3 ms·
You perhaps miss the point of 'then start your own thing'. It is not meant as a realistic suggestion of where to take your career. It is meant to point out that
by pie_flavor 6y ago
You perhaps miss the point of 'then start your own thing'. It is not meant as a realistic suggestion of where to take your career. It is meant to point out that the employer/employee relationship is one-directional for relative profit because it's the other direction in relative stability and investment. You are correct in your analysis that developers don't have access to the kind of capital necessary to start a company. That's the point - you can't predicate an argument on 'the actual workers only get a small fraction' when minus a stable job you would only be able to output a small fraction.
Plus the development abstraction layer influences public perception as much as it does developer perception. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/04/11/the-development-abstraction-layer-2/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/04/11/the-development-ab...
- dathinab 6y agoBut so do you miss the point as providing a working place which an employee can get by "start your own thing" does in no way imply that it's acceptable to abuse your employee just because they depend on you. In the end they get a reasonable wage for the normal work they do, but not if crunch is involved. Which, do to the large amount of stress and in turn health (physical+mental) and social risk it can involve doesn't seem reasonable for "any" amount of money (or at least any amount any person would be willing to pay ;=) ).