6 ms·

So, as a 56yo who's been programming professionally since 2004, currently having trouble finding enough contract work, a bit of perspective: When there are mor

So, as a 56yo who's been programming professionally since 2004, currently having trouble finding enough contract work, a bit of perspective: When there are more openings than qualified people, even when you reduce qualifications to what is actually necessary, it seems like there's "nobody" available. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like "nobody" is hiring. It's harsh, but it also doesn't take that much of a shift in the supply and/or demand to go from >1 to <1, even though the effect you feel is large. There is no kind way to put this: a lot of stupid stuff got done with a lot of smart programmers in the last ten years. Meanwhile, boring old stuff like manufacturing was starved for programmers, and eventually gave up trying to get them. Now that it is possible, it takes some time for all the companies who couldn't get (or couldn't keep) programmers before, to realize that it is once again possible. However, anecdotally, I see it happening, albeit slowly. Programming that actually accomplishes something useful in the world, is still a productive thing, and positions will get created. However, large sectors of the economy take time to pivot, and so it is best to find a way to make ends meet in the meantime, and also do something useful (even if unpaid) with your programming skills, to keep your mind in practice.

facesofdang 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"There is no kind way to put this: a lot of stupid stuff got done with a lot of smart programmers in the last ten years." Any reasonable person would agree, but would the people in Silicon Valley agree.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  Probably not, because if you're looking for a Facebook sized opportunity, well, there just aren't many in real life. So, perhaps a good time to look outside of that community for jobs? It's not easy, and it will take time, but it will happen.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  It doesn't really matter what the folks in Silicon Valley think. The innovators left Silicon Valley during the pandemic and spread out throughout the country. Those remaining are desperately clinging to a world that doesn't exist anymore, and probably won't ever again.
  - dlivingston 3y ago
    What innovators are you referring to? SV still seems like the Tech Mecca from where I'm sitting (on the east coast).
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      I'm referring to people who can simultaneously exist in the present while envisioning the future. They can see a clear pathway to transition from the current state to the desired future state. Furthermore, these individuals possess all the necessary talent, skill, and expertise to make that envisioned future a reality. The only thing you'll learn at a big tech company today is how to navigate corporate politics and finding ever-more creative ways to avoid paper work and meetings the 10 layers of management above you require to move an icon 1 pixel. Now, people will try to justify that it's because of the scale of big tech, but that doesn't really change the day to day experience. It's really not any different than making washing machine software for GE. The pay and benefits might be better at big tech, but you're not going to be doing anything impressive. If you go on teamblind.com you'll see Google employees are primarily interested in an innovation they call "rest and vest." I believe it's this innovation that allows their generative AI products to create racially diverse images of National Socialists. The people that made Google a success have been gone for a long time. Some retired, but most scattered across the country. Many are discovering how different SV is compared to small town USA. These Xooglers are first learning of long standing problems outside of the tech bubble, and they have the creativity and skills to solve those problems. There are many industries that have been is dire need for software excellence, and it's finally happening. This is good for everyone with the possible exception of the morally bankrupt tech elite in Silicon Valley.
      - 3y ago
- codewench 3y ago
  They are fairly entrenched in their approach, which has been good for individual developers for sure, but has (in my opinion) produced little of actually legitimate societal value.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  They would agree most of all, except for the projects they worked on. And some of them would agree even about those projects.
- eli_gottlieb 3y ago
  13 years ago, Silicon Valley programmers were complaining about just this. >“The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads,” he says. “That sucks.” It was cliched seven years ago: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ It's the incentive structures that keep them in those jobs.
thworp 3y ago
Couldn't agree more. To add to your last point: Industry is an area with a huge deficit of properly engineered software and often lacking basics things like version control and testing. Most manufacturing processes use code that an Automation Engineer with a bare minimum of CS training clicked together in Rockwell/Siemens software. There is no deployment pipeline or staging, data is often "copied" from ERP by typing it in and monitoring is some 20-year old custom solution done in Delphi or Visual Studio that just barely runs. The potential for software engineers there is gigantic. edit: obviously there is a bit of hyperbole here and there are exceptions, but this has been my experience.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Are you freelance? (if so, poke me by mail)
yunwal 3y ago
I really hope so. I’ve been looking for non-stupid jobs for 5 years, even willing to a pay cut to work on them, but I keep getting no traction, while yet-another-saas-that-does-x openings have been everywhere.
francisofascii 3y ago
