5 ms·

>It's worth remembering this article seems to come from a rather clichéd and narrow frame of reference - overly driven by money But the blog author wrote the

by jasode 6y ago

>It's worth remembering this article seems to come from a rather clichéd and narrow frame of reference - overly driven by money But the blog author wrote the opposite of your characterization. Excerpt from article of not letting money distort your goals: >Staying in a job for loyalty or money's sake is like staying in a bad marriage for the sake of kids. [...] Optimizing learning over money early in your career. [EDIT to the many downvoters: Did I totally misunderstand the author's blog article? Where is the "overly driven by money" message? His framework chart doesn't have money anywhere on it. See: https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F55cda1a8-942b-4e38-b861-9c890da06931_1274x506.png https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...]

mellosouls 6y ago
My actual quote ended "...and status", and "frame of reference" was important. The article is a reflection on I recently saw this tweet asking people about their career's most expensive mistake which appears to at least indicate a long term financial (and no doubt time/energy/status/skills/etc) view. It's not to say there aren't useful (if rather overly played) points in there and similar articles; but the whole thrust is about "career growth" and "brand" and dismissing either directly or by implication engineers who prioritise life as being vastly more important than work.
leokennis 6y ago
The point of mellosouls holds. The person writing this post lives for his job. His goal is to have a job that brings him some combination of achieving job related results, learning job related skills and earning money from that job. And if the current job situation is not optimized for that (no learning opportunities, no achievement opportunities limiting future employment opportunities etc.) it should be seen as a cancer. While it’s a completely valid point of view to not live for your job, but to do your job to (financially) facilitate your life: earn money in a stable (but from the authors point of view boring and pointless) job so you can take nice vacations with your wife and kids. Or keep a “9 to 5 job” because you like to explore foreign cinema and Russian literature from “5 to 11”, while the author is still busting his ass so he’ll end high on the corporate ladder in the future.
- robocat 6y ago
  > The person writing this post lives for his job I think you are completely mischaracterising the author. The article is about career: for most of us a career is a necessary evil that cannot be avoided. If you read the article as though the heading were “optimising your career to suit your lifestyle”, the article still makes sense. Nowhere in the article does it imply that you should prioritise work/money over living. There are multiple references to ensuring that you achieve personal goals inside and outside your job: “if you don't want your talent to go to waste” “Staying in a job for loyalty or money's sake is like staying in a bad marriage for the sake of kids. It's not healthy for anyone involved.” “Am I excited and happy to go to work every morning and see my teammates.” “She had grown tired of her role and was burnt out.” The author mostly talks about the time cost (not $) of your choices - most of us are given similar lifespans so choose how you invest your time wisely. PS: “Valley Girl Newsletter” - @leokennis: assuming “his” is impolite IMHO.
  - leokennis 6y ago
    Regarding his/her: that was a dumb assumption on my part. Apologies. It should be her. To the content of the article. This is what the author describes as the scenario to be avoided: > Your choice becomes limited to employers who want a cog in the big machine while your career will fade into a 9-5 job. As if this is per se a bad thing. As I said, if your career is your life then indeed, follow the authors advice. However if your career is just a tool to financially enable your real life, it’s great to be a cog in a 9-to-5 machine: you get to go home in time for dinner every day and you probably have mental energy to spare when you do. Further down, this is written: > If you're not paying attention, you lose precious years stagnating and being unhappy. Below, signs of unhappiness are: lack of work accomplishments, lack of “resume worthy work”, lack of new skills for future employment, lack of overthinking work problems in the shower, lack of kinship with colleagues felt. Again, for many people, work is not a goal in itself. I like my colleagues and I enjoy my job, but in the end the place I really want to be is not my office (but my home) and the people I really care about are not my colleagues (but my family and friends). Final exemplary quote: > You have at best 120 quarters left to make something of yourself. A year wasted at a poor job or role is equivalent to you throwing away 3.3% of your career. Again, apparently “making something of yourself” is equivalent to not wasting time at a job and having a good career? I fully stand by my points: * It’s fine to be very career and job minded. * You need to read the linked article with a lot of flexibility and creativity to come away with any other impression than the author is very career and job minded. * It shows a lack of perspective (or an abundance of personal insecurities) to write a preachy article like this without even considering that your goals (the authors goals) might not be the same as everyone else’s.

