4 ms·

> Pay is line with the market Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? > up to d

by tomp 7y ago

> Pay is line with the market Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? > up to date with technology and great chances for resume building. What do you mean "up to date with technology"? IMO most "recent" technology is mostly hype and/or vaporware, and as I get more experienced, I see more and more value in old, reliable, well-supported technology. I mean, I'm not dissing on all new tech (Rust?), just saying that just being "new" doesn't make it also "good".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
HelloNurse 7y ago
In line with the market means in line with other workplaces at the same shittiness level. People who tolerate worse conditions should be rewarded with a higher pay; they can want to work somewhere else, but prefer more money and other rewards.
scarface74 7y ago
Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? My major want is to get money deposited into my account. I'm at an age where I need to focus on building wealth. But that's the other dilemma -- I could go into working for a consulting company as a "digital transformation consultant"/"cloud consultant" where I would be travelling or working from home a lot, but that doesn't excite me either -- thus I stay where I am until I can make up my mind. What do you mean "up to date with technology"? IMO most "recent" technology is mostly hype and/or vaporware, and as I get more experienced, I see more and more value in old, reliable, well-supported technology. I mean, I'm not dissing on all new tech (Rust?), just saying that just being "new" doesn't make it also "good". "Up to date with market" and "resume building". The only "value" I get out of any technology is the ability for it to get money deposited into my account. "Old reliable, well supported technology" doesn't get recruiters beating down your door. At 45, I can't afford not to be competitive and keeping up with new technology and then whine about "ageism" I don't care about Rust or any other new technology until I see it appearing on a lot of job reqs.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  I’ve always considered the technology treadmill to be optional. You can ride it and be successful, or you can become a good generalist on old technologies and be successful too. I’ve never even thought about messing with Rust or React or Angular or Ember or Node or Haskell. I don’t know what a Kubernet is and I think Docker is what happens when you take “it works for me” and turn it into a software deployment tool. I don’t surf the Blockchain or care about Tensorflow. There are just too many companies (big and small, FAANG and fun) who offer rewarding jobs working on mature, boring tech for me to bother. Maybe there will come a time when nobody on Earth is using C++ and Java anymore but I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Are you willing to move "anywhere on earth" to find a job? It doesn't matter whether anyone will hire you, what matters is if anyone will hire you in a place that you are willing to move or allow you to work remotely and at the pay you want. Also how old are you? I've seen too many people in their mid 40s who couldn't get a job because they called themselves "generalists" when a company could just as easily hire someone cheaply that could hit the ground running. Also there is a difference between the "right job" and the "right now" job. The "right job" for me would be architect, consultant, team lead, or consultant. But those jobs aren't as abundant. If I have three or four months to plan and look, I can get the "right job". If circumstances dictate that I need to get the "right now" job or contract (and get on my wife's insurance), I need to find a job quickly and be marketable.
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      Good point. There is a technology treadmill and a “moving around for work” treadmill. I’m in my 40s and have been ok with the moving around treadmill all my life. Not for everyone though. Landed in SV ten years ago and haven’t run into the need to move again so far. Fingers crossed the bull market runs on...
mlthoughts2018 7y ago
This is like saying pay should be lower for NFL players who are allowed to wear helmets because they “want to work there” (not die or get concussions, be successful in their job). It’s mind-boggling that basic necessities like private working conditions, a tool to get my job done (which is the job that earns my salary), is equivocated with “extras” or “nice-to-haves” that I should give up salary to get. Crazy town. Wouldn’t you love to work at Acme Co.? We totally don’t cut your hands off, so we pay 20% below market.
JohnFen 7y ago
> Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? Some people are in it primarily for the pay -- those people will not be willing to take a lower pay rate in exchange for almost anything. For others (like myself), the pay rate is third or fourth down on the list of what makes a position attractive. I think that both perspectives are valid -- everyone has their own individual priorities.

by tomp 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

HelloNurse 7y ago

In line with the market means in line with other workplaces at the same shittiness level. People who tolerate worse conditions should be rewarded with a higher pay; they can want to work somewhere else, but prefer more money and other rewards.

scarface74 7y ago

Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? My major want is to get money deposited into my account. I'm at an age where I need to focus on building wealth. But that's the other dilemma -- I could go into working for a consulting company as a "digital transformation consultant"/"cloud consultant" where I would be travelling or working from home a lot, but that doesn't excite me either -- thus I stay where I am until I can make up my mind. What do you mean "up to date with technology"? IMO most "recent" technology is mostly hype and/or vaporware, and as I get more experienced, I see more and more value in old, reliable, well-supported technology. I mean, I'm not dissing on all new tech (Rust?), just saying that just being "new" doesn't make it also "good". "Up to date with market" and "resume building". The only "value" I get out of any technology is the ability for it to get money deposited into my account. "Old reliable, well supported technology" doesn't get recruiters beating down your door. At 45, I can't afford not to be competitive and keeping up with new technology and then whine about "ageism" I don't care about Rust or any other new technology until I see it appearing on a lot of job reqs.

ryandrake 7y ago
I’ve always considered the technology treadmill to be optional. You can ride it and be successful, or you can become a good generalist on old technologies and be successful too. I’ve never even thought about messing with Rust or React or Angular or Ember or Node or Haskell. I don’t know what a Kubernet is and I think Docker is what happens when you take “it works for me” and turn it into a software deployment tool. I don’t surf the Blockchain or care about Tensorflow. There are just too many companies (big and small, FAANG and fun) who offer rewarding jobs working on mature, boring tech for me to bother. Maybe there will come a time when nobody on Earth is using C++ and Java anymore but I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Are you willing to move "anywhere on earth" to find a job? It doesn't matter whether anyone will hire you, what matters is if anyone will hire you in a place that you are willing to move or allow you to work remotely and at the pay you want. Also how old are you? I've seen too many people in their mid 40s who couldn't get a job because they called themselves "generalists" when a company could just as easily hire someone cheaply that could hit the ground running. Also there is a difference between the "right job" and the "right now" job. The "right job" for me would be architect, consultant, team lead, or consultant. But those jobs aren't as abundant. If I have three or four months to plan and look, I can get the "right job". If circumstances dictate that I need to get the "right now" job or contract (and get on my wife's insurance), I need to find a job quickly and be marketable.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Good point. There is a technology treadmill and a “moving around for work” treadmill. I’m in my 40s and have been ok with the moving around treadmill all my life. Not for everyone though. Landed in SV ten years ago and haven’t run into the need to move again so far. Fingers crossed the bull market runs on...

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

This is like saying pay should be lower for NFL players who are allowed to wear helmets because they “want to work there” (not die or get concussions, be successful in their job). It’s mind-boggling that basic necessities like private working conditions, a tool to get my job done (which is the job that earns my salary), is equivocated with “extras” or “nice-to-haves” that I should give up salary to get. Crazy town. Wouldn’t you love to work at Acme Co.? We totally don’t cut your hands off, so we pay 20% below market.

JohnFen 7y ago

> Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment? Some people are in it primarily for the pay -- those people will not be willing to take a lower pay rate in exchange for almost anything. For others (like myself), the pay rate is third or fourth down on the list of what makes a position attractive. I think that both perspectives are valid -- everyone has their own individual priorities.