3 ms·

I don't employ anyone. I'm not coming from a place of a disgruntled employer complaining about the workers being 'lazy' or whatever. I'm coming from a place of

I don't employ anyone. I'm not coming from a place of a disgruntled employer complaining about the workers being 'lazy' or whatever. I'm coming from a place of what the blog talks about - someone who came in starry eyed doing good work, only to find out you won't get paid 3x for doing 3x the work relative to everyone else, but instead they'll try to get you to do 4x the work for a 10% yearly bonus, until you drop dead of exhaustion. Oh, and your co-workers will hate your guts and try to undermine you. Nice system, right? That's the dynamic I'm addressing - if you're enthusiastic and starry eyed and think people are out there wanting to change the world for the better or at least take a modicum of pride in their work - be very careful, the real world is not like that, at all.

ianbutler 5y ago
For what it's worth I've only experienced this long term in corporations. Small companies that are actually still in the prime of producing and growth can't afford that with everyone and expect to survive. If it's systemic the startup just fails after meandering for a little bit. I derive a little satisfaction from that fact. It starts to tilt after you've gotten a couple hundred employees and people can hide more.
- alexashka 5y ago
  Small companies have a different problem. I figure there are about 1 in 10,000, if not 100,000 software devs that have the brains and fortitude to eat shit for 4-5 years, solving hard problems. Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp.
  - ianbutler 5y ago
    > Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp. I don't really agree with that, the time horizon on a successful startup, one that's acquired or goes public, is 7-10 years. I also don't agree with the class of problems. Like everything there's tiers. C tier player get's a C tier company with C tier problems. Naturally there's more C tier people than A tier, but that's not an indictment specific or by any stretch unique to startups. Edit: Honestly, the prevalence of easy capital means bullshit like you say stands out more but I'm not sure if a lot of companies like that are the winning bet for another like Google or whatever. They're over pronounced for sure but the moment venture capital stops having so much money floating around they'll die out imo. It does mean you have to do a little more work to find the interesting ones though.
    - alexashka 5y ago
      I thought about it a bit more - I was unfair to start-ups. It's not that start-ups largely solve trivial problems - it's that humans largely solve trivial problems. There are factors that make start-ups more likely to solve trivial problems vs say, a research institute, but it almost doesn't matter in the scheme of things. There are exceptions - they come once every few decades, per industry, give or take. Then the millions of regular people take it and do what they can't help but do :)
      - ianbutler 5y ago
        Yes I think I now largely agree with you. Most humans do mundane work and solve trivial problems. It's how the system keeps working though. If that stopped we'd be too busy sifting through the wreckage to produce the few exceptions where most of our value (not necessarily monetary) comes from.
deltaonefour 5y ago
I think I misinterpreted your post. We're talking about the same thing.

ianbutler 5y ago

For what it's worth I've only experienced this long term in corporations. Small companies that are actually still in the prime of producing and growth can't afford that with everyone and expect to survive. If it's systemic the startup just fails after meandering for a little bit. I derive a little satisfaction from that fact. It starts to tilt after you've gotten a couple hundred employees and people can hide more.

alexashka 5y ago
Small companies have a different problem. I figure there are about 1 in 10,000, if not 100,000 software devs that have the brains and fortitude to eat shit for 4-5 years, solving hard problems. Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp.
- ianbutler 5y ago
  > Not only do start-ups normally not have 4-5 years, but they don't even try to solve hard problems - they mostly just try to solve some trivial bullshit to exploit a legal loophole or insert themselves as middlemen in a corporate/legal swamp. I don't really agree with that, the time horizon on a successful startup, one that's acquired or goes public, is 7-10 years. I also don't agree with the class of problems. Like everything there's tiers. C tier player get's a C tier company with C tier problems. Naturally there's more C tier people than A tier, but that's not an indictment specific or by any stretch unique to startups. Edit: Honestly, the prevalence of easy capital means bullshit like you say stands out more but I'm not sure if a lot of companies like that are the winning bet for another like Google or whatever. They're over pronounced for sure but the moment venture capital stops having so much money floating around they'll die out imo. It does mean you have to do a little more work to find the interesting ones though.
  - alexashka 5y ago
    I thought about it a bit more - I was unfair to start-ups. It's not that start-ups largely solve trivial problems - it's that humans largely solve trivial problems. There are factors that make start-ups more likely to solve trivial problems vs say, a research institute, but it almost doesn't matter in the scheme of things. There are exceptions - they come once every few decades, per industry, give or take. Then the millions of regular people take it and do what they can't help but do :)
    - ianbutler 5y ago
      Yes I think I now largely agree with you. Most humans do mundane work and solve trivial problems. It's how the system keeps working though. If that stopped we'd be too busy sifting through the wreckage to produce the few exceptions where most of our value (not necessarily monetary) comes from.

deltaonefour 5y ago

I think I misinterpreted your post. We're talking about the same thing.