5 ms·

The opposite is also true. I work in system engineering (sometimes it's called sysops. Hybrid programming/administration, often production stuff) and I've learn

The opposite is also true. I work in system engineering (sometimes it's called sysops. Hybrid programming/administration, often production stuff) and I've learned to I hide my creativity. A lot of employers want people they can understand and they can trust. The companies I work for generally don't want someone that's creative. They want someone that's dull and reliable. Show your creative side and they'll look for someone else, even if you've got 10x more skills than someone else. Given that creativity doesn't pay anyway (there's a cap on pay and I've already reached that cap), there's no point to show it. I can get hired based on what's on my resume alone and by answering the same set of questions they always ask. Then I get hired, I automate everything in under 6 months and I go sit on my ass or do something else. Flaw in the capitalistic system. I know what I'm worth, I can bring across what I'm worth, but it's simply outside the bounds of what's expected or needed. And I know that sounds weird, but think of it like this: No one is going to pay the fastest cashier in the world 3x minimum wage. Not even if they check out customers 6x faster than the next person. And claiming you're the fastest cashier in the world during the hiring process just gets you thrown on the discard pile. The same goes for a lot of other professions, including mine.

simonw 5y ago
That's a really interesting perspective. I've been in interview debriefs where the fact that the candidate speaks at dozens of conferences a year has been raised as a potential problem, since it suggests they may not be as dedicated to the work that needs to be done.
- N00bN00b 5y ago
  >I've been in interview debriefs where the fact that the candidate speaks at dozens of conferences a year has been raised as a potential problem, since it suggests they may not be as dedicated to the work that needs to be done. You are right, that's another good example. Hiring someone that's very passionate might just not be in the best interest of the employer.
wpietri 5y ago
I'm sorry to hear it, but it's definitely true for certain kinds of employer. I once met somebody doing similar work to yours. Like you, he would bust his ass early on to automate everything and then be kind of bored. At one point he had two full-time jobs where he had done that and he still had time to play a lot of video games. I hope he found an employer who could really challenge him, as he was happier during the initial phase of hard work. But I wouldn't be surprised if he never did.
EvilEy3 5y ago
> Flaw in the capitalistic system. ???
- N00bN00b 5y ago
  What is it called.. Market failure? It's got a name, I don't remember it. The job market doesn't support certain overqualified people. I gave you an example. Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x. A plumber could do that, or a woodworker (they might have to start their own company, but they can do it). But a cashier relies on employers and they're just not going to pay a cashier that much. Cashier being an example. There are many support jobs were it just doesn't pay to be good at your job. These people are technically incentivized to be mediocre. And they often are. Some of these positions allow growth paths, but not all. And just because I'm the world's best cashier, doesn't mean I'm a good store manager.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    > Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x. I don't think so, because a cashier's main job is just to wait for customers to show up. They are faster at clearing bottlenecks when a lot of customers show up at once, but they don't handle anywhere close to 3x as many customers over the course of their entire shift.
    - N00bN00b 5y ago
      That's going to depend on the store and the shift. I'm sure you understand that I gave an example that's easy to understand and I'm not trying to discuss the intricate details of being a high performing cashier. If it's really needed I can come up with a different example, but otherwise just assume it's not a neighborhood pet store, but a very busy and successful supermarket with 35 check out registers that are always busy. But you can just as easily swap it with an overqualified dentist assistant that provides a massive value by detecting things the dentist misses. Or a engineer at a mine that's so damn good, that he repeatedly detects machinery failure 5 minutes before it breaks catastrophically (and some of these machines cost millions). Or a bricklayer that lays three times faster than any other bricklayer. It doesn't matter. The point is they are supportive roles that can't function independently of the corporation, yet will never receive a salary that's proportional to the value they provide.

simonw 5y ago

That's a really interesting perspective. I've been in interview debriefs where the fact that the candidate speaks at dozens of conferences a year has been raised as a potential problem, since it suggests they may not be as dedicated to the work that needs to be done.

N00bN00b 5y ago
>I've been in interview debriefs where the fact that the candidate speaks at dozens of conferences a year has been raised as a potential problem, since it suggests they may not be as dedicated to the work that needs to be done. You are right, that's another good example. Hiring someone that's very passionate might just not be in the best interest of the employer.

wpietri 5y ago

I'm sorry to hear it, but it's definitely true for certain kinds of employer. I once met somebody doing similar work to yours. Like you, he would bust his ass early on to automate everything and then be kind of bored. At one point he had two full-time jobs where he had done that and he still had time to play a lot of video games. I hope he found an employer who could really challenge him, as he was happier during the initial phase of hard work. But I wouldn't be surprised if he never did.

EvilEy3 5y ago

> Flaw in the capitalistic system. ???

N00bN00b 5y ago
What is it called.. Market failure? It's got a name, I don't remember it. The job market doesn't support certain overqualified people. I gave you an example. Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x. A plumber could do that, or a woodworker (they might have to start their own company, but they can do it). But a cashier relies on employers and they're just not going to pay a cashier that much. Cashier being an example. There are many support jobs were it just doesn't pay to be good at your job. These people are technically incentivized to be mediocre. And they often are. Some of these positions allow growth paths, but not all. And just because I'm the world's best cashier, doesn't mean I'm a good store manager.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  > Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x. I don't think so, because a cashier's main job is just to wait for customers to show up. They are faster at clearing bottlenecks when a lot of customers show up at once, but they don't handle anywhere close to 3x as many customers over the course of their entire shift.
  - N00bN00b 5y ago
    That's going to depend on the store and the shift. I'm sure you understand that I gave an example that's easy to understand and I'm not trying to discuss the intricate details of being a high performing cashier. If it's really needed I can come up with a different example, but otherwise just assume it's not a neighborhood pet store, but a very busy and successful supermarket with 35 check out registers that are always busy. But you can just as easily swap it with an overqualified dentist assistant that provides a massive value by detecting things the dentist misses. Or a engineer at a mine that's so damn good, that he repeatedly detects machinery failure 5 minutes before it breaks catastrophically (and some of these machines cost millions). Or a bricklayer that lays three times faster than any other bricklayer. It doesn't matter. The point is they are supportive roles that can't function independently of the corporation, yet will never receive a salary that's proportional to the value they provide.