5 ms·
Not to mention that most companies don't need great engineers. Average engineers for average companies is perfectly fine. Of course, then the company leadership
by rhizome 6y ago
Not to mention that most companies don't need great engineers. Average engineers for average companies is perfectly fine. Of course, then the company leadership has to be realistic about their place in the universe, but that's a separate problem, plus hiring authorities can have a realistic view of the big picture and sell their hiring selections as "great engineers for a great company" to management.
It's kind of mutinous, but it's not like there's anything to be gained from loyalty to management who aren't loyal to employees.
- bonoboTP 6y ago> It's kind of mutinous, but it's not like there's anything to be gained from loyalty to management who aren't loyal to employees. It goes both ways. The current equilibrium, at least in the US, is that (SW/IT) engineers leave after ~2 years, and it's causing quite a bit of friction. But it's hard to move out of the equilibrium.
- rhizome 6y ago>But it's hard to move out of the equilibrium. I don't think it's so much an equilibrium so much as a battle, denoted by "friction," but I'm sure it would come down to each saying the other one defected first. I think we can figure out where the disloyalty started, calculated from the first principles of capitalism.
- bonoboTP 6y agoBy friction I meant all the onboarding costs and time, and the lost knowledge evaporating with the leaving employees. There's tons of waste there.