by jasode 6y ago

mellosouls 6y ago

My actual quote ended "...and status", and "frame of reference" was important. The article is a reflection on I recently saw this tweet asking people about their career's most expensive mistake which appears to at least indicate a long term financial (and no doubt time/energy/status/skills/etc) view. It's not to say there aren't useful (if rather overly played) points in there and similar articles; but the whole thrust is about "career growth" and "brand" and dismissing either directly or by implication engineers who prioritise life as being vastly more important than work.

leokennis 6y ago

The point of mellosouls holds. The person writing this post lives for his job. His goal is to have a job that brings him some combination of achieving job related results, learning job related skills and earning money from that job. And if the current job situation is not optimized for that (no learning opportunities, no achievement opportunities limiting future employment opportunities etc.) it should be seen as a cancer. While it’s a completely valid point of view to not live for your job, but to do your job to (financially) facilitate your life: earn money in a stable (but from the authors point of view boring and pointless) job so you can take nice vacations with your wife and kids. Or keep a “9 to 5 job” because you like to explore foreign cinema and Russian literature from “5 to 11”, while the author is still busting his ass so he’ll end high on the corporate ladder in the future.

robocat 6y ago
> The person writing this post lives for his job I think you are completely mischaracterising the author. The article is about career: for most of us a career is a necessary evil that cannot be avoided. If you read the article as though the heading were “optimising your career to suit your lifestyle”, the article still makes sense. Nowhere in the article does it imply that you should prioritise work/money over living. There are multiple references to ensuring that you achieve personal goals inside and outside your job: “if you don't want your talent to go to waste” “Staying in a job for loyalty or money's sake is like staying in a bad marriage for the sake of kids. It's not healthy for anyone involved.” “Am I excited and happy to go to work every morning and see my teammates.” “She had grown tired of her role and was burnt out.” The author mostly talks about the time cost (not $) of your choices - most of us are given similar lifespans so choose how you invest your time wisely. PS: “Valley Girl Newsletter” - @leokennis: assuming “his” is impolite IMHO.
- leokennis 6y ago
  Regarding his/her: that was a dumb assumption on my part. Apologies. It should be her. To the content of the article. This is what the author describes as the scenario to be avoided: > Your choice becomes limited to employers who want a cog in the big machine while your career will fade into a 9-5 job. As if this is per se a bad thing. As I said, if your career is your life then indeed, follow the authors advice. However if your career is just a tool to financially enable your real life, it’s great to be a cog in a 9-to-5 machine: you get to go home in time for dinner every day and you probably have mental energy to spare when you do. Further down, this is written: > If you're not paying attention, you lose precious years stagnating and being unhappy. Below, signs of unhappiness are: lack of work accomplishments, lack of “resume worthy work”, lack of new skills for future employment, lack of overthinking work problems in the shower, lack of kinship with colleagues felt. Again, for many people, work is not a goal in itself. I like my colleagues and I enjoy my job, but in the end the place I really want to be is not my office (but my home) and the people I really care about are not my colleagues (but my family and friends). Final exemplary quote: > You have at best 120 quarters left to make something of yourself. A year wasted at a poor job or role is equivalent to you throwing away 3.3% of your career. Again, apparently “making something of yourself” is equivalent to not wasting time at a job and having a good career? I fully stand by my points: * It’s fine to be very career and job minded. * You need to read the linked article with a lot of flexibility and creativity to come away with any other impression than the author is very career and job minded. * It shows a lack of perspective (or an abundance of personal insecurities) to write a preachy article like this without even considering that your goals (the authors goals) might not be the same as everyone else’s.