Good observation. A few of my previous employers simply stopped hiring in house developers. They feel more comfortable relying on either outside vendors or off the shelf software. One reason is the lack of available talent to come in and support legacy in-house software. Maybe that trend will reverse or slow a bit. So much of the off the shelf software is overpriced and inflexible.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  Also, "off the shelf" often comes to mean "a proprietary, poorly documented and clunky framework or programming language, disguised as an application".
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Saur, ... [0] 0: https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
  What does that two-hour video have to do with the comment you replied to?
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    I was alluding to the parent beginning their post with "So," which I instantly exaggeratedly read as "Saaaur," and I couldn't help but commenting about it but wanted to provide an example (hence the video) for clarity.
rangestransform 3y ago
> Meanwhile, boring old stuff like manufacturing was starved for programmers, and eventually gave up trying to get them. If you wanted to be fully honest, you would have said that they couldn't pony up for programmers, they were only “starved” by their own penny pinching ways.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  In many cases it could truly be that programmers aren't worth enough for them to pony up. It isn't that they're being cheap. It's that it doesn't make financial sense. There are plenty of contexts where programmers are useful but still only worth "normal" salaries.
  - machomaster 3y ago
    And in such cases using words like "starving" is completely wrong. For starving people, food is not a mere "nice to have".
  - gorjusborg 3y ago
    Or, perhaps many companies do not know how to leverage software to make money. I suspect there are many of those sorts out there, and if they do have developers on staff, it makes sense to let them go.
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago
      Both are true, I think. Many business stand to gain very little from money. Others could gain a tremendous amount, but they don't know enough to see how. A great example is my friend who works for a provincial political party. It's clear that they would be able to compete with other parties on many levels if they were more technically capable, and someone on staff being paid a lot to facilitate that would be well worth it. They'd almost certainly secure more donations, learn to reach their demographics better by utilizing data properly, work far more efficiently, and so on. My friend is acutely aware of this and how technology is currently impeding them, but the rest of the organization is more like vaguely aware of this yet almost entirely uncertain of what to do about it. If they were to pay someone with significant software experience around $200,000 per year to untangle and revamp the technology they're depending on, they'd certainly see this paying dividends within a couple of years. Instead they will carry on encumbered. They currently spend around $38,000 per year on software that's serving them partially and otherwise weighing them down substantially. Part of the problem they face too is that they'd need to hire someone who truly gets the politics and people involved. You couldn't bring someone into that scenario who loves the IC role. There would be a lot of white boarding and explaining to stakeholders. A lot of very mundane untangling of existing services accomplished by digging through accounts and billing, talking to the people who use it, documenting how they use it, why, figuring out what they forgot to tell you, etc. Then the very dissatisfying step of determining solutions which can't be totally bespoke or custom, but would inevitably involve some degree of compromise. It wouldn't be a glamorous role. It could transform the capability and velocity of the organization, though. I often think this is exactly the type of role which software developers will tend to move into as AI takes on more low-level IC tasks. I don't expect that to be tomorrow, but very likely within the next decade. Software developers will need to be far more people-oriented than they tend to be today in order to allow their skills to shine in ways an AI's can't.
centur 3y ago
I'd put it differently - programmers of all levels tried to get into companies where their work is a "profit center", where product of engineers adds to profitability. And not a "cost center", where company sells something else, but spends some of their profits on IT. Latter positions usually associated with a lot of horror stories and uphill battles. Naturally one would avoid them if they can. So, when outlook is not so great and even profit centers started to cut their OpEx-es too - there is a surplus of engineers on a market and higher competition over positions that are left in profit centers (and those are compensated less). But I don't believe cost center companies actually gave up on IT, they may found different ways to close the need, but they still have some form of IT, either in-house or outsourced/off-the-shelf products. But it's indeed of humbling moment in time for some engineers, to realize that they were in very very premium position compared to many. And got used to it too much - why build networks and stay in touch, when one receives 10 inbounds from recruiters a day, why keep skills up to date and stay sharp when the moment you're on a market - there is a queue to snatch you off the market, why part your ways on good terms instead of burning the bridges, when there seems unlimited offerings in front of you, so you never want to look behind... Well, now we know why - to get through the "thin", until next "thick".
devwastaken 3y ago
Software is about creating automation. Automation is never about increasing costs over existing methods. It is in the end about scaling up. If the system had to have just as many more people to scale it wouldn't be worth it. Therefore devs are scaling themselves out of work. It's a natural outcome of mega corps and the laws designed to allow them to be mega. Business size should be limited and most tech intellectual property invalidated. That way the devs that can't get hired by the existing market can create new markets.

