5 ms·

FFS. Which do you want? You want the $ figure and job security of the salaried employee, but not the duties. You don't want to be classified like a contract

FFS. Which do you want? You want the $ figure and job security of the salaried employee, but not the duties. You don't want to be classified like a contract worker, subject to termination at any time, but you want the flexibility to work when and as you please. You want the freedom to not have your hours monitored, your steps and productivity measured, but not the responsibilities that come with such autonomy. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could create some parallel lalaland universe where normal constraints no longer worked as they do. While we're at it, I want an airplane that's cheap, fast, doesn't use liquid fuel, and doesn't hurt the environment. I think we can all be billionaires.

maxrev17 6y ago
I think being salaried is a scam, so I run my own business. It really is that simple. The choice is there if people are upset about being salaried. Those who are salaried and work 60 hour weeks + commute need to wake up and smell the coffee - if they are moderately good they would make bank self employed.
- virgilp 6y ago
  It's really not that simple. I made a small fortune being salaried. Would I have made the same money self-employed? Maybe, but I'm not sure - the risks are a lot higher (the rewards too, but like I said, far less certain).
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    I'm not sure the risks are that high. I mean in a downturn you might see revenue halve, if you work for someone else you might be the unlucky one whose salary drops to zero.
    - virgilp 6y ago
      Yes the risks are not that high, but neither are the rewards. Basically you choose to do something (marketing, sales, dealing with bad clients) over something else (meetings, corporate bullshit, dealing with bad managers). Maybe you get more financial upside on average (especially if you're good at marketing/sales) for slightly less security/peace of mind (as employee if you get sick, or have a child, you still get a salary; you can have paid vacations, etc). Sure, freelancer/consultant is a valid path, but only if you're good at (and enjoy) marketing & sales. Otherwise - you can get lucky to work for a startup that IPOs (or a company whose shares increase dramatically) and end up earning a lot more as salaried.
- matwood 6y ago
  > Those who are salaried and work 60 hour weeks + commute need to wake up and smell the coffee Despite the horror stories, particular those in the game industry, most are not working 60 hours/week. The most surefire way to make good money and become wealthy is by working at one of the FAANGs and investing. I know the startup founder is romanticized here and in the media, and in the rare cases when it works, it can be great. But, if you look at the risk adjusted value, startups are not very good. With that said, I prefer small companies/startups because I like the freedom and control that comes along. I know I'm leaving money on the table, but I'm getting things I value over money.
- cweill 6y ago
  Just curious: when you say "make bank" do you mean more than the $200-400k total compensation that people are pulling in at FANG companies? This is the thing that was never clear to me, or most salaried employees: how long would it take to get to that point as self-employed? The risk and opportunity cost seem way to high. Then again I don't know how to measure that risk...
k__ 6y ago
"job security of the salaried employee" No such thing as job security. If you're good, they won't throw you out even if you're a freelancer. If you're bad they will throw you out even if you're an employee. I did both and the only difference I saw was the type of work you do. As a freelancer I have less hand-holding than an employee, but also more freedom.
- atleta 6y ago
  Probabilities. If you are a contractor you'll be let go much easier than if you are an employee. I used to work at a big corp (pretty nice one, BTW) and we've always had a few contractors to smooth out the fluctuations in the work demand/projects. Hiring, getting a headcount was hard. Exactly because employees were harder to let go and a bigger investment. We were 5-6 on our team over 6 years and had 4 contractors on and off on the side during that time. And it was as simple as: sorry guys, we won't need your service for the next 6 months, because this and that. (Our work was always planned ahead for 6 months, decision made 2x a year.)
- walshemj 6y ago
  Hourly workers are not freelancers
mberning 6y ago
You said it. I get so tired of talking to people, especially young people early in their career, with this attitude. They want raises, promotions, and bonuses at every turn, but never show in crunch time. They think showing up for 9 months with a completely perfunctory attitude towards work is enough to justify their upward mobility in the company. It is not. I have had interns come and absolutely ball out the whole time they are with us. Sometimes I am sure they go back to their dorm room or apartment and put in a couple extra hours on their project. It shows. I have no problem getting them hired with good salaries and quick promotions. Then you have the guy that has bounced around from team to team for 5 years, never gets anything done right, and wants a big raise.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  It goes both ways. With companies increasingly willing to lay off or fire employees at the drop of a dime while investing little in developing internal talent why should I be invested in the success of my employer? They will not have my back if/when shit hits the fan, so why should I have theirs? Let's not pretend that employees woke up one day and decided to be more self-interested. Employers have been working on eroding job security and employee rights for years.
dubcanada 6y ago
