4 ms·

The average job in general lasts 4.4 years at this point, so this isn't just an issue for programmers. That's just the nature of things. At most jobs, you hit a

The average job in general lasts 4.4 years at this point, so this isn't just an issue for programmers. That's just the nature of things. At most jobs, you hit a ceiling pretty quickly, or you get grunt work that doesn't help your career, or you get laid off, or the people you like move away, something else happens that makes it a good idea to roll the dice again. Typically, I can figure out in 6 months whether a job is going to lead to real membership in the effort and, if not, then I look for something else. Why shouldn't I? It's my life. Why am I some sociopathic "job hopper" for leaving? Also, this guy seems pretty solid in general, but this... There's always someone willing to pay you more than you're worth. After several years with a company it's likely that they're going to pay you what you're worth, but not what some other company thinks you're worth. is total loser thinking. No, actually. The company you're with is going to pay you less than you're worth, knowing that most people are averse to change. That's also why landlords almost always raise rent in the first year. To get anything even close to what you're worth (a half-decent programmer is worth $500k+ easily) you need to job hop to a degree that (a) most people can't stand, and (b) those who can stand it are unusual enough that regular society thinks there is something wrong with them. Actually, the only way workers could get what they are actually worth would be for society to implement a basic income-- then no one would need to work, and companies would pay something resembling the actual value of the work furnished to them-- but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

seiji 14y ago
workers could get what they are actually worth What if we can reduce job searching to an approximation of perfect competition? What if... 1. A central third party certifies your "ability" or "smartness" in certain areas (this prevents dumb things like "can u implement merge sort? lol!" ten times over). The certification would be temporally limited to, say, 60 days. After 60 days you would have to re-certify if you are still job searching. 2. You interview a few places for cultural fit and specific technical issues, then multiple companies (time limited to a week or two) submit public offers for you (if you are as good as you think you are). 3. Employers bid against each other for you (standard "each bid extends the bidding by X time units" rules so you don't get sniped). 4. You take your pick of employers based on how you personally weigh comfort, responsibility, pay, distance, and cultural fit. Is that workable? What would the gross objections be?
- louthy 14y ago
  > 1. A central third party certifies your "ability" or "smartness" in certain areas I can see the strikes now...
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    It would be really great if someone could do that in a way that was trustworthy at high levels. The problem with those professional certifications is that they're targeted toward the middle of the bell-curve. Above the 95th percentile, it all comes to word of mouth and introductions. Which kills you if (a) you want to change cities or (b) you've been working 80+ hours per week on something and your networking has gone to shit. If someone could verify programming ability above the 95th percentile, that would be a huge service. Unfortunately, I can't just make people know how good I am by saying it. You can't either. No one can. And social proof (which is what drives most economic decisions) comes down to reputation politics rather than capability. I think open source is the best way for a person to do this, but how often does a company actually read someone's open-source contribs? The one startup I was at where I was actually involved in recruiting, people just checked to see whether the candidate's technology choices matched their language prejudices (there was a serious tech-stack war going on at the time).
    - rprospero 14y ago
      I think the problem with your service would be on the supply side. Businesses would obviously love to have these best of breed programmers, but the getting people to take your test will be trickier. To put it differently, how would you respond if I ran a business like this, you took my test, and I reported to companies that you're in the 40th percentile among programmers?
      - seiji 14y ago
        That would be awesome to know. I often don't know how good or bad I am. I often think I'm pretty inept until I look around. I'd love to know how inept I actually am so I can improve. Also, a lot of companies only need 40th percentile programmers. Everybody seems to want to hire I-Can-Create-Google-In-A-Weekend people. Sorry, but your online coffee ordering startup doesn't need me to waste an hour in pre-interviews rehashing sorting algorithms from undergrad. I've a library of work. Let's talk like humans, not machines requiring proof-of-work tests against each other.
SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
>>There's always someone willing to pay you more than you're worth. After several years with a company it's likely that they're going to pay you what you're worth, but not what some other company thinks you're worth. >is total loser thinking. No, actually. When I finally quit my employee-day-job, I told them I'd do more work for them as a consultant. At 2x my previous hourly rate. They said yes, and I've gotten that rate several times since then as well from unrelated companies. >a half-decent programmer is worth $500k+ easily I would argue about what "half-decent" means, but generally think you're right that $500k for a good programmer would be a reasonable value. And by good I mean close to the 10x-25x end of the spectrum. [1] I would describe someone in the 2-5x range as "half-decent" myself, and someone in that range is probably worth closer to $160k/year, tops. Someone at the top end of the productivity scale is faster, yes, but also produces better code, can debug that code more quickly, and can solve some problems that a "half-decent" programmer will simply never complete adequately. [1] http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/ http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfini...
- nostrademons 14y ago
  "I'd do more work for them as a consultant. At 2x my previous hourly rate." Well, this is largely because overhead for employee positions can often run 2x salary. As an employee, you get benefits, health insurance, perks, job security (of sorts), and you're not "on the clock" the whole time - most companies do not expect that employees are actively working 8 hours a day, they expect they're getting 4-5 hours of focused useful work and the rest is lunch breaks, watercooler talk, impromptu discussions, administrative stuff like e-mail, and idle diversions like Hacker News and Facebook. As a consultant, you're only supposed to bill for the time you're actively working, and all the rest is your own time. It's quite possible that as a consultant with 2x your hourly rate you're costing the company less than you did as an employee. When I've had friends that have converted from consultant to employee at the same company, the rule of thumb is 1000x hourly for annual salary, even though there're 2000 hours in a work-year. The difference is because of overhead, and the differing accounting for time.
  - SomeCallMeTim 14y ago