facesofdang 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"There is no kind way to put this: a lot of stupid stuff got done with a lot of smart programmers in the last ten years." Any reasonable person would agree, but would the people in Silicon Valley agree.

rossdavidh 3y ago
Probably not, because if you're looking for a Facebook sized opportunity, well, there just aren't many in real life. So, perhaps a good time to look outside of that community for jobs? It's not easy, and it will take time, but it will happen.
infamouscow 3y ago
It doesn't really matter what the folks in Silicon Valley think. The innovators left Silicon Valley during the pandemic and spread out throughout the country. Those remaining are desperately clinging to a world that doesn't exist anymore, and probably won't ever again.
- dlivingston 3y ago
  What innovators are you referring to? SV still seems like the Tech Mecca from where I'm sitting (on the east coast).
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    I'm referring to people who can simultaneously exist in the present while envisioning the future. They can see a clear pathway to transition from the current state to the desired future state. Furthermore, these individuals possess all the necessary talent, skill, and expertise to make that envisioned future a reality. The only thing you'll learn at a big tech company today is how to navigate corporate politics and finding ever-more creative ways to avoid paper work and meetings the 10 layers of management above you require to move an icon 1 pixel. Now, people will try to justify that it's because of the scale of big tech, but that doesn't really change the day to day experience. It's really not any different than making washing machine software for GE. The pay and benefits might be better at big tech, but you're not going to be doing anything impressive. If you go on teamblind.com you'll see Google employees are primarily interested in an innovation they call "rest and vest." I believe it's this innovation that allows their generative AI products to create racially diverse images of National Socialists. The people that made Google a success have been gone for a long time. Some retired, but most scattered across the country. Many are discovering how different SV is compared to small town USA. These Xooglers are first learning of long standing problems outside of the tech bubble, and they have the creativity and skills to solve those problems. There are many industries that have been is dire need for software excellence, and it's finally happening. This is good for everyone with the possible exception of the morally bankrupt tech elite in Silicon Valley.
    - 3y ago
codewench 3y ago
They are fairly entrenched in their approach, which has been good for individual developers for sure, but has (in my opinion) produced little of actually legitimate societal value.
jimbokun 3y ago
They would agree most of all, except for the projects they worked on. And some of them would agree even about those projects.
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
13 years ago, Silicon Valley programmers were complaining about just this. >“The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads,” he says. “That sucks.” It was cliched seven years ago: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/06/12/click/ It's the incentive structures that keep them in those jobs.

thworp 3y ago

Couldn't agree more. To add to your last point: Industry is an area with a huge deficit of properly engineered software and often lacking basics things like version control and testing. Most manufacturing processes use code that an Automation Engineer with a bare minimum of CS training clicked together in Rockwell/Siemens software. There is no deployment pipeline or staging, data is often "copied" from ERP by typing it in and monitoring is some 20-year old custom solution done in Delphi or Visual Studio that just barely runs. The potential for software engineers there is gigantic. edit: obviously there is a bit of hyperbole here and there are exceptions, but this has been my experience.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Are you freelance? (if so, poke me by mail)

yunwal 3y ago

I really hope so. I’ve been looking for non-stupid jobs for 5 years, even willing to a pay cut to work on them, but I keep getting no traction, while yet-another-saas-that-does-x openings have been everywhere.

francisofascii 3y ago

Good observation. A few of my previous employers simply stopped hiring in house developers. They feel more comfortable relying on either outside vendors or off the shelf software. One reason is the lack of available talent to come in and support legacy in-house software. Maybe that trend will reverse or slow a bit. So much of the off the shelf software is overpriced and inflexible.

rossdavidh 3y ago
Also, "off the shelf" often comes to mean "a proprietary, poorly documented and clunky framework or programming language, disguised as an application".

