5 ms·

The main reason that employers seem to think it would be "better" (for them) is so they can pressure said employees for free labor and overly-aggressive timelin

The main reason that employers seem to think it would be "better" (for them) is so they can pressure said employees for free labor and overly-aggressive timelines.

boring_twenties 7y ago
Yes, exactly? Why wouldn't I rather hire someone who is usually available at anytime vs. someone who needs to leave at 5pm every day, constantly taking days off to deal with issues with their kids or their school, constantly bringing germs into the office and so on?
- ghaff 7y ago
  Toxic individuals like you should really find some other industry to pollute.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    So we have a personal attack, an unsubstantiated assumption, and zero substantive argument. And I'm the toxic individual? Perhaps you should find a different message board to pollute.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I should not have made a personal attack. But I really would encourage you to consider what others have written and think about why your take on hiring is not healthy and may even be actively discriminatory against a protected class.
      - boring_twenties 7y ago
        You'll be happy to know I have nothing to do with hiring of any kind, but just as an individual contributor it seems quite unhealthy to me to work on a team where work is my #1 priority, but everyone else's distant second. I suspect you'd find it quite ridiculous to have to pick up my slack as I have to run at 5pm to practice with my bandmates, at least if you weren't paid correspondingly more for the extra effort. Change that to a PTA meeting or soccer practice, though, and suddenly it's how dare you suggest that I get paid less for not only doing less work than you, but doing some of the work I was expected to in the first place!
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well, I would say that if you make work your number one priority for a company that you don’t own, it’s very naive. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow, the company would send flowers to your funeral and have an open req out for your position before you’re buried.
        boring_twenties 7y ago
        Not sure what the proper way to respond to a deeply nested comment around here is, but @scarface74: Company A will pay me $400k/yr, but only if I make work my top priority Company B will pay me $150k/yr, no matter what Please explain why it's "naive" to choose Company A. I don't need "ownership" in the company to profit from this. I don't see how the company's reaction to my death factors into the decision at all.
        playing_colours 7y ago
        First, your A-B situation is not a reality for most of engineers. Second, if you want to dedicate 10 years of your life to work, make money and retire early - it's a reasonable choice for many. But if it goes into 40s - why do you need money, if you would not be able to enjoy it constantly working? Your money may go straight to doctors and psychotherapists eventually.
        LargeWu 7y ago
        That's a legitimate tradeoff, which may or may not be worth it to everyone. But that's not even close to the situation most developers are in. Most are getting paid somewhere around an average salary, maybe with a few probably-worthless stock options, and they're getting asked to sacrifice their personal time working for free to make founders rich. Working extra hard isn't likely to advance their career at all; it just gives them a reputation as somebody who is willing to take abuse. If you're in a situation to make a crazy good salary by working hard, by all means, do that if you want. But understand that situation is very rare. And even if you're getting that deal, the person sitting next to you might not be in the same boat. Working hard to make other people rich is a sucker's bet, akin to playing a slot machine. For a rare few, it pays off big. For a somewhat larger cohort, there's a modest payoff. For the large majority, it's just wasting their career and their time.
  - dang 7y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong or annoying another commenter is being. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I know. It's a particular hot button and when I went to delete it, it had already been replied to so I couldn't.
      - dang 7y ago
        Ah. I didn't see the rest of the thread when I posted above.

The main reason that employers seem to think it would be "better" (for them) is so they can pressure said employees for free labor and overly-aggressive timelines.

boring_twenties 7y ago

Yes, exactly? Why wouldn't I rather hire someone who is usually available at anytime vs. someone who needs to leave at 5pm every day, constantly taking days off to deal with issues with their kids or their school, constantly bringing germs into the office and so on?

ghaff 7y ago
Toxic individuals like you should really find some other industry to pollute.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  So we have a personal attack, an unsubstantiated assumption, and zero substantive argument. And I'm the toxic individual? Perhaps you should find a different message board to pollute.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I should not have made a personal attack. But I really would encourage you to consider what others have written and think about why your take on hiring is not healthy and may even be actively discriminatory against a protected class.
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      You'll be happy to know I have nothing to do with hiring of any kind, but just as an individual contributor it seems quite unhealthy to me to work on a team where work is my #1 priority, but everyone else's distant second. I suspect you'd find it quite ridiculous to have to pick up my slack as I have to run at 5pm to practice with my bandmates, at least if you weren't paid correspondingly more for the extra effort. Change that to a PTA meeting or soccer practice, though, and suddenly it's how dare you suggest that I get paid less for not only doing less work than you, but doing some of the work I was expected to in the first place!
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Well, I would say that if you make work your number one priority for a company that you don’t own, it’s very naive. If you got hit by a bus tomorrow, the company would send flowers to your funeral and have an open req out for your position before you’re buried.
      - boring_twenties 7y ago
        Not sure what the proper way to respond to a deeply nested comment around here is, but @scarface74: Company A will pay me $400k/yr, but only if I make work my top priority Company B will pay me $150k/yr, no matter what Please explain why it's "naive" to choose Company A. I don't need "ownership" in the company to profit from this. I don't see how the company's reaction to my death factors into the decision at all.
        playing_colours 7y ago
        First, your A-B situation is not a reality for most of engineers. Second, if you want to dedicate 10 years of your life to work, make money and retire early - it's a reasonable choice for many. But if it goes into 40s - why do you need money, if you would not be able to enjoy it constantly working? Your money may go straight to doctors and psychotherapists eventually.
        LargeWu 7y ago
        That's a legitimate tradeoff, which may or may not be worth it to everyone. But that's not even close to the situation most developers are in. Most are getting paid somewhere around an average salary, maybe with a few probably-worthless stock options, and they're getting asked to sacrifice their personal time working for free to make founders rich. Working extra hard isn't likely to advance their career at all; it just gives them a reputation as somebody who is willing to take abuse. If you're in a situation to make a crazy good salary by working hard, by all means, do that if you want. But understand that situation is very rare. And even if you're getting that deal, the person sitting next to you might not be in the same boat. Working hard to make other people rich is a sucker's bet, akin to playing a slot machine. For a rare few, it pays off big. For a somewhat larger cohort, there's a modest payoff. For the large majority, it's just wasting their career and their time.
- dang 7y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong or annoying another commenter is being. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I know. It's a particular hot button and when I went to delete it, it had already been replied to so I couldn't.
    - dang 7y ago
      Ah. I didn't see the rest of the thread when I posted above.