seiji 14y ago

workers could get what they are actually worth What if we can reduce job searching to an approximation of perfect competition? What if... 1. A central third party certifies your "ability" or "smartness" in certain areas (this prevents dumb things like "can u implement merge sort? lol!" ten times over). The certification would be temporally limited to, say, 60 days. After 60 days you would have to re-certify if you are still job searching. 2. You interview a few places for cultural fit and specific technical issues, then multiple companies (time limited to a week or two) submit public offers for you (if you are as good as you think you are). 3. Employers bid against each other for you (standard "each bid extends the bidding by X time units" rules so you don't get sniped). 4. You take your pick of employers based on how you personally weigh comfort, responsibility, pay, distance, and cultural fit. Is that workable? What would the gross objections be?

louthy 14y ago
> 1. A central third party certifies your "ability" or "smartness" in certain areas I can see the strikes now...
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  It would be really great if someone could do that in a way that was trustworthy at high levels. The problem with those professional certifications is that they're targeted toward the middle of the bell-curve. Above the 95th percentile, it all comes to word of mouth and introductions. Which kills you if (a) you want to change cities or (b) you've been working 80+ hours per week on something and your networking has gone to shit. If someone could verify programming ability above the 95th percentile, that would be a huge service. Unfortunately, I can't just make people know how good I am by saying it. You can't either. No one can. And social proof (which is what drives most economic decisions) comes down to reputation politics rather than capability. I think open source is the best way for a person to do this, but how often does a company actually read someone's open-source contribs? The one startup I was at where I was actually involved in recruiting, people just checked to see whether the candidate's technology choices matched their language prejudices (there was a serious tech-stack war going on at the time).
  - rprospero 14y ago
    I think the problem with your service would be on the supply side. Businesses would obviously love to have these best of breed programmers, but the getting people to take your test will be trickier. To put it differently, how would you respond if I ran a business like this, you took my test, and I reported to companies that you're in the 40th percentile among programmers?
    - seiji 14y ago
      That would be awesome to know. I often don't know how good or bad I am. I often think I'm pretty inept until I look around. I'd love to know how inept I actually am so I can improve. Also, a lot of companies only need 40th percentile programmers. Everybody seems to want to hire I-Can-Create-Google-In-A-Weekend people. Sorry, but your online coffee ordering startup doesn't need me to waste an hour in pre-interviews rehashing sorting algorithms from undergrad. I've a library of work. Let's talk like humans, not machines requiring proof-of-work tests against each other.

SomeCallMeTim 14y ago

>>There's always someone willing to pay you more than you're worth. After several years with a company it's likely that they're going to pay you what you're worth, but not what some other company thinks you're worth. >is total loser thinking. No, actually. When I finally quit my employee-day-job, I told them I'd do more work for them as a consultant. At 2x my previous hourly rate. They said yes, and I've gotten that rate several times since then as well from unrelated companies. >a half-decent programmer is worth $500k+ easily I would argue about what "half-decent" means, but generally think you're right that $500k for a good programmer would be a reasonable value. And by good I mean close to the 10x-25x end of the spectrum. [1] I would describe someone in the 2-5x range as "half-decent" myself, and someone in that range is probably worth closer to $160k/year, tops. Someone at the top end of the productivity scale is faster, yes, but also produces better code, can debug that code more quickly, and can solve some problems that a "half-decent" programmer will simply never complete adequately. [1] http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/ http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfini...

nostrademons 14y ago
"I'd do more work for them as a consultant. At 2x my previous hourly rate." Well, this is largely because overhead for employee positions can often run 2x salary. As an employee, you get benefits, health insurance, perks, job security (of sorts), and you're not "on the clock" the whole time - most companies do not expect that employees are actively working 8 hours a day, they expect they're getting 4-5 hours of focused useful work and the rest is lunch breaks, watercooler talk, impromptu discussions, administrative stuff like e-mail, and idle diversions like Hacker News and Facebook. As a consultant, you're only supposed to bill for the time you're actively working, and all the rest is your own time. It's quite possible that as a consultant with 2x your hourly rate you're costing the company less than you did as an employee. When I've had friends that have converted from consultant to employee at the same company, the rule of thumb is 1000x hourly for annual salary, even though there're 2000 hours in a work-year. The difference is because of overhead, and the differing accounting for time.
- SomeCallMeTim 14y ago