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

Saur, ... [0] 0: https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg

ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
What does that two-hour video have to do with the comment you replied to?
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  I was alluding to the parent beginning their post with "So," which I instantly exaggeratedly read as "Saaaur," and I couldn't help but commenting about it but wanted to provide an example (hence the video) for clarity.

rangestransform 3y ago

> Meanwhile, boring old stuff like manufacturing was starved for programmers, and eventually gave up trying to get them. If you wanted to be fully honest, you would have said that they couldn't pony up for programmers, they were only “starved” by their own penny pinching ways.

steve_adams_86 3y ago
In many cases it could truly be that programmers aren't worth enough for them to pony up. It isn't that they're being cheap. It's that it doesn't make financial sense. There are plenty of contexts where programmers are useful but still only worth "normal" salaries.
- machomaster 3y ago
  And in such cases using words like "starving" is completely wrong. For starving people, food is not a mere "nice to have".
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  Or, perhaps many companies do not know how to leverage software to make money. I suspect there are many of those sorts out there, and if they do have developers on staff, it makes sense to let them go.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    Both are true, I think. Many business stand to gain very little from money. Others could gain a tremendous amount, but they don't know enough to see how. A great example is my friend who works for a provincial political party. It's clear that they would be able to compete with other parties on many levels if they were more technically capable, and someone on staff being paid a lot to facilitate that would be well worth it. They'd almost certainly secure more donations, learn to reach their demographics better by utilizing data properly, work far more efficiently, and so on. My friend is acutely aware of this and how technology is currently impeding them, but the rest of the organization is more like vaguely aware of this yet almost entirely uncertain of what to do about it. If they were to pay someone with significant software experience around $200,000 per year to untangle and revamp the technology they're depending on, they'd certainly see this paying dividends within a couple of years. Instead they will carry on encumbered. They currently spend around $38,000 per year on software that's serving them partially and otherwise weighing them down substantially. Part of the problem they face too is that they'd need to hire someone who truly gets the politics and people involved. You couldn't bring someone into that scenario who loves the IC role. There would be a lot of white boarding and explaining to stakeholders. A lot of very mundane untangling of existing services accomplished by digging through accounts and billing, talking to the people who use it, documenting how they use it, why, figuring out what they forgot to tell you, etc. Then the very dissatisfying step of determining solutions which can't be totally bespoke or custom, but would inevitably involve some degree of compromise. It wouldn't be a glamorous role. It could transform the capability and velocity of the organization, though. I often think this is exactly the type of role which software developers will tend to move into as AI takes on more low-level IC tasks. I don't expect that to be tomorrow, but very likely within the next decade. Software developers will need to be far more people-oriented than they tend to be today in order to allow their skills to shine in ways an AI's can't.

centur 3y ago

I'd put it differently - programmers of all levels tried to get into companies where their work is a "profit center", where product of engineers adds to profitability. And not a "cost center", where company sells something else, but spends some of their profits on IT. Latter positions usually associated with a lot of horror stories and uphill battles. Naturally one would avoid them if they can. So, when outlook is not so great and even profit centers started to cut their OpEx-es too - there is a surplus of engineers on a market and higher competition over positions that are left in profit centers (and those are compensated less). But I don't believe cost center companies actually gave up on IT, they may found different ways to close the need, but they still have some form of IT, either in-house or outsourced/off-the-shelf products. But it's indeed of humbling moment in time for some engineers, to realize that they were in very very premium position compared to many. And got used to it too much - why build networks and stay in touch, when one receives 10 inbounds from recruiters a day, why keep skills up to date and stay sharp when the moment you're on a market - there is a queue to snatch you off the market, why part your ways on good terms instead of burning the bridges, when there seems unlimited offerings in front of you, so you never want to look behind... Well, now we know why - to get through the "thin", until next "thick".

devwastaken 3y ago

Software is about creating automation. Automation is never about increasing costs over existing methods. It is in the end about scaling up. If the system had to have just as many more people to scale it wouldn't be worth it. Therefore devs are scaling themselves out of work. It's a natural outcome of mega corps and the laws designed to allow them to be mega. Business size should be limited and most tech intellectual property invalidated. That way the devs that can't get hired by the existing market can create new markets.