What? Who said any of that? The person was asking a serious question and got a legit answer. As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. What is currently happening is most of the time people work 50-60 hours and get paid at basically a 40 hour a week version of their job. So they end up giving the company 10-20 hours free (as it's not every now and then but basically every single week). There are other motivations that can be added, say if you get a percentage of the company then you working 10-20 hours extra is accounted for by some other benefit. But as it stands (say you work as a manager at random fastfood) there is no benefit to you working 60 hour weeks. You don't get extra money, you don't get benefits (some long time employees may get stock options but most don't). What's excepted of you does not correlate to the amount you are paid (which for random fastfood is usually what an hourly rate at 40 hours a week would be plus a little extra). If you did the same job as hourly (only difference being termination is easier for hourly than salaried) you would get paid more. It's a perfectly valid question and one most should be asking.
- b3kart 6y ago
  > As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. I suspect the problem is with measuring what "job is done" means exactly when it comes to intellectual work in a team, so companies use a simplistic "X hours worked" as a proxy.
- paulcole 6y ago
  > As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. The whole article says that this is a fantasy. Get your job done in 20 hours a week and say I’m out and see what happens at the vast majority of companies. The employer gets the free extra 5 hours in a 45 hour week but the employee gets judged (at best) for working 20 hours the next week.
  - dubcanada 6y ago
    There are degrees and differences in jobs that need to be taken into account. Obviously a store owner or manager probably need to be there and you can't manage in half the time. But some roles (such as say programming) if you have X tasks a week and you get them all done in half the time and piece out in my mind that should be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable that if you get all your tasks done in half the time they just give you a bunch of other tasks until you work exactly 40 hours. And there are others that take 2x to do all their tasks so you end up getting half of their tasks. Being good at your job should be rewarded and encouraged and if that means saying "get all these done and if you get them done earlier and just as good you get Friday off" is a perfect motivator. I think the problem is people grew up expecting to work 40 hours and if you don't work 40 hours you're a slacker. And that can be true, but it can also be completely wrong.
statstutor 6y ago
> some parallel lalaland universe Countries with better rights for employees exist in this universe, on this planet.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  You will generally not find the same environment in terms of job creation and growth though. Part of what the US's low job security enables are the forces of creative destruction that have made new businesses and ideas possible here. You might have more job security in other countries, but your job might be theoretical. You can't have it all.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    This sounds like "the rock that repels tigers" type thinking. > The US has high innovation. > US employees have poor job security. > Therefore high innovation must be caused by poor job security. There are many historic and contemporary causes for the US's economic success. Arguably, the US was even more innovative in the 50s and 60s when job security was much better and unions were more powerful.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Seems like you should have a read about labor issues in France, for example?
  - Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
    10 or 15 years ago, many of my peers were dreaming of migrating to the US some day to work in a hot new startup. These days? Pretty much everyone changed their mind, because everyone realized that being protected as an employee, having financial safety in case of an emergency and the health care system in Europe are more desirable than being part of the next new business or idea, however "creative" they might be labelled. Especially if it's just the next Uber for X treating employees as independent contractors.
  - statstutor 6y ago
c1ccccc1 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. As the situation of the person asking the original question demonstrates, sometimes a salaried position will both pay less and take up more of one's time than an hourly one. So of course people will prefer the hourly position in those cases, that's basic economics. The point of the article is that one shouldn't accept a salaried position just because it's nominally a promotion.
whatatita 6y ago
> FFS. Which do you want? > You want the $ figure and job security of the salaried employee Yes. I don't see why I should have to live without job security because I am paid hourly. > but not the duties. Nope. I want a healthy work-life balance and I don't think that has to mean not meating my duties. > You don't want to be classified like a contract worker, subject to termination at any time Again, yes. I want to be respected and live without the looming terror of joblessness. > you want the flexibility to work when and as you please. You want the freedom to not have your hours monitored, your steps and productivity measured Yes. I think I aught to be respected enough to not need micro-managing at every turn. > but not the responsibilities that come with such autonomy. Again, nope. > Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could create some parallel lalaland universe... It's not so far fetched. There are plenty of places the world over that already treat their employees like valuable, respected, worthy people.
twirlock 6y ago
Yep. Some people don't value programmers and will try to take away all the perks of being salaried because privately they don't think programmers should be salaried. We know.

maxrev17 6y ago

I think being salaried is a scam, so I run my own business. It really is that simple. The choice is there if people are upset about being salaried. Those who are salaried and work 60 hour weeks + commute need to wake up and smell the coffee - if they are moderately good they would make bank self employed.

virgilp 6y ago
It's really not that simple. I made a small fortune being salaried. Would I have made the same money self-employed? Maybe, but I'm not sure - the risks are a lot higher (the rewards too, but like I said, far less certain).
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I'm not sure the risks are that high. I mean in a downturn you might see revenue halve, if you work for someone else you might be the unlucky one whose salary drops to zero.
  - virgilp 6y ago
    Yes the risks are not that high, but neither are the rewards. Basically you choose to do something (marketing, sales, dealing with bad clients) over something else (meetings, corporate bullshit, dealing with bad managers). Maybe you get more financial upside on average (especially if you're good at marketing/sales) for slightly less security/peace of mind (as employee if you get sick, or have a child, you still get a salary; you can have paid vacations, etc). Sure, freelancer/consultant is a valid path, but only if you're good at (and enjoy) marketing & sales. Otherwise - you can get lucky to work for a startup that IPOs (or a company whose shares increase dramatically) and end up earning a lot more as salaried.
matwood 6y ago
> Those who are salaried and work 60 hour weeks + commute need to wake up and smell the coffee Despite the horror stories, particular those in the game industry, most are not working 60 hours/week. The most surefire way to make good money and become wealthy is by working at one of the FAANGs and investing. I know the startup founder is romanticized here and in the media, and in the rare cases when it works, it can be great. But, if you look at the risk adjusted value, startups are not very good. With that said, I prefer small companies/startups because I like the freedom and control that comes along. I know I'm leaving money on the table, but I'm getting things I value over money.
cweill 6y ago
Just curious: when you say "make bank" do you mean more than the $200-400k total compensation that people are pulling in at FANG companies? This is the thing that was never clear to me, or most salaried employees: how long would it take to get to that point as self-employed? The risk and opportunity cost seem way to high. Then again I don't know how to measure that risk...

k__ 6y ago

"job security of the salaried employee" No such thing as job security. If you're good, they won't throw you out even if you're a freelancer. If you're bad they will throw you out even if you're an employee. I did both and the only difference I saw was the type of work you do. As a freelancer I have less hand-holding than an employee, but also more freedom.

atleta 6y ago
Probabilities. If you are a contractor you'll be let go much easier than if you are an employee. I used to work at a big corp (pretty nice one, BTW) and we've always had a few contractors to smooth out the fluctuations in the work demand/projects. Hiring, getting a headcount was hard. Exactly because employees were harder to let go and a bigger investment. We were 5-6 on our team over 6 years and had 4 contractors on and off on the side during that time. And it was as simple as: sorry guys, we won't need your service for the next 6 months, because this and that. (Our work was always planned ahead for 6 months, decision made 2x a year.)
walshemj 6y ago
Hourly workers are not freelancers

mberning 6y ago

You said it. I get so tired of talking to people, especially young people early in their career, with this attitude. They want raises, promotions, and bonuses at every turn, but never show in crunch time. They think showing up for 9 months with a completely perfunctory attitude towards work is enough to justify their upward mobility in the company. It is not. I have had interns come and absolutely ball out the whole time they are with us. Sometimes I am sure they go back to their dorm room or apartment and put in a couple extra hours on their project. It shows. I have no problem getting them hired with good salaries and quick promotions. Then you have the guy that has bounced around from team to team for 5 years, never gets anything done right, and wants a big raise.

AlexandrB 6y ago
It goes both ways. With companies increasingly willing to lay off or fire employees at the drop of a dime while investing little in developing internal talent why should I be invested in the success of my employer? They will not have my back if/when shit hits the fan, so why should I have theirs? Let's not pretend that employees woke up one day and decided to be more self-interested. Employers have been working on eroding job security and employee rights for years.

dubcanada 6y ago

What? Who said any of that? The person was asking a serious question and got a legit answer. As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. What is currently happening is most of the time people work 50-60 hours and get paid at basically a 40 hour a week version of their job. So they end up giving the company 10-20 hours free (as it's not every now and then but basically every single week). There are other motivations that can be added, say if you get a percentage of the company then you working 10-20 hours extra is accounted for by some other benefit. But as it stands (say you work as a manager at random fastfood) there is no benefit to you working 60 hour weeks. You don't get extra money, you don't get benefits (some long time employees may get stock options but most don't). What's excepted of you does not correlate to the amount you are paid (which for random fastfood is usually what an hourly rate at 40 hours a week would be plus a little extra). If you did the same job as hourly (only difference being termination is easier for hourly than salaried) you would get paid more. It's a perfectly valid question and one most should be asking.

b3kart 6y ago
> As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. I suspect the problem is with measuring what "job is done" means exactly when it comes to intellectual work in a team, so companies use a simplistic "X hours worked" as a proxy.
paulcole 6y ago
> As a salaried worker you are expected to do a job, if that job takes you 20 hours this week and 45 next week that's fine as long as the job is done. The whole article says that this is a fantasy. Get your job done in 20 hours a week and say I’m out and see what happens at the vast majority of companies. The employer gets the free extra 5 hours in a 45 hour week but the employee gets judged (at best) for working 20 hours the next week.
- dubcanada 6y ago
  There are degrees and differences in jobs that need to be taken into account. Obviously a store owner or manager probably need to be there and you can't manage in half the time. But some roles (such as say programming) if you have X tasks a week and you get them all done in half the time and piece out in my mind that should be acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable that if you get all your tasks done in half the time they just give you a bunch of other tasks until you work exactly 40 hours. And there are others that take 2x to do all their tasks so you end up getting half of their tasks. Being good at your job should be rewarded and encouraged and if that means saying "get all these done and if you get them done earlier and just as good you get Friday off" is a perfect motivator. I think the problem is people grew up expecting to work 40 hours and if you don't work 40 hours you're a slacker. And that can be true, but it can also be completely wrong.

statstutor 6y ago

> some parallel lalaland universe Countries with better rights for employees exist in this universe, on this planet.

supernova87a 6y ago
You will generally not find the same environment in terms of job creation and growth though. Part of what the US's low job security enables are the forces of creative destruction that have made new businesses and ideas possible here. You might have more job security in other countries, but your job might be theoretical. You can't have it all.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This sounds like "the rock that repels tigers" type thinking. > The US has high innovation. > US employees have poor job security. > Therefore high innovation must be caused by poor job security. There are many historic and contemporary causes for the US's economic success. Arguably, the US was even more innovative in the 50s and 60s when job security was much better and unions were more powerful.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Seems like you should have a read about labor issues in France, for example?
- Lukas_Skywalker 6y ago
  10 or 15 years ago, many of my peers were dreaming of migrating to the US some day to work in a hot new startup. These days? Pretty much everyone changed their mind, because everyone realized that being protected as an employee, having financial safety in case of an emergency and the health care system in Europe are more desirable than being part of the next new business or idea, however "creative" they might be labelled. Especially if it's just the next Uber for X treating employees as independent contractors.
- statstutor 6y ago

c1ccccc1 6y ago

I'm not sure what your point is. As the situation of the person asking the original question demonstrates, sometimes a salaried position will both pay less and take up more of one's time than an hourly one. So of course people will prefer the hourly position in those cases, that's basic economics. The point of the article is that one shouldn't accept a salaried position just because it's nominally a promotion.

whatatita 6y ago

> FFS. Which do you want? > You want the $ figure and job security of the salaried employee Yes. I don't see why I should have to live without job security because I am paid hourly. > but not the duties. Nope. I want a healthy work-life balance and I don't think that has to mean not meating my duties. > You don't want to be classified like a contract worker, subject to termination at any time Again, yes. I want to be respected and live without the looming terror of joblessness. > you want the flexibility to work when and as you please. You want the freedom to not have your hours monitored, your steps and productivity measured Yes. I think I aught to be respected enough to not need micro-managing at every turn. > but not the responsibilities that come with such autonomy. Again, nope. > Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could create some parallel lalaland universe... It's not so far fetched. There are plenty of places the world over that already treat their employees like valuable, respected, worthy people.

twirlock 6y ago

Yep. Some people don't value programmers and will try to take away all the perks of being salaried because privately they don't think programmers should be salaried. We know.