6 ms·

Unless that is, you’re in a job you don’t enjoy and the reason you’ve coached yourself not to leave it is that you haven’t found anything “worthy enough” to sta

Unless that is, you’re in a job you don’t enjoy and the reason you’ve coached yourself not to leave it is that you haven’t found anything “worthy enough” to start yourself. No, the problem is money. Good ideas are not that rare. "Worthy" ideas are not that rare. The money to implement them is almost impossible to come by, whether you're in a corporation or raising on the outside. Free-floating capital is not actually that rare. Talent is not that rare, "talent shortage" whinging aside. The problem is a bilateral and cataclysmic distrust between both sides. Money doesn't trust Talent not to steal so it injects a bunch of useless management that makes Talent impossible to unlock. Talent doesn't trust Money not to be stupid and develops a deep, smoldering cynicism that the rest of the world misperceives as obnoxious entitlement. The problem is that any idiot can raise money for something any idiot can do. On the other hand, if you try to convince someone to pay you, even at the level of mere salary money to do something worthwhile, you get a lot of questions because not everyone can do those useful things. You get: why you? Which is actually a valid question, even if mildly insulting, because things that are worthwhile are hard. We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling trivial ideas because they've been overriding the "why you?" objections since college, when it involved booze and women with low self-esteem and, by age 30, they're very practiced at overcoming, for example, "last minute resistance" (LMR). So when they see LMR in investors, they know what to do, and we don't.

gizmo 13y ago
I notice most of your posts lately have a very negative tone. I don't think the negativity is really justified, given how many opportunities there are for programmers. Life isn't just good for programmers, it's also getting better every day. We are probably living in the golden age of internet startups, where small 3 man shops can effectively compete with large enterprises. This won't be true forever, but it's true today. If you don't have any money (and let's face it, most of us don't), you can still start a startup. You can work on your project in evenings and nights. Or you save money and quit your job for 8 months or so. Or you can work part time on your startup and do part-time contracting work on the side. Starting a software startup is so much easier than opening a bar or a restaurant or a jeans shop it's not even funny. People put their life savings in ordinary businesses like these every day, and more often than not they get utterly crushed by reality. A restaurant without customers can't afford to keep the doors open for long. Buying a 30k kitchen and hiring 5 people before the first customer has walked through the door is scary. We programmers in contrast can just pivot until we find something people are willing to pay for. We can build half a product and use server analytics to figure out which direction is best. We have unique insights in our users and customers and the press loves to write about anything that involves startups. There are so many things subtly working in our favor! Doing a startup isn't easy. But nobody is entitled to an easy road to guaranteed riches. But doing a startup is possible even if you're broke, don't have any connections and are only a mediocre programmer or business person. Of course the VC money game is rigged to an extent. So what. If you have traction you have leverage and if you have leverage you'll still get a good deal. And if you have paying customers you may not even need VC money. These are, in the big scheme of things, not things to get terribly upset about.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I'm probably older than you (almost 30) and I don't think you're aware of the long-term career risks in this industry. Yes, it's cheaper to go all-in on a startup, and you might build something that makes life (yours and others') a lot better. There are a lot of great things about living in 2013. There certainly are opportunities that didn't exist 20 years ago. However, what happens when your bootstrapped startup fails is an unholy cocktail of the following: a. Your savings is depleted. b. You learn a lot, which overqualifies you for junior-level work. c. People try to take advantage of (a) and offer you low-level positions. Rapid learning (b) and zero credibility advancement (c) is a recipe for disaster, because you'll probably fail when you get shunted into some bullshit low-level job after having been "spoiled" by the experience of getting do real work. It's the career problems that make this game an unholy mess: the fact that most so-called "tech" jobs are career-killing, subordinate wastes of talent that slowly turn you into an unemployable idiot. It's the risk that you'll be 37 and taking orders from a 25-year-old "tech lead" who only knows half a programming language and won't listen to your ideas. Worst of all, at that age you probably have a spouse and kids, so suicide isn't an ethically defensible option. At that point, you just have to suffer for 40 years and die of natural causes.
  - gizmo 13y ago
    You're not older than me. And if you believe that a career setback means suicide becomes a rational option... I don't know what to say. There are so many things in life that can go horribly horribly wrong that the risk of career setback is completely acceptable in pursuit of a dream. Every kid who decides to major in ancient languages, philosophy or creative arts takes a way bigger risk and nobody bats an eye.
  - Swizec 13y ago
    Wow, bitter much? You don't have to take a low-level job. You don't have to stay at a low-level job. I have noticed people are willing to pay you much more for interesting work than they are for boring work. Just price yourself high enough and the interesting work will start coming.
  - count 13y ago
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
> We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling > trivial ideas because they've been overriding the "why > you?" objections since college, when it involved booze and > women with low self-esteem and, by age 30, they're very > practiced at overcoming, for example, "last minute > resistance" (LMR). So when they see LMR in investors, they > know what to do, and we don't. Fantastic.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  If I didn't have a clinical/diagnosed level of mysophobia (in my case, moral mysophobia) I would seriously do the sociopath thing just to express my contempt for the species. My problem is that I am forced at a neurological level to be ethical and honest. In a world full of (and run by) liars, it really sucks.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Shoot me an email--let's chat. You seem kind of ragey.
FD3SA 13y ago
"We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling trivial ideas because they've been overriding the "why you?" objections since college..." This is a very interesting take on the issue, and not one I see discussed often on HN. The reality is that evolutionary psychology is the ultimate motive force in all human societies. The power imbalances in the work world that you have so thoroughly elucidated in your writings is but a mere symptom of the most basic evolutionary impulse: extract dominance from all. Why do pointy haired bosses exist? Why do smooth-talkers like Steve Jobs always get the glory over technocrats like Steve Wozniak? Why do people so willingly submit to injustice? Weakness. People submit to those who they fear are powerful enough to harm them. Most often, even a weak bluff vaguely threatening future harm is enough to extract complete submission. The root of this is based on the evolutionary psychology of mammal behavior. Mammals exert dominance by challenging their peers: submit to me or pay the price. In the context of artisans (Technocrats), we can go back to the Feudal era, where artisans and farmers owed their lives to the Feudal lords, and could lose it any instant by not submitting some or all of their surplus value created when commanded to do so. Although the artisans created all the value in society, the lords were free to help themselves to it at will, because they were the ones who were willing to use force if their demands were not met. Although this strategy comes with risk, the rewards are disproportionately high, which is why history follows the story of one conqueror after another. The only way artisans can gain control of their lives is if they beat the Feudal lords at their own game, ruthlessly and without mercy. This means playing as dirty as necessary to win, but still keeping your ideals intact. That is the true challenge of the Technocrat: defeat the Psychopaths using their own tools without becoming one of them. But make no mistake, they won’t go down easy. Look at Julian Assange, Noam Chomsky, and countless others who know this and have tried, in vain, to change the status quo. The choice is simple: submit to the psychopaths and live in their world, or risk everything and attempt to change the dynamic to your favor. P.S. You made references to psychopaths and their success with females. This is well documented, and I would recommend reading about the Dark Triad personality traits.
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  > Why do people so willingly submit to injustice? Weakness. People submit to those who they fear are powerful enough to harm them. That's bullshit. Let's take the late Steve Jobs. While his psychopathic tendencies have probably evoked fear within Apple, it does not explain his influence on the general public outside of Apple.

gizmo 13y ago

I notice most of your posts lately have a very negative tone. I don't think the negativity is really justified, given how many opportunities there are for programmers. Life isn't just good for programmers, it's also getting better every day. We are probably living in the golden age of internet startups, where small 3 man shops can effectively compete with large enterprises. This won't be true forever, but it's true today. If you don't have any money (and let's face it, most of us don't), you can still start a startup. You can work on your project in evenings and nights. Or you save money and quit your job for 8 months or so. Or you can work part time on your startup and do part-time contracting work on the side. Starting a software startup is so much easier than opening a bar or a restaurant or a jeans shop it's not even funny. People put their life savings in ordinary businesses like these every day, and more often than not they get utterly crushed by reality. A restaurant without customers can't afford to keep the doors open for long. Buying a 30k kitchen and hiring 5 people before the first customer has walked through the door is scary. We programmers in contrast can just pivot until we find something people are willing to pay for. We can build half a product and use server analytics to figure out which direction is best. We have unique insights in our users and customers and the press loves to write about anything that involves startups. There are so many things subtly working in our favor! Doing a startup isn't easy. But nobody is entitled to an easy road to guaranteed riches. But doing a startup is possible even if you're broke, don't have any connections and are only a mediocre programmer or business person. Of course the VC money game is rigged to an extent. So what. If you have traction you have leverage and if you have leverage you'll still get a good deal. And if you have paying customers you may not even need VC money. These are, in the big scheme of things, not things to get terribly upset about.

michaelochurch 13y ago
I'm probably older than you (almost 30) and I don't think you're aware of the long-term career risks in this industry. Yes, it's cheaper to go all-in on a startup, and you might build something that makes life (yours and others') a lot better. There are a lot of great things about living in 2013. There certainly are opportunities that didn't exist 20 years ago. However, what happens when your bootstrapped startup fails is an unholy cocktail of the following: a. Your savings is depleted. b. You learn a lot, which overqualifies you for junior-level work. c. People try to take advantage of (a) and offer you low-level positions. Rapid learning (b) and zero credibility advancement (c) is a recipe for disaster, because you'll probably fail when you get shunted into some bullshit low-level job after having been "spoiled" by the experience of getting do real work. It's the career problems that make this game an unholy mess: the fact that most so-called "tech" jobs are career-killing, subordinate wastes of talent that slowly turn you into an unemployable idiot. It's the risk that you'll be 37 and taking orders from a 25-year-old "tech lead" who only knows half a programming language and won't listen to your ideas. Worst of all, at that age you probably have a spouse and kids, so suicide isn't an ethically defensible option. At that point, you just have to suffer for 40 years and die of natural causes.
- gizmo 13y ago
  You're not older than me. And if you believe that a career setback means suicide becomes a rational option... I don't know what to say. There are so many things in life that can go horribly horribly wrong that the risk of career setback is completely acceptable in pursuit of a dream. Every kid who decides to major in ancient languages, philosophy or creative arts takes a way bigger risk and nobody bats an eye.
- Swizec 13y ago
  Wow, bitter much? You don't have to take a low-level job. You don't have to stay at a low-level job. I have noticed people are willing to pay you much more for interesting work than they are for boring work. Just price yourself high enough and the interesting work will start coming.
- count 13y ago

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

> We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling > trivial ideas because they've been overriding the "why > you?" objections since college, when it involved booze and > women with low self-esteem and, by age 30, they're very > practiced at overcoming, for example, "last minute > resistance" (LMR). So when they see LMR in investors, they > know what to do, and we don't. Fantastic.

michaelochurch 13y ago
If I didn't have a clinical/diagnosed level of mysophobia (in my case, moral mysophobia) I would seriously do the sociopath thing just to express my contempt for the species. My problem is that I am forced at a neurological level to be ethical and honest. In a world full of (and run by) liars, it really sucks.
- angersock 13y ago
  Shoot me an email--let's chat. You seem kind of ragey.

FD3SA 13y ago

"We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling trivial ideas because they've been overriding the "why you?" objections since college..." This is a very interesting take on the issue, and not one I see discussed often on HN. The reality is that evolutionary psychology is the ultimate motive force in all human societies. The power imbalances in the work world that you have so thoroughly elucidated in your writings is but a mere symptom of the most basic evolutionary impulse: extract dominance from all. Why do pointy haired bosses exist? Why do smooth-talkers like Steve Jobs always get the glory over technocrats like Steve Wozniak? Why do people so willingly submit to injustice? Weakness. People submit to those who they fear are powerful enough to harm them. Most often, even a weak bluff vaguely threatening future harm is enough to extract complete submission. The root of this is based on the evolutionary psychology of mammal behavior. Mammals exert dominance by challenging their peers: submit to me or pay the price. In the context of artisans (Technocrats), we can go back to the Feudal era, where artisans and farmers owed their lives to the Feudal lords, and could lose it any instant by not submitting some or all of their surplus value created when commanded to do so. Although the artisans created all the value in society, the lords were free to help themselves to it at will, because they were the ones who were willing to use force if their demands were not met. Although this strategy comes with risk, the rewards are disproportionately high, which is why history follows the story of one conqueror after another. The only way artisans can gain control of their lives is if they beat the Feudal lords at their own game, ruthlessly and without mercy. This means playing as dirty as necessary to win, but still keeping your ideals intact. That is the true challenge of the Technocrat: defeat the Psychopaths using their own tools without becoming one of them. But make no mistake, they won’t go down easy. Look at Julian Assange, Noam Chomsky, and countless others who know this and have tried, in vain, to change the status quo. The choice is simple: submit to the psychopaths and live in their world, or risk everything and attempt to change the dynamic to your favor. P.S. You made references to psychopaths and their success with females. This is well documented, and I would recommend reading about the Dark Triad personality traits.

_pmf_ 13y ago
> Why do people so willingly submit to injustice? Weakness. People submit to those who they fear are powerful enough to harm them. That's bullshit. Let's take the late Steve Jobs. While his psychopathic tendencies have probably evoked fear within Apple, it does not explain his influence on the general public outside of Apple.