older developers are fantastic because they want to fuck off and do other things and get their work done on time. The ones I hate are the 25 year old thundercats no-lifers who want to stay until 11pm for some unknown reason.
  - gcb0 8y ago
    I believe they were calling out that companies have prejudice against older workers because they are vaccinated against hustle-baiting with low salaries/lots of 3rd class stock.
  - meesles 8y ago
    There's this common misconception that young workers never put in extra hours before the Silicon Valley culture picked up. That's just untrue. Younger workers have always used energy and enthusiasm to make up for experience and skill in the workplace. Either they work more hours, accept more work, or just accept more stress than their peers to offset their junior status. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It's competition that you can either use to motivate yourself, or you can just complain about it as others advance past you in the workplace. I think the stigma against the young developer who _wants_ to put in these extra hours is more of an issue. These people don't deserve to be looked down upon just because they're putting in more, just like you don't want to be judged for working 30-hour weeks even if you deliver. Much like you want to do your work and bug off, they want to do something else with their time. Trying to find reason when you're so far on the other end of the spectrum seems futile.
    - vim_mercenary 8y ago
      It's literally working for free so I will continue to think less of them. I can't respect someone who works overtime for no money.
  - randycupertino 8y ago
    I think what the comment was saying is that young people are the only ones delusional enough to drink the coolaid and be happy working countless hours for crappy insurance, fake stock grants and a ball pit whereas an older, wiser worker not only costs the company more but sets work-life balance limits and therefore is harder to take advantage of.
- gcb0 8y ago
  That logic is like calling Multi-level-marketing as Smart-ism.
  - Jgrubb 8y ago
    I don't think they were saying it justifies it, just that it's a logical explanation for it.
gscott 8y ago
I believe this attitude is important because you will get destroyed otherwise. If you are invaluable to the point of the company not functioning well without you... that is when the knife comes out.. then management of any kind will want to slice and dice your job into 6 different jobs and fire you even if those 6 people combined can't do the same job at the level you did.
- shostack 8y ago
  To be fair to "management," having invaluable company contributions that could tank a company were that contributor to no longer be there is a huge risk to all employed there that should be mitigated against. It would be irresponsible of leaders in that company to make the company overly reliant on any one contributor. I know I certainly wouldn't want to work somewhere that would implode if a single person left, and for any decent-sized company, I imagine many others would share that sentiment in terms of the risk involved. In fact, while I feel many of my personal contributions are valuable, I'm ALWAYS thinking about how I can automate/document/spread around my efforts so as to provide some resiliency should I get hit by a bus, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

john_moscow 8y ago

BTW, that's your reason behind ageism in tech.

vim_mercenary 8y ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I have no bias against older developers. I think older developers are fantastic because they want to fuck off and do other things and get their work done on time. The ones I hate are the 25 year old thundercats no-lifers who want to stay until 11pm for some unknown reason.
- gcb0 8y ago
  I believe they were calling out that companies have prejudice against older workers because they are vaccinated against hustle-baiting with low salaries/lots of 3rd class stock.
- meesles 8y ago
  There's this common misconception that young workers never put in extra hours before the Silicon Valley culture picked up. That's just untrue. Younger workers have always used energy and enthusiasm to make up for experience and skill in the workplace. Either they work more hours, accept more work, or just accept more stress than their peers to offset their junior status. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It's competition that you can either use to motivate yourself, or you can just complain about it as others advance past you in the workplace. I think the stigma against the young developer who _wants_ to put in these extra hours is more of an issue. These people don't deserve to be looked down upon just because they're putting in more, just like you don't want to be judged for working 30-hour weeks even if you deliver. Much like you want to do your work and bug off, they want to do something else with their time. Trying to find reason when you're so far on the other end of the spectrum seems futile.
  - vim_mercenary 8y ago
    It's literally working for free so I will continue to think less of them. I can't respect someone who works overtime for no money.
- randycupertino 8y ago
  I think what the comment was saying is that young people are the only ones delusional enough to drink the coolaid and be happy working countless hours for crappy insurance, fake stock grants and a ball pit whereas an older, wiser worker not only costs the company more but sets work-life balance limits and therefore is harder to take advantage of.
gcb0 8y ago
That logic is like calling Multi-level-marketing as Smart-ism.
- Jgrubb 8y ago
  I don't think they were saying it justifies it, just that it's a logical explanation for it.

gscott 8y ago

I believe this attitude is important because you will get destroyed otherwise. If you are invaluable to the point of the company not functioning well without you... that is when the knife comes out.. then management of any kind will want to slice and dice your job into 6 different jobs and fire you even if those 6 people combined can't do the same job at the level you did.

shostack 8y ago
To be fair to "management," having invaluable company contributions that could tank a company were that contributor to no longer be there is a huge risk to all employed there that should be mitigated against. It would be irresponsible of leaders in that company to make the company overly reliant on any one contributor. I know I certainly wouldn't want to work somewhere that would implode if a single person left, and for any decent-sized company, I imagine many others would share that sentiment in terms of the risk involved. In fact, while I feel many of my personal contributions are valuable, I'm ALWAYS thinking about how I can automate/document/spread around my efforts so as to provide some resiliency should I get hit by a bus, etc.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]