6 ms·

> Why are programmers non-productive? Because their time is wasted in meetings. > Why are programmers rebellious? Because the management interferes too much.

> Why are programmers non-productive? Because their time is wasted in meetings. > Why are programmers rebellious? Because the management interferes too much. > Why are the programmers resigning one by one? Because they are burnt out. > Having worked for poor management, they no longer value their jobs.

the_only_law 6y ago
Man I wish I could get out of the field and just return to it being my hobby. Every now and then I get those periods of excitement, focus, etc. with my personal projects, but 90% of the time I want nothing to do with development.
- dirktheman 6y ago
  My cousin's life dream has always been to be a chef. A while ago he finally made the transition, quit his job and started working as a chef in a restaurant. He was pretty disappointed to learn that it's... just another job. The lesson is probably when you make your job out of your hobby, you lost your hobby and gained a job.
- cheschire 6y ago
  If the thing holding you back from the change is your salary, then you're just renting out your life to someone else in exchange for money. In that case, any job can pay rent for your life. It's just a question of whether you feel your life is worth the rent someone is willing to pay. The difference between this job and others is that you are subsidizing the higher rent by covering the cost of your hobby time for them. You should consider reducing your perceived life rental income by the amount you're subsidizing and then compare jobs based on that unsubsidized amount. You might stick with it anyways, or you might discover that there's better value to be had elsewhere. edit: clarity.
- thn-gap 6y ago
  If your current job is your would-be hobby, and you still have to work +40h per week, chances are that it can't get better than this. It's just working itself that sucks.
  - UncleSlacky 6y ago
    > It's just working itself that sucks. AKA alienation of labor, as Marx put it: > labor is external to the worker. It does not belong to his nature. He does not realize himself in his work, that he denies himself in it. That he does not feel at ease in it but rather unhappy. He does not develop free physical and mental energy in it... The worker is only himself when he does not work, and in his work he feels outside himself. He feels at home when he’s not working. When working he does not feel at home...His labor is not voluntary but forced. tl;dr: > You don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.
    - caskstrength 6y ago
      Are you implying that people somehow don't need to work in communist countries? I was too young to work during USSR times, but I can assure you my parents and grandparents hated Mondays as much as my generation do, if not more.
      - eru 6y ago
        Oh, but those countries weren't doing 'real communism'. Compare https://www.econlib.org/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://www.econlib.org/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never...
      - UncleSlacky 6y ago
        There's work that you do for yourself and to benefit yourself and your community, but this kind of work is the kind which doesn't benefit you, only your boss. In the case of the USSR, your boss was the state, hence why the USSR's economy is often referred to as "state capitalism".
        throw1234651234 6y ago
        Arguments against your theory: 1. Inefficiencies of labor distribution / shortages in USSR. 2. There were bosses in the USSR, called party members. Someone needs to manage. 3. Decreased motivation for high performance due to smaller "CEO"/common laborer wage gaps. 4. Inability of USSR to compete in both consumer goods and other areas except in a few focus points (mainly military) such as - small scale nuclear, rocket propulsion, certain areas of medicine, certain sports (far more actual research done than in the US), cavitating torpedoes, stealth subs, IR seekers, thermobarics, fighter wing leading edge vacuum generation from the SU27 copied in the F-15/MIG29, VTOL lift, etc P.S. - I do agree with your parent comment.
alphadevx 6y ago
No personal responsibility?

the_only_law 6y ago

Man I wish I could get out of the field and just return to it being my hobby. Every now and then I get those periods of excitement, focus, etc. with my personal projects, but 90% of the time I want nothing to do with development.

dirktheman 6y ago
My cousin's life dream has always been to be a chef. A while ago he finally made the transition, quit his job and started working as a chef in a restaurant. He was pretty disappointed to learn that it's... just another job. The lesson is probably when you make your job out of your hobby, you lost your hobby and gained a job.
cheschire 6y ago
If the thing holding you back from the change is your salary, then you're just renting out your life to someone else in exchange for money. In that case, any job can pay rent for your life. It's just a question of whether you feel your life is worth the rent someone is willing to pay. The difference between this job and others is that you are subsidizing the higher rent by covering the cost of your hobby time for them. You should consider reducing your perceived life rental income by the amount you're subsidizing and then compare jobs based on that unsubsidized amount. You might stick with it anyways, or you might discover that there's better value to be had elsewhere. edit: clarity.
thn-gap 6y ago
If your current job is your would-be hobby, and you still have to work +40h per week, chances are that it can't get better than this. It's just working itself that sucks.
- UncleSlacky 6y ago
  > It's just working itself that sucks. AKA alienation of labor, as Marx put it: > labor is external to the worker. It does not belong to his nature. He does not realize himself in his work, that he denies himself in it. That he does not feel at ease in it but rather unhappy. He does not develop free physical and mental energy in it... The worker is only himself when he does not work, and in his work he feels outside himself. He feels at home when he’s not working. When working he does not feel at home...His labor is not voluntary but forced. tl;dr: > You don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.
  - caskstrength 6y ago
    Are you implying that people somehow don't need to work in communist countries? I was too young to work during USSR times, but I can assure you my parents and grandparents hated Mondays as much as my generation do, if not more.
    - eru 6y ago
      Oh, but those countries weren't doing 'real communism'. Compare https://www.econlib.org/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/ https://www.econlib.org/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never...
    - UncleSlacky 6y ago
      There's work that you do for yourself and to benefit yourself and your community, but this kind of work is the kind which doesn't benefit you, only your boss. In the case of the USSR, your boss was the state, hence why the USSR's economy is often referred to as "state capitalism".
      - throw1234651234 6y ago
        Arguments against your theory: 1. Inefficiencies of labor distribution / shortages in USSR. 2. There were bosses in the USSR, called party members. Someone needs to manage. 3. Decreased motivation for high performance due to smaller "CEO"/common laborer wage gaps. 4. Inability of USSR to compete in both consumer goods and other areas except in a few focus points (mainly military) such as - small scale nuclear, rocket propulsion, certain areas of medicine, certain sports (far more actual research done than in the US), cavitating torpedoes, stealth subs, IR seekers, thermobarics, fighter wing leading edge vacuum generation from the SU27 copied in the F-15/MIG29, VTOL lift, etc P.S. - I do agree with your parent comment.

alphadevx 6y ago

No personal